A great many companies price differentially in different countries, simply because what the traffic will bear differs from one country to another. You will sometimes see American textbooks appearing in discount bookstores, marked "For sale in Canada only", because that condition was a part of the sales deal between the American publisher and a Canadian distributor. If the textbook printer sees that too many books are "leaking" back to the US market in this manner, his recourse is simply to stop selling to the Canadians. The Canadian distributor would then lose that particular chunk of US trade.
What's different about the drug companies is they, and they alone, get US government help in enforcing their sales agreements in foreign countries. It's specifically illegal in the US to have your prescriptions filled in other countries. The US will look the other way for such leaks as personal purchases by Americans who physically travel to Mexico and get scripts filled on the border. But everyone knows that there can be a crackdown at any time, as there recently has been on purchases from Canadian pharmacies.
You seem to feel that pharma companies have some sort of special moral right in making Americans bend over and take this monopoly pricing scheme. I don't, and I take great pride in dealing with your "parasitic countries" whenever I can. Mexico is less than a day's drive from my place, and New Zealand is becoming the "new Canada" on the Internet. In an era when they can send my job to India whenever they feel like it, why don't I have the same right to outsource my prescription purchases?
I suggest you call your doctor and have him cancel your prescription for Kool-Aid, pronto.
Yes, that's how markets are supposed to work. Markets don't work when government forces manufacturers to sell products at a price that they determine. In the case of pharmaceuticals, there is no market like in your book example - only government interference. Coercion creates a false economy. Why you would support this boggles the mind.
You will sometimes see American textbooks appearing in discount bookstores, marked "For sale in Canada only", because that condition was a part of the sales deal between the American publisher and a Canadian distributor.
You mean the government didn't force them to lower the prices of the books? They did this on their own, without government interference, to meet the demands of the market?
What's different about the drug companies is they, and they alone, get US government help in enforcing their sales agreements in foreign countries.
Hollywood and software makers get no help from the government to protect their intellectual property? How about the agriculture industry? If foreign governments imposed price restrictions on Microsoft, Hollywood or American Ag products, and then countries resold those products to other countries, you can be assured that our government would come to their aid. I'd rather our government force others to drop all price controls but life saving drugs are much more politically charged than software or movies. At least our government has the smarts, unlike yourself, to understand what drives the innovation pipeline and work to protect it.
It's specifically illegal in the US to have your prescriptions filled in other countries
Yes, it is. But there are many reasons for this that relate to consumer protection and not just the protection of manufacturers.
You seem to feel that pharma companies have some sort of special moral right in making Americans bend over and take this monopoly pricing scheme
No, I just don't believe that government has the right to tell a business how much they can charge for their product. To argue that they do is the opposite of everything conservatives believe in. I also believe that governments should be held accountable for enforcing the agreements they make. If they don't then our government should do everything in their power to enforce the rule of law.
The drug companies are not powerless in all this. Witness their response to Canada's unwillingness to enforce the law. They just told Canada they'd limit the amount of the drugs sold to Canada if they didn't stop re-importation. The Canadian government, faced with a shortfall of drugs for their own people, readily agreed to begin enforcing the law. When there isn't that much profit to lose, the drug companies can play hardball with the parasitic countries that violate their agreements.
I take great pride in dealing with your "parasitic countries" whenever I can.
So you support government being able to tell businesses how much they can charge for their products? Are you sure then you're a member of the right forum?
In an era when they can send my job to India whenever they feel like it, why don't I have the same right to outsource my prescription purchases?
Is that what this is really all about? I love the moral equivalence argument. It is so effective at exposing the ignorant among us. If you have your way the drug makers will just stop the R&D pipeline and drive profits from existing drugs. When the pipeline dries up the fools who argued for controlled profit of the drug makers will demand that research be done in the name of the state. And all good socialists understand that the most effective method for utilizing resources to promote innovation comes from government, right? LOL!!
Your prescription for dealing with this is perfect for ensuring that all new drug innovation dies. Kind of a weird conclusion for someone on a conservative forum who pretends to know something about this industry, don't you think?