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.
How do you feel about governments telling businesses what they can charge for a product in their country? Is it ok with you as long as you get to buy your drugs for a cheaper price thanks to the false economy they've created?
It's just that I also support the right of consumers to shop wherever they want for bargains
And if the drug business was managed the same as the book business no one would have a problem with it. The fact that foreign governments impose price controls on drugs changes everything.
Whereas I think government should stay out of BOTH sides of this market
I agree but that's not the world we live in, is it?
you want it to come down in aid of the side you favor.
You don't support enforcing the law? If drug company profits are regulated, where will the R&D come from to create new classes of drugs? If profits drive innovation, and they do, what will keep the pipeline full once you've limited that profit? Or are you one of the people who doesn't care about the future of others as long as you get yours? I see lots of that down here in God's waiting room where I live.
This one is about the special ability of drug companies to get government help in enforcing differential pricing.
You don't think the government would help Hollywood or Microsoft if their products were being resold by price controlled countries to non price controlled countries? Even if it violated the terms of their contracts? Now who's being naive? Why do you keep calling it differential pricing? Is that how you justify breaking the law? This isn't about differential pricing, it's about government mandated price controls.
"Protection of consumers!" Tell me another funny one
And you believe that Canada has a good handle on all those one man internet operations selling drugs across the border? Now that's funny! Nope, no adulterated, counterfeit, subpotent or diverted drugs are being sold to us from there. The government has control of all the sellers. Sheesh.
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.
Sure. And when they refuse to sell in Canada at the government mandated price, the government allows a generic manufacturer to produce and sell a copy without the approval of the patent holder. Now you've really got problems with the protection of intellectual property. Would you also support this? When it comes to pharmaceuticals, is your mantra: Pharmaceuticals for people not for profit? Do you miss the 60's?
The drug reimportation issue is not about free trade. In price controlled countries, there is no free market where suppliers of goods and services can compete. Prescription drugs priced in Canada are not based on fair market value; they do not reflect an equilibrium price between supply and demand. Canadian policy does not create a truly competitive and level market for pharmaceuticals.
Around here we do a lot of dealing with a relatively small number of Mexican suppliers
You buy drugs from Mexico under the belief that they wouldn't do anything to hurt consistent business? Roll the dice. I would never risk my health with a system that is corrupted at every level. It only takes one mistake, one mishandling or one unscrupulous supplier. No thanks.
Let pharma companies sell wherever they can make the best deals, and let consumers buy wherever they can cut the best deals.
But do you believe that governments should determine the price companies can charge for their products thereby controlling their profits? If you do support this, which you apparently do, where will the new drugs come from? That's all this really boils down to.