NEWS: Health minister: Canada not U.S. drug store

Canada�s heath minister warned that his country cannot be used as the United State�s drug store. Several states have begun pushing for access to Canada�s lower priced drugs. However, there is concern that demand could not only drive up Canada�s prices but also cause critically shortages in the country as well.



This matter which has been simmering is bound to come to a boil soon. American citizens have been subjected to unfair prices for decades. The FDA needs to enact legislation that allows the purchasing of drugs at competitive prices providing they are safe. I understand Canada�s concerns about the potential impact on their drug market, and the U.S needs to take steps to look out for its citizens as well.

www.abovetopsecret.com...well you seen it here first.

Regarding the price difference between Canada and the US. It is stated that Canada's prices are lower because they implement price controls. Well that's all fine and dandy, but someone somewhere along the line is paying to subsidize them. Higher Canadian taxes?

Also, how much R&D does Canada do? That is a large cost that American drug manufacturers have borne since they began making drugs.

The pharmy companies deserve NO defense. They have absolutely NO interest in your well being other than what Drug de Jur they can market down your throat. If they continue to have their way, we will not be able to even buy herbal supplements and Vitamins, don't believe me, check out the CODEX. Already being implemented in Germany. Why? Because our good health without their drugs makes them less millions, and how can that be right in this self-centered, greedy business world. Canada should tell us to TAKE OFF! All I ever hear is bashing of their health care system, if it's so bad, then why are we crossing borders for their systems benefits?

P.S. That R&D money you like to refer to is basically corporate money laundering, $$$ matters to them, not you.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Regarding the price difference between Canada and the US. It is stated that Canada's prices are lower because they implement price controls. Well that's all fine and dandy, but someone somewhere along the line is paying to subsidize them. Higher Canadian taxes?

Also, how much R&D does Canada do? That is a large cost that American drug manufacturers have borne since they began making drugs.

First the statement by the minister is hogwash and most likely done as a result of the PM's desire to give George Bush what George Bush wants.

Canada may have only one-tenth of the US population but that has nothing to do with the amount of drugs that can be produced here, since the pharmaceutical industry is massive here, with Merck-Frosst for one, and the advent of foreign firms expanding rapidly buying up and consolidating everything in their paths, including in Canada, the huge R+D Connaught Labs now Sanofi-Aventis.

Put the politics goes deeper than Bush's & Martin's goals, since France is the one buying up all the labs. it is all fun to watch the powers tilt.

Re Canada doing research, a tidbit -

www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca...

Now before you say $187 million is not a lot, remember, you have to divide everything by 10 where Canada is concerned, to account for the difference in population.

As for the prices of medication, I'm trying to find a source explaining how they keep them low.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
First the statement by the minister is hogwash and most likely done as a result of the PM's desire to give George Bush what George Bush wants.

so you mean he's trying to get bush elected. Dammint the politicians will just not sto.......wait, didn't bush already get re-elected

Originally posted by Otts
Re Canada doing research, a tidbit -
.............

Do you have a link about whether they work as hard as our donut eating government employees? And good luck with finding that price low stuff. You might want to check out some communist or socialist websites they�ll make something up....it might even kind of emotionally sound logical.

Originally posted by Otts
Now before you say $187 million is not a lot, remember, you have to divide everything by 10 where Canada is concerned, to account for the difference in population.

As for the prices of medication, I'm trying to find a source explaining how they keep them low.

Not to diminish the amount, but the $187M you refer to is spread across many projects. I was referring to the R&D costs of a new drug..which can be enormous, and there is no guarantee that it will gain public acceptance. Also, the costs of litigation can be high.

I'm looking forward to what you find on the low cost of drugs. Keep us posted.

Well First

First, yes some of every canadian tax dollar goes to assist drug reaearch. Tax breaks and funding are given to companies that do their research and production in Canada Provided that there is no excessive gouging. Remember the majority of life saving drugs are bought and paid for by the government here in Canada. Canadians get high tech work our medical system get support. Why should my tax dallor literally be spend in another country.

Second the legal environment is different. You do not get sued for every little thing and this is true at the corporate level. the "atmosphere" of the culture is different and the legal system is different. (ask a canadian lawyer for the background= Iam not a lawyer do not ask me)

Third, It is one thing for a small percentage of the Us population to commit FRAUD to get the access the drugs than WHOLE STATES.
Here is how the scam currently runs. You contact the drug supplier for your dose of Viagra (only a small percentage of what is being acquired is for serious medical need) they refer you a less than sucrupulous individual for a prescription ( who is enjoying the benifit of being across an international border= tough to sue by an american). No examination is done the Patient and the doctor never meet, no medical need is established. the prescription is filled, mailed in a package that says it is anything but a drug. No duty or tariff or taxes are paid to support the government that support the company.

I think your presidents position on this was ethically sound. BY THE WAY HE SAID NO TO DOING THIS!

Now you have people pushing to get lets say blood pressure meds or maybe perkidan(spelling) again with out a medical need established ON A LARGE SCALE. You are right the Canadian people cannot support this US population needs.

Phrased another way who said the american government was sanctioned to pass laws that affect the how the tax dallors of another country are spent are spent.



[edit on 13-11-2004 by DEADSTEVE]

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
First the statement by the minister is hogwash and most likely done as a result of the PM's desire to give George Bush what George Bush wants.

so you mean he's trying to get bush elected. Dammint the politicians will just not sto.......wait, didn't bush already get re-elected

it is nt always about electing the US president I am afraid. It is about who aspires to be what in power. Where Chretien didn't give a damn for Bush, Martin as does his conservative opposition, wishes to find favour with Bush because the three are much alike. Unfortunately for his opposition (in his eyes anyway) he is relegated to secondary power that hinges on a third party, and therefore can do nothing to dismantle the Canadian health act. as for Martin, he too is reduced to behaving himself and not being able to institute Bush's policies he favours, lest he wants to not be living mortgage and expense free.

Fact is, Bush's advisors were in Canada helping both Liberal and Conservative parties with their campaigns. Rove couldn't care less which one of the two one, they both represented the same goals..right wing policies. Good for us, we have the sense to have more than two viable parties.

The Canadian news reported the US republican presence, because we don't have fox or CNN running our headlines. Even so, in my town of 300k plus, we had the three candidates from the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP parties all swooping through in the same day. I drove by the three areas and noticed they each were wasting their time, stopped at mall after and much of the chatter was mockery for all three. The moral is, "deeds count."

Just a note here. Some of you seem to think that every country should be spending massive amounts on R&D. Why? Merck and Connaught Labs are very well known for R&D efforts, one only needs to do the research to see that. But canada is not a one or two pharmaceutical operation, nor do we need we have the exorbitant costs associated with same because we want to be the first out of the block with everything. If Sanofin-Aventis wants to do research, they can do so in as many countries as they are licenced, breaking each into sector of study, the cost is attributed via the home office account, to the parent in France. As someone else stated, we do not have the astronomical costs associated with litigation to deal with which inflates the R&D costs, prolongs the patent, and increases the cost of the drug. On top of that, the greed for profit has been neutralised by the government which sets the price of purchase from the drug company. They still get a profit, and if they want to complain it is not enough, then they lose 30 million customers, don't they?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
it is nt always about electing the US president I am afraid.

I know that I was poking fun at the entire post more than anything else�.to think that Canada has the infrastructure to overnight triple it�s drug output would be simplistic at best. Forget that most of the infrastructure is foreign owned. Most of the infrastructure also is US based (same company owns both)�.to think that they will act to their own detriment voluntarily and that Canadian law will force them to do so is kind of simple as well.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
����.. Good for us, we have the sense to have more than two viable parties.

so you really think that having more than two parties long term is helpful?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The Canadian news reported the US republican presence, because we don't have fox or CNN running our headlines. ����.

would that be aljeeza instead couldn�t help it. but I knew of that and I believe it was fox that as reporting it down here.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Just a note here. Some of you seem to think that every country should be spending massive amounts on R&D. Why?

probably because they have not come to the realization that certain countries will not carry there own weight but feed off the efforts of others in a parasitic way.

Keholmes- to think that Canada has the infrastructure to overnight triple it�s drug output would be simplistic at best.

Tell us what sort of infrastructure is required to produce �triple� the drug production, start with your knowledge base of what that base production is.

Forget that most of the infrastructure is foreign owned. Most of the infrastructure also is US based (same company owns both)�.to think that they will act to their own detriment voluntarily and that Canadian law will force them to do so is kind of simple as well.

What detriment would that be? And Canadian law does force the pricing, does force the necessary drug testing, does in fact force them to Act under the Canada Food and Drug Act. Does force them to abide by Canadian corporation and Income taxation laws, does force them to uphold operating, labour and building codes. So to what specifically are you referring, that Canada cannot enforce?

so you really think that having more than two parties long term is helpful?

No, I don�t think that at all. I happen to know so.

would that be aljeeza instead couldn�t help it. but I knew of that and I believe it was fox that as reporting it down here.

I�ve taken the liberty of removing the childish emoticon. Do you mean Al Jazeera? Fox reported what, that Al Jazeera is broadcasting in Canada? I get the impression from some Americans that Fox is the informed, fair and balanced truth teller. That is your source for world news I presume. If so, I suggest you block the channel immediately, because that would only be a small lie, imagine the big ones they tell you. Pity.

quote: Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Just a note here. Some of you seem to think that every country should be spending massive amounts on R&D. Why?
probably because they have not come to the realization that certain countries will not carry there own weight but feed off the efforts of others in a parasitic way.

I see, so then you are one of those I was speaking about who believes that every country should be engaging in the same sort of R&D, so as to claim winner status. I think your last loss on that battle for winner was when you had to look to Canada and France to fill your vaccination void. Perhaps Pfizer was too busy with R&D to care.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Tell us what sort of infrastructure is required to produce �triple� the drug production, start with your knowledge base of what that base production is.

well lets just for a wild swing appease you for a moment and forget capital equipment and other pieces of the production picture�.so what your saying is that the average Canadian pill manufacturer is all of a sudden going to get his workers to be 3x more productive than they are now��how by tripling their donut supply? Try this go to any production house that is churning something out and tell the manager oh BTW you need to triple production within a month�.after he finishes laughing at you, maybe he�ll give you some of the reasons why.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
What detriment would that be? And Canadian law does force the pricing, does force the necessary drug testing, does in fact force them to Act under the Canada Food and Drug Act. Does force them to abide by Canadian corporation and Income taxation laws, does force them to uphold operating, labour and building codes. So to what specifically are you referring, that Canada cannot enforce?

well I�ve went through this before it is the link in the first post, but for you I�ll do it again. My point was that say company a sells drug x in both Canada and America right now of course they supply the Canadian market because it is extra although much smaller profit�.now the American government says well lets just buy it from Canada. Do you really think that company a is going to allow production to be tripled in Canada on drug x giving away all that profit because some government squealed �that�s not fair�, if you do you�re only fooling yourself. What you will most probably see is shortages and rationing. There is a point where if drug companies are forced to choose between the Canadian and American markets, Canada will lose and that is indisputable.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
No, I don�t think that at all. I happen to know so.

share how do you happen to know so?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
���... Do you mean Al Jazeera? ����.

so your far superior news sources have told you that it�s not true that Canada have given the ok to aljaz, is that your point. However what I was saying is that fox reported on the republican invasion of Canada�.but of course they must have been lying.

quote: Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
���.. so as to claim winner status.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of pitching in to combat diseases, but I realize that some countries/folks don�t feel the need to help out, they are perfectly happy to profit from the sweat and toil of others. Kind of like when France dropped out of the NATO defense because they understood they would still be protected by default�but that allowed them to save the money.

quote: Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I think your last loss on that battle for winner was when you had to look to Canada and France to fill your vaccination void. Perhaps Pfizer was too busy with R&D to care.

actually we owe that to the politicians in our country who are too busy taking fees from trial lawyers to protect frivolous lawsuits. this is also a very valid demonstration of what I was saying earlier�.at some point regardless of the country if it becomes more profitable for the company to not do business in a certain country then they will not do business there.

there cheap because of the exchange.drug companies are making money.does not matter what market its in. they dont care.if there was internet years ago they would flood your markets anyways.drug dealers are no different from street drug dealers.thugs will brain wash ya in the doctors office too.you need this drug and that drug.its all good money in the end.the drug trade does well and smiles at us all for being so needy of her........flukemol

Originally posted by keholmes
well lets just for a wild swing appease you for a moment and forget capital equipment and other pieces of the production picture�.so what your saying is that the average Canadian pill manufacturer is all of a sudden going to get his workers to be 3x more productive than they are now��how by tripling their donut supply? Try this go to any production house that is churning something out and tell the manager oh BTW you need to triple production within a month�.after he finishes laughing at you, maybe he�ll give you some of the reasons why.

You haven't answered my questions, instead you launch into talking about donut production. You weren't even able to provide the figure regarding the base production capacity in Canada to at least support your immediate taking of the negative and dismissive side, much less maximum capacity. I am not surprised. When was the last time you walked into a Canadian pharma plant, do you even know where there is one? And oh, BTW, I am quite familiar with several companies dependent on production, and yes they do have the capacity to drastically increase production, all dependent on when best their products sell etc.

You however have automatically assumed that a pharma plant is already operating at maximum capacity with three shifts, 24/7. You obviously also assume that all plants do not have the ability to expand.

My point was that say company a sells drug x in both Canada and America right now of course they supply the Canadian market because it is extra although much smaller profit�.now the American government says well lets just buy it from Canada. Do you really think that company a is going to allow production to be tripled in Canada on drug x giving away all that profit because some government squealed �that�s not fair�, if you do you�re only fooling yourself.

Let me try and decipher the above. I gather your assumption is that a company regulated as to wholesale pricing to the Canadian market is going to be forced somehow to sell at the same price elsewhere. Do I understand your economics correctly? I'll leave it there for you to realise just how silly an argument that is.

What you will most probably see is shortages and rationing. There is a point where if drug companies are forced to choose between the Canadian and American markets, Canada will lose and that is indisputable.

I didn't realise that was what this discussion was about. Suffice it to say, you can console yourself with the Canada will lose argument if you wish. all I will say is that when american firms start producing all, every last drug for the American market, then you will have a point. Until then, ID Laboratories for one, is doing quite nicely shipping stateside, and Sanofi-Aventis is continuing to rapidly expand its production facilites and buy up everything in sight on US soil as well. Last time I checked the closest thing they had to American ownership was a Kuwaiti oil production shareholder.

so your far superior news sources have told you that it�s not true that Canada have given the ok to aljaz, is that your point. However what I was saying is that fox reported on the republican invasion of Canada�.but of course they must have been lying.

First, they are far superior, and no I did not say AJ was not given the okay, did I? Stay focused please and away from tangents. Again you have not answered my question. Did Fox news tell you that Al Jazeera is broadcasting in Canada? If they did, they have lied to you...as usual. You might want to do a search in here where on another thread I have already had to correct another poster on this fable. AJ has been granted CRTC rights, but the rules applied to AJ are so stringent that just about all it would be able to report is the date unless it drastically changes its reporting standards . Now what republican invasion of Canada is that? Another Fox fairy tale?

Facts are a good thing for you to present if you think you have a case, and Fox news given the two fables you mention above, certainly is not a credible source to quote for American news much less world news. If you want to convince this Canadian that you know anything at all about my country, then you can start with the statistics Canada website in support of your case and keep that Fox unworldy nonsense to yourself.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of pitching in to combat diseases, but I realize that some countries/folks don�t feel the need to help out, they are perfectly happy to profit from the sweat and toil of others.What on earth are you talking about? who is not helping out? How? Where? When? How do you know? Facts? Since when did ATSNN become a propaganda site for baseless accusations?

actually we owe that to the politicians in our country who are too busy taking fees from trial lawyers to protect frivolous lawsuits. this is also a very valid demonstration of what I was saying earlier�.at some point regardless of the country if it becomes more profitable for the company to not do business in a certain country then they will not do business there.
I don't really care who you owe it to. It was in your country, and your American pharma supplies were not supplying you to begin with because they don't want to be sued. Great american companies I'd say. You're grasping at seaweed trying to stay afloat here, which is it to be, that foreign companies will lose out or that American companies don't produce drugs because they don't want to be sued for killing people?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
..................... You obviously also assume that all plants do not have the ability to expand.

you should probably stop assuming for me for your assumption abilities seem to be on par with your reading abilities. I was quite clear in stating foreign owned. I didn�t say US owned; I simply alluded to the multi-national nature of truly large pharmaceutical companies, like it makes a pile of sh?? where they are 'owned'. I also was not focusing on ability, but desire. For example, I have the ability to shove my head through my plate glass front window doesn�t mean I�m rushing to the front of the house any time soon. I don�t know about multi-national corporations but I thought the main goal of all business is to make profit, have you something that highlights that as wrong.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Let me try and decipher the above. I gather your assumption is that a company regulated as to wholesale pricing to the Canadian market is going to be forced somehow to sell at the same price elsewhere. Do I understand your economics correctly? I'll leave it there for you to realize just how silly an argument that is.

and that is your argument so I�m pleased as can be that at least you realize just how silly it is.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I didn't realise that was what this discussion was about. ...................................

and if aspirin was what we were discussing then some of what you wrote might actually matter�.what we were discussing is medicines with substantially higher costs in America than Canada. Not drugs in general.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
�����..Now what republican invasion of Canada is that? Another Fox fairy tale?

The Canadian news reported the US republican presence

duh, you should take your own advice and stop trying to be so condescending and focus.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
������ If you want to convince this Canadian that you know anything at all about my country����..

a lot of eh�s and a propensity towards condescension. Am I close?

I was actually thinking more along the lines of pitching in to combat diseases, but I realize that some countries/folks don�t feel the need to help out, they are perfectly happy to profit from the sweat and toil of others.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
What on earth are you talking about? who is not helping out? How? Where? When? How do you know? Facts? Since when did ATSNN become a propaganda site for baseless accusations?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
�������., nor do we need we have the exorbitant costs associated with same because we want to be the first out of the block with everything. ���.

I guess around the same time that it became a site for mindless spin. Only an idiot could argue that most R&D or even a proportionate amount is generated by sales in Canada....quite a contrary argument could be made.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
................... Great american companies I'd say. ..................which is it to be, that foreign companies will lose out or that American companies don't produce drugs because they don't want to be sued for killing people?

I guess all I can say is simple choices for simple minds�.it�s a little more complex than either or. However, since that is all you can handle I�ll just skip it. And that last condescension about how much more moral foreign based corporations are than American based was really sweet, you�ve won me over. Even though most pharmaceutical companies are 'owned' by neither America nor Canada.


[edit on 16-11-2004 by keholmes]

Well keholmes, I still see no answer from you, just a lot of nonsensical statements about nonsense. Inuendo, suppositions, donuts and not one piece of evidence to back up your statement which I asked you to do.

When you can provide that, I'll get back to this thread.