Nevada launching Web site for Canada drug imports

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 7, 2006, 10:09 am

Don't be watering down your drugs Canada!

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Over objections by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Nevadans will be able to buy prescription drugs from Canada over the Internet starting next week, a spokesman for Gov. Kenny Guinn said on Friday.

"Monday is the anointed day," said Steve George, a spokesman for the Republican governor, referring to when a state Web site linking consumers to pharmacies in Canada goes into operation.

Nevada regulators gave the Web site their final blessing on Thursday after weighing a review of the program by the state attorney general, who had been skeptical about the measure passed by state lawmakers last year.

Responding to fast-rising drug prices, a number of U.S. states and local government have urged the federal government to allow imports of prescription drugs, which often cost less abroad. The U.S. government opposes the imports.

"There will be a caveat on the Web site saying that the federal government views getting prescriptions filled in Canada with non-FDA-approved drugs as illegal," George said.

Thank god for that caveat!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 7, 2006, 3:14 pm

way to address the symptom and not the problem. how about just regulating how much your pharmaceutical companies can charge for medication? oh right, the pharmaceutical companies have a majority controlling interest in your government.

I love how the canadian government pushes around these huge corporations for low prices on medication while the US js crawling around on their knees begging to suck on their cocks and pay for the priviledge. jesus you people are corrupt.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 7, 2006, 7:05 pm

LOL

You really think Canada is all that different?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 7, 2006, 10:32 pm

Kylere wrote:LOL

You really think Canada is all that different?

Yes, and apparently so does Nevada. You really are just a pointless naysayer most of the time aren't you.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 7, 2006, 11:36 pm

Kylere will be performing shows around the country defending Glaxosmithkline in the sequal to the constant gardener!

Fuck drug companies, and fuck capitalism.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » May 8, 2006, 8:24 am

Kylere wrote:You really think Canada is all that different?

Yes.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » May 8, 2006, 9:49 am

That's gotta be a big bug up the ass of the US Drug Companies. I say good job. I hope my state does that soon. I know they are looking at doing something similar.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 8, 2006, 10:42 am

Me too.. So then Canada ends up selling all their drugs to the U.S. and has none left for themselves.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 8, 2006, 12:17 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Kylere wrote:LOL

You really think Canada is all that different?
Yes, and apparently so does Nevada. You really are just a pointless naysayer ALL of the time aren't you.

corrected.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » May 8, 2006, 1:14 pm

kyoukan wrote:way to address the symptom and not the problem. how about just regulating how much your pharmaceutical companies can charge for medication? oh right, the pharmaceutical companies have a majority controlling interest in your government.

Because government imposed price caps are a bad idea. Artificially lowering what price a good can be sold for reduces the amount of the good that will be provided. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the cost per unit for manufacturing them is usually pretty low. Which means that reducing the price probably won't show up in inadequate supplies of existing drugs, but rather in slower creation of new drugs than would occur otherwise. This isn't as immediately apparent, but that doesn't mean it isn't occuring. Of course, Canada has the benefit at the moment that the prices are largely not restrained in the U.S., a far larger market, so they can free ride to some extent. Not that things in the U.S. are perfect. Our tax structure that results in most health care expenditures being paid through a third party cause quite a bit of distortion in the price signal, so things could certainly be better here (not that I will hold my breath about that issue being addressed anytime soon) but price caps are certainly not the answer.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » May 8, 2006, 1:15 pm

Nick wrote:fuck capitalism.

Capitalism rocks

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 8, 2006, 2:47 pm

Canadian Drugs > Mexican Drugs

Go Canada!

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2006, 3:09 pm

Chmee wrote:
kyoukan wrote:way to address the symptom and not the problem. how about just regulating how much your pharmaceutical companies can charge for medication? oh right, the pharmaceutical companies have a majority controlling interest in your government.
Because government imposed price caps are a bad idea. Artificially lowering what price a good can be sold for reduces the amount of the good that will be provided. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the cost per unit for manufacturing them is usually pretty low. Which means that reducing the price probably won't show up in inadequate supplies of existing drugs, but rather in slower creation of new drugs than would occur otherwise. This isn't as immediately apparent, but that doesn't mean it isn't occuring. Of course, Canada has the benefit at the moment that the prices are largely not restrained in the U.S., a far larger market, so they can free ride to some extent. Not that things in the U.S. are perfect. Our tax structure that results in most health care expenditures being paid through a third party cause quite a bit of distortion in the price signal, so things could certainly be better here (not that I will hold my breath about that issue being addressed anytime soon) but price caps are certainly not the answer.

It's all a big fucking corporate/government circle jerk.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 8, 2006, 9:22 pm

Chmee wrote:
kyoukan wrote:way to address the symptom and not the problem. how about just regulating how much your pharmaceutical companies can charge for medication? oh right, the pharmaceutical companies have a majority controlling interest in your government.
Because government imposed price caps are a bad idea. Artificially lowering what price a good can be sold for reduces the amount of the good that will be provided. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the cost per unit for manufacturing them is usually pretty low. Which means that reducing the price probably won't show up in inadequate supplies of existing drugs, but rather in slower creation of new drugs than would occur otherwise. This isn't as immediately apparent, but that doesn't mean it isn't occuring. Of course, Canada has the benefit at the moment that the prices are largely not restrained in the U.S., a far larger market, so they can free ride to some extent. Not that things in the U.S. are perfect. Our tax structure that results in most health care expenditures being paid through a third party cause quite a bit of distortion in the price signal, so things could certainly be better here (not that I will hold my breath about that issue being addressed anytime soon) but price caps are certainly not the answer.

I don't really see the R&D thing being a big problem. The research being done outside Universities and other philanthropically funded medicine can swing for all I care, it doesn't have what I'd call good success rates of producing "better" drugs, just different drugs that work better for some people and kill others outright (Vioxx, etc).

You're all over medicated anyway, I've spent more on socks than I have on meds (prescription and over the counter stuff). This should be a boon to a select group of individuals that have chronic painful diseases that don't constitute a big percentage of the market but are getting screwed to the wall because pain drives up demand beyond anything that a human would consider "fair" to exploit.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 8, 2006, 9:33 pm

I don't really see the R&D thing being a big problem. The research being done outside Universities and other philanthropically funded medicine can swing for all I care, it doesn't have what I'd call good success rates of producing "better" drugs, just different drugs that work better for some people and kill others outright (Vioxx, etc).

Do you seriously believe most of the drug advances are being made within universities and other "philanthropically funded" areas? Perhaps you'd care to add some facts to that statement.

You're all over medicated anyway, I've spent more on socks than I have on meds (prescription and over the counter stuff).

I'm not sure how old you are.. But get back to us when you're a senior citizen. It seems the older you get the more medications you'll require.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 8, 2006, 10:01 pm

Aslanna wrote:
I don't really see the R&D thing being a big problem. The research being done outside Universities and other philanthropically funded medicine can swing for all I care, it doesn't have what I'd call good success rates of producing "better" drugs, just different drugs that work better for some people and kill others outright (Vioxx, etc).
Do you seriously believe most of the drug advances are being made within universities and other "philanthropically funded" areas? Perhaps you'd care to add some facts to that statement.

That is, indeed, not what I said at all.

Most of the "advances" are made in corporate labs, in no small part to protect their brandname only drug market which can only survive with rolling patents to keep the generics at bay. Perhaps you'd also care to "add some facts" about what real advancements have been made by drug companies (outside the area of erectile dysfunction) in the last 20 years? NB; no points for drugs that are more effective but have much worse side effects than that which the replaced.

They haven't "cured" a thing since polio that I'm aware of (the vaccine for which was developed at UP), and I really doubt any cures at all will come from corporate pharmecuticals, there's no bloody money in it. Symptom masking is where the big bucks are at.

And yes, old people "need" more drugs than middle aged people. But Americans are still over medicated.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 8, 2006, 10:08 pm

I was going to bring up erectile dysfunction as one of the only things large pharm companies have made in the last decade and a half. these coroporations have zero interest in curing anyone of anything, and I can't think of a single drug that has been developed lately that has substantially increased anyone's quality of life, other than dudes that can't get it up.

when you're payign $300-1800 a month of life prolonging medication that costs these corporations pennies to manufacture, then we can talk again about government caps being bad.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 9, 2006, 10:10 am

My mother suffers from interstitial cystitis and thanks to a drug from the last ten years named Elmiron it makes the different between twice a year surgeries and poppiing a pill.

So they have done something other than Viagra. But perhaps not much.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 9, 2006, 11:31 am

Artificially lowering what price a good can be sold for reduces the amount of the good that will be provided. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the cost per unit for manufacturing them is usually pretty low. Which means that reducing the price probably won't show up in inadequate supplies of existing drugs, but rather in slower creation of new drugs than would occur otherwise

I don't think we're at this stage yet. Not by a long way. I was reading a few weeks back that one of the medical journals in the UK was getting concerned at attempts by pharm companies to turn normal conditions into diseases that need curing. The menopause is one such example. Drugs are all ready in place that affect the "symptoms" of the menopause.I can only asume the pharm companies are attempting to make this change due to the profits they can make from selling the drugs. The journals argue that it's a pointless waste of time and money as you can't cure the menopause.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 9, 2006, 3:12 pm

Zaelath wrote:That is, indeed, not what I said at all.

Most of the "advances" are made in corporate labs, in no small part to protect their brandname only drug market which can only survive with rolling patents to keep the generics at bay. Perhaps you'd also care to "add some facts" about what real advancements have been made by drug companies (outside the area of erectile dysfunction) in the last 20 years? NB; no points for drugs that are more effective but have much worse side effects than that which the replaced.

I'm not sure where the "better" comes from. You're the one who stated it and I'm just curious as to what hole you pulled it out of. Based on your assertions you sound like you have researched the issue. It shouldn't be up to me to prove otherwise.

kyoukan wrote:when you're payign $300-1800 a month of life prolonging medication that costs these corporations pennies to manufacture, then we can talk again about government caps being bad.

There's more to drug production than simply cost of manufacturing.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 9, 2006, 5:10 pm

kyoukan wrote:I was going to bring up erectile dysfunction as one of the only things large pharm companies have made in the last decade and a half. these coroporations have zero interest in curing anyone of anything, and I can't think of a single drug that has been developed lately that has substantially increased anyone's quality of life, other than dudes that can't get it up.

when you're payign $300-1800 a month of life prolonging medication that costs these corporations pennies to manufacture, then we can talk again about government caps being bad.

Beano

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 9, 2006, 8:31 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Zaelath wrote:That is, indeed, not what I said at all.

Most of the "advances" are made in corporate labs, in no small part to protect their brandname only drug market which can only survive with rolling patents to keep the generics at bay. Perhaps you'd also care to "add some facts" about what real advancements have been made by drug companies (outside the area of erectile dysfunction) in the last 20 years? NB; no points for drugs that are more effective but have much worse side effects than that which the replaced.
I'm not sure where the "better" comes from. You're the one who stated it and I'm just curious as to what hole you pulled it out of. Based on your assertions you sound like you have researched the issue. It shouldn't be up to me to prove otherwise.

Yeah, sorry, but it is. I have enough family/friends in medicine, read enough articles that come out of medical journals, listen to public radio medical pieces, and generally collect enough information to have taken that stance. However, since you can show me a few "better" drugs and disprove my theory, that would be the more rational approach than asking me to prove that every drug produced in a 20 year span was not indeed "better".

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 9, 2006, 9:00 pm

Who is asking you to prove that every drug in the past 20 years is better (or not) than whatever? You state that you believe the reasearch done by big pharma does not produce 'better' drugs overall than research conducted by universities. Apparently there must be specific reasons to make you believe that. So if you don't want to bother to provide some examples why should I go out of my way.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 9, 2006, 9:02 pm

Aslanna wrote:Who is asking you to prove that every drug in the past 20 years is better (or not) than whatever? You state that you believe the reasearch done by big pharma does not produce 'better' drugs overall than research conducted by universities. Apparently there must be specific reasons to make you believe that. So if you don't want to bother to provide some examples why should I go out of my way.

Because he asked first? hehe

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 9, 2006, 9:23 pm

No he didn't.

But it's not a big deal. If he wants to go with the Midnyte defense more power to him. I was just curious.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 9, 2006, 9:28 pm

Aslanna wrote:There's more to drug production than simply cost of manufacturing.

that's a hot tip. thanks a lot. there's also the small percentage that goes into research. and the enormous amount spent on dubious advertising campaigns showing happy, frollicking people who's lives have been substansially improved by usages of said overpriced pharmaceutical, along with a friendly request to demand your doctor prescribe it to you.

oh hay, speaking of doctors, there's also the shitfucking piles of cash these corporations dish out to doctors to entice them into writing prescriptions for anything someone comes in with, and to prefer certain manufacturer's medications over others regardless of effectiveness or reliability.

you obviously make your living off shilling for one of these morally bankrupt thieving corporations that put old people into bankruptcy in order to afford the colombian kingpin markups on life prolonging meds, so how about we just agree to disagree?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 9, 2006, 9:49 pm

Typical kyoukan response. Throw out a retarded statement and then lay a weak flame when someone responds logically.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 9, 2006, 11:48 pm

Aslanna wrote:No he didn't.

But it's not a big deal. If he wants to go with the Midnyte defense more power to him. I was just curious.

To sumarize: You're asking me to prove a negative, it's much easier to provide a few counter-examples to prove me wrong (which I'm not about to produce, given I don't think they exist) than for me to provide the data on every drug produced by pharmaceuticals.

This is the way with all science; all available data suggests theory X is true, so we assume it is, until someone shows that X is not true for data Y, then we need to come up with theory Z.

There's also an element of opinion; Kylere came up with a good counter example produced by Ortho-McNeil (Elmiron) but it's a masking agent rather than a cure, and is only one of a range of treatments for IC, some of which work better for some people, and means you're on this stuff for life. It becomes a matter of opinion if this is a "better" drug than (say) the poliomyalitis vaccine (which was produced more like 50 years ago).

If a pharmaceutical came up with a cure for IC, particularly Ortho-McNeil, it would make more sense to quash it than release it. So, I'd much rather more funding was given to Universities to work on this stuff than companies. But hey, perhaps I'm just cynical and they're really out to cut their own throats financially for the greater good. *cough*

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 10, 2006, 12:36 am

i'd be willing to bet the ad spend for Levitra is 100-1,000 (if not a million) times the amount spent on its R&D

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 10, 2006, 11:25 am

Well you state nothing has been cured since polio as drug companies make more money on 'masking' rather than curing. So why then haven't those "universities and other philanthropically funded medicine" scientists come up with the cures either? Surely there's no financial incentive for them to quash cures. Perhaps curing diseases isn't as simple as you think it should be? Nah, that couldn't be it. Everything has to be a conspiracy.

Voronwë wrote:I'd be willing to bet the ad spend for Levitra is 100-1,000 (if not a million) times the amount spent on its R&D

While I get where Vor is coming from I'd like to point out that is a bad example. Levitra isn't exactly a life-saving drug. Nobody will be saved by taking something to help them get it up. Although they could be blinded. Guess you gotta take your chances.

Latest data I came across was that drug companies spend about 15% of their profit on advertising. Which, comapred with other industires, is on the high side.

And finally my employer is not a "morally bankrupt thieving corporation" although I am presently working in a consulting capacity for one of them. Other than that I have no vested interest in their business and am not here to defend them. I simply prefer to look at things in a logical and rational manner. Which I know is a foreign concept to some of the regular posters around here.

My personal belief is that companies (in any field) should be able to recover their investments and also make a reasonable profit. They shouldn't charge unreasonably high prices and gouge people simply because people have no other alternative.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » May 10, 2006, 12:11 pm

Aslanna wrote: While I get where Vor is coming from I'd like to point out that is a bad example. Levitra isn't exactly a life-saving drug. Nobody will be saved by taking something to help them get it up. Although they could be blinded. Guess you gotta take your chances.

You are wrong!!! Jesus says to get hard-ons and over populate teh earth. Not having levitra makes Jesus cry for all the unborn unwanted children.

(For you idiots above is sarcasm)

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 19, 2006, 2:46 pm

kyoukan wrote:I was going to bring up erectile dysfunction as one of the only things large pharm companies have made in the last decade and a half. these coroporations have zero interest in curing anyone of anything, and I can't think of a single drug that has been developed lately that has substantially increased anyone's quality of life, other than dudes that can't get it up.

when you're payign $300-1800 a month of life prolonging medication that costs these corporations pennies to manufacture, then we can talk again about government caps being bad.

I did hear this on the news today and it seems to be relevant:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_ ... er_vaccine

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 19, 2006, 3:15 pm

kyoukan wrote:oh hay, speaking of doctors, there's also the shitfucking piles of cash these corporations dish out to doctors to entice them into writing prescriptions for anything someone comes in with, and to prefer certain manufacturer's medications over others regardless of effectiveness or reliability.

this is exactly right. pharmacutical representatives come into every doctors office in america with a metric fuckton of pens, legal pads and every other fucking office supply with their products name on them, along with free samples for the doctors and workers. they even will take them out to dinner and lunch to talk business. every drug company has salesmen for this reason. if this doctors office presribes drug a for problem a, then send in gary to get them to sell drug b for problem b.

if you really want to stump a doctor, ask him to prescribe an alternate drug than the one he is prescribing you.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » May 19, 2006, 3:24 pm

I don't know how it is in other places, but here, when you get your prescription, the pharmacist gives you the option for the name brand or the generic one.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 19, 2006, 4:13 pm

if you live in america it deals almost exclusively with the type of insurance you have. probably should have put in my post non-generic alternative.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 19, 2006, 6:15 pm

It's not an alternate as in name-brand or generic. It's an alternate as in...oh, Prozac vs Welbutrin vs anyotherdrug. They will generally prescribe whatever they have the best "deal" on at the time.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 19, 2006, 6:41 pm

True. But once you get to the pharmacy they should inform you of any generic alternatives (you may have to ask) and ask if you want that instead. At least in my experience.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 19, 2006, 6:45 pm

Aslanna wrote:True. But once you get to the pharmacy they should inform you of any generic alternatives (you may have to ask) and ask if you want that instead. At least in my experience.

You can only get the generic alternative of whatever was prescribed though. You cannot get a Generic for Drug A if you have been prescribed Drug B. A and B are not the same drug even though they may be prescribed to people with the same diagnosis.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 19, 2006, 6:57 pm

Well obviously they're not going to offer generic Viagra (just as an example sicne it doesn't exist) if you go in with a prescription for Prozac. However, you should be able to receive the Prozac equivalent generic.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 19, 2006, 7:06 pm

Aslanna wrote:Well obviously they're not going to offer generic Viagra (just as an example sicne it doesn't exist) if you go in with a prescription for Prozac. However, you should be able to receive the Prozac equivalent generic.

That's why I mentioned the two drugs being used for the same diagnosis. If you are taking Prozac, and it is working for you, you might not be able to take a generic, or name-brand, Wellbutrin and have the same effect. You also should not be allowed to get a generic Wellbutrin in place of your Prozac prescription. They are not the same. A "generic alternative" is just a generic version of the specific drug you have been prescribed. The first medication which you are prescribed will, most likely, be the one which the physician has the most reason (incentives) to have you on. If that does not work, they would probably be more than willing to try the others.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 19, 2006, 8:53 pm

Avestan wrote:
kyoukan wrote:I was going to bring up erectile dysfunction as one of the only things large pharm companies have made in the last decade and a half. these coroporations have zero interest in curing anyone of anything, and I can't think of a single drug that has been developed lately that has substantially increased anyone's quality of life, other than dudes that can't get it up.

when you're payign $300-1800 a month of life prolonging medication that costs these corporations pennies to manufacture, then we can talk again about government caps being bad.
I did hear this on the news today and it seems to be relevant:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_ ... er_vaccine

Vaccine for cervical cancer is defintely helpful. It wouldn't exist if there was an existing drug that treated the effects of cervical cancer though.

There are probably a lot of diseases out there that could be cured, but for profit companies don't research cures.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » July 26, 2006, 6:45 pm

Avestan wrote:
kyoukan wrote:I was going to bring up erectile dysfunction as one of the only things large pharm companies have made in the last decade and a half. these coroporations have zero interest in curing anyone of anything, and I can't think of a single drug that has been developed lately that has substantially increased anyone's quality of life, other than dudes that can't get it up.

when you're payign $300-1800 a month of life prolonging medication that costs these corporations pennies to manufacture, then we can talk again about government caps being bad.
I did hear this on the news today and it seems to be relevant:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_ ... er_vaccine

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205685,00.html

Siji · Post by **Siji** » July 27, 2006, 12:59 pm

Aslanna wrote:Nobody will be saved by taking something to help them get it up. Although they could be blinded. Guess you gotta take your chances.

I'm ok if I took that and had a 24x7 woodie, was getting sex0r and being blind. Actually, it'd probably be better.. then you could fuck fat chicks and have an excuse..