[Myrddin]

Bullseye! The higher prices in the U.S. drive the R&D that brings new drugs to the market. Absent that economic input, the R&D would dry up. The Europeans and Canadians are happy to snap up the fruits of our labor (both research and the folks who paid the higher prices for the research) and sell it at a discount. Why not? They never shouldered the expense to develop the new products. They have no costs of research, development and approval to amortize. If the market is cut out from under the R&D community, they will stop doing R&D. The motive is profit. The beneficiaries are people who need treatment. Both parties are damaged by the imports.

[petercooper]

“Given FDA safety and efficacy standards, it takes on average 12 to 15 years and over $800 million for a company (and most are American) to develop a new drug. But only the U.S. market is free. Abroad, pharmaceutical companies must negotiate prices with socialized medical systems. As a result, foreigners usually pay far less than Americans for their patented drugs. Americans bear the lion’s share of R&D costs, subsidizing socialized medical systems in the process, while foreigners are classic “free riders.””

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117849415551193921.html?mod=djemITP&apl=y

[calex59]

Bullseye! The higher prices in the U.S. drive the R&D that brings new drugs to the market. Absent that economic input, the R&D would dry up. The Europeans and Canadians are happy to snap up the fruits of our labor (both research and the folks who paid the higher prices for the research) and sell it at a discount. Why not? They never shouldered the expense to develop the new products. They have no costs of research, development and approval to amortize. If the market is cut out from under the R&D community, they will stop doing R&D. The motive is profit. The beneficiaries are people who need treatment. Both parties are damaged by the imports.

I have a couple of questions to ask both of you: If the people who are supposed to benefit from the drugs can't afford them then why bother to do R&D? Most conservatives, and I am one of them, complain about Part D for seniors, yet you don't want them to go to Canada to get them if they have no insurance. So, I guess the solution that you two, and others, see is that seniors should just go ahead and die so our drug companies can keep on with R&D for seniors(and there are other, younger people who can't afford insurance but need meds) who can't afford the drugs?

How does that make you any different than the Dems who want to ration health care?

You are probably the same people who are constantly saying that free trade is a good deal for America, but this free trade you don't want.