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?
Don't twist my words. I have nothing against companies pricing differentially in various countries. It's just that I also support the right of consumers to shop wherever they want for bargains. Whereas I think government should stay out of BOTH sides of this market, you want it to come down in aid of the side you favor.
Hollywood and software makers get no help from the government to protect their intellectual property?
Manufacturing drugs in infringement of patents is a whole different issue. The whole patent mess, and the complicity of government, in allowing patent protection on vague claims is a whole debate in itself, but a different debate. This one is about the special ability of drug companies to get government help in enforcing differential pricing. I buy drugs overseas; I don't have the equipment in my garage for making my own Lipitor.
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?
No, this was a pure free-market operation: the textbook company sold books cheaper to Canadians, perhaps printing them there if that saves money. Pharma companies are never forced to sell to Canada either, even though it does control domestic drug prices; if suppliers feel that the government offers them too little for a product, they can just choose not to sell it in Canada. In 57% of all cases, they do exactly that. The drugs you can buy from Canadian pharmacies represent the other 43%.
Yes, it is. But there are many reasons for this that relate to consumer protection and not just the protection of manufacturers.
"Protection of consumers!" Tell me another funny one. Canada, Europe and Japan have the same drug-quality standards we do. In other countries, you pay your money and take your chances. Around here we do a lot of dealing with a relatively small number of Mexican suppliers, who are aware that only if they supply us with the genuine stuff will we keep coming back. Retirement communities around here actually run bus tours for senior drug buyers. You don't want to mess with gold-plated repeat business like that.
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?
I support government staying out of both sides of the market decision. Let pharma companies sell wherever they can make the best deals, and let consumers buy wherever they can cut the best deals. That's all I ask.