GlaxoSmithKline drops the hammer

[ripdog]

This kind of stuff really infuriates me. That they'd go as far as this makes me wonder when the first molotov cocktail will be tossed into the lobby of GSK headquarters. Also, if you read the article you'll see that the restrictions are going into place to "ensure customer safety". What a crock. If they're allowed to do this, then I'd say we've taken another giant step towards being a country of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. So Much For Cheaper Prescription Drugs in Canada? (http://www.komotv.com/stories/22505.htm)

[HDPM]

Canada should stop putting price controls on drugs. GSK should be able to sell to whom it wishes at whatever price it wishes. They should not lie about safety, but should say that because it is being punished by the socialists in Canada it has to do something to protect its profit off of Americans. Since the US is only half communist, GSK still has a few rights here. But soon the drug companies will be as good as nationalized. One thing consumers could do is simply stop buying the drugs. That is their choice.

[Easy E]

"One thing consumers could do is simply stop buying the drugs"
Coming from someone registered here as an addict, that's kinda funny.... ;0


But on a serious note, it raises again the question of how much can drug companies profit on medicines that people require? Should there be a cap or not? Do we have a "right" to medicine, and where does the cutoff between need and luxury exist?

[A9suited]

There is no right to a drug, which at heart is no different then a BMW or a T-bone steak. The issue of profit levels that can be made on drugs under patent is a separate issue.

A9

[HDPM]

There is no right to have a given drug. It is in the drug companies' interest to sell the medicine. They make no money if nobody buys it. They also need the potential of a big payoff to justify the research work into drugs. Here is a question on profits, which country has developed more drugs - the Soviet Union or the United States? The non-profit Soviet research people did good work on genetically engineered biological weapons, but not so good on prescription meds. Profit is not a bad thing. It gives productive, creative people the incentive, and in fact ability, to produce wonderfully beneficial products. One thing we could do to lower drug costs is to reform the FDA though. I think some major breakthroughs will happen in little offshore unregulated places in the future.

[brad]

when i took a mandatory class in college this feminist teacher (foreigner, by the way), she clued me in on how feminists are communists.

anyway her point was that the highest value is human life so its ok to steal stuff you need like medicine.

she left open the question whether it would be ok to kill somebody. heh

to each according to ... etc., seemed to be her mantra. the women all ate it up becuase she said it was unfair for women not to be promoted just becuause they took off like 3 years out of the beginning of their careers to have babies.

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/wink.gif makes more sense than saying a guy cannot play golf with whom he wants...lol..gl /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

[Ray Zee]

what is happening is that the companies sell for what the market will bear. thats capitalism. and okay. canada puts in price controls. thats okay for them as they dont have companies spending billions on research. so they limit profits from out of country companies. since those companies are making huge profits they go for the deal. thats okay also. but they have to realize those companies may not sell to them anymore at some point.
so since you can buy the drugs cheaper in canada many u.s. citizens go up there and buy them. thats okay too. but the state govts. have to get their nose in the fray. so they are passing laws that american citizens can get their prescriptions filled in canada. thats not okay. so all that does, is make the drug companies require canada to pay more so their prices will be comparable or will stop selling to them. or they must remove the price caps. so nothing changes except people that went to canada for cheaper drugs cant get them anymore and canadian citizens start paying more as well. thats what happens when the politicians regulate prices.

[ripdog]

My first exposure to the story had some old lady (on a fixed income of course) in Maine going across the border once and saving enough dough to heat her house for a year. I'm pissed off that we're basically subsidizing prescriptions for other countries. I'm all for Canadians paying more. Splitting the difference sounds good to me. What I have a huge problem with is a corporation telling me that I can't make the 3.5 hour drive into Canada to save myself several hundred dollars. That sounds like too much power to me. I would have no problem with GSK drawing the line with Canada and refusing to supply them at all until they're allowed to make a reasonable profit. Of course this assumes that GSK is taking it in the shorts in Canada right now. If that's true, then why would they continue to sell there? This opens up more questions. The WTO won't let U.S. food fish companies advertise their product as responsibly harvested. They claim that it's unfair to other countries, so no eco-labeling seafood. So we have foriegn fleets out there using techniques and equipment that result in more uninteded catch than targeted catch. Why don't they step in and stop Canada from imposing price caps on prescription drugs? I have doubts that GSK is losing money in Canada, otherwise they wouldn't be there. But using logic to describe the actions of US companies or the WTO is probematic as well. It looks like the American consumer has Canada and the drug companies on its back. When do you suppose they'll stand up and bite back?

[nicky g]

"There is no right to have a given drug."

From Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and MEDICAL CARE and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

It's arguable whether this means all peopleshould have access to all drugs that they need, but it certainly puts their well-being ahead of Glaxo's pockets. The same article allows reasonable exceptions to be made for women's careers in the event of having children.

I accept that profit isn't a bad thing, but you don't have to be a communist to think it should not be the overriding principle of every endeavour, or that it should be capped in cetain circumstances. Profit-making drug companies may have produced more drugs than the Sovier Union, but that's hardly the only alternative to a total free market in prescription drugs. They've also marketed an awful lot of pointless and sometimes dangerous drugs in pursuit of that principle.

What you treat as extremism is actually enshrined as a univeral right in the most respected and accepted human rights document in existence. That doesn't mean you ahve to agree with it, but it does suggest it's not only the Soviets that think there are occasionally more important factors than corporate profits.

(The US's record in biological weapon research isn't so bad either, by the way; don't be so modest. Its record in providing health care for its citizens suffers in comparison).

[HDPM]

The UN is a collectivist institution and I disagree with many of the things that they do and stand for. Obviously, people have the right to be free from torture, oppression, and the like. Yet the UN allows obviously immoral countries to vote when those countries really have no right to exist at all in their current political state. I'm not talking about abuses by otherwise civilized countries like the U.S., Canada, or Belgium, but the rancid and obviously immoral totalitarian regimes. As to the inherent communist ethic in that particular UN declaration: that UN declaration carries the implicit power to forcibly steal from one citizen to give to another. A starving widow with orphan children has no right to take my money at gunpoint to support herself. She may ask for charity, but I am under no obligation to give it. The government has no more right to take my money by force to support her than she does. There is no moral way to force me to pay for others, no matter how pathetic they are. Since I highly value human lives, I would choose to give to charity, but nobody has the right to take my money and give it to charities of their choice. That most definitely includes governments. Our basic human rights are violated by socialist programs. It is really no more complicated than that. Taxes should go to things like roads and defense only. Never a nickel to welfare programs. And certainly never a nickel to the ridiculous crap the UN does.

Yours For a Free Society..... /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif (I'm stealing that sign off from a slightly conservative former US Senator.)

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi HDPM,
Just out of curiousity... How old are you, and what economic class are you in?

Sounds to me like you are young, and possibly of inherited wealth and status.

Just curious, because it sounds like you've never been in a pinch caused by the actions of organizations or institutions larger than yourself. For example, all the folks caught in the Great Depression through no fault of thier own.

I agree in principle that each persons rights should be unlimited except where they infringe on the next person... but where does the economic capabilities of the rich start to affect the rest of us exactly? And given that we agree on individual freedom... then perhaps we should kill the rich capitalists so we can be free of thier economic systems?

Or should we kill the commies... so we can be free of *thier* economic systems.

You see, it is the nature of people that some will always strive and succeed to be elites, no matter what the system. And it seems, subjectively, that many that get to the top, *cheat*.

So I argue that the answer is that we should engineer things so everyone can live like the rich currently live. Us the majority of working class slobs should impress on our leaders to take us where us the majority want to go... not where the super rich minority want us to go.

Of course... if *I* could just get independantly wealthy... I'm sure I wouldn't give a damn any more than the current richy riches do... Oh well... human nature. At least I know it for what it is.

Anyway, it may really come down to the measurement system (i.e. dollars). What you choose to measure says what it is you care about. If we were able to devise "human happiness units" perhaps the world would change. But as long as life remains pretty much a Maslow's hierarchy affair, and Machiavellian political methods are seen as "the way" things will likley go on shifting a little one way... then the other until the end of time. We'll all just sit around vying for position rather than solving the really big problems of life on this planet.

As the song says, "Same as it Ever Was".

Sincerely,
AA

[brad]

so you dont like the child sex prostitute rings in bosnia and other UN places.

capitialist pig.

[brad]

you mean the UN that says individual firearm ownership erodes the 'legitimate power monopoly of the state'?

by the way, these rights of the UN are not fundamental; the UN reserves the right to take them away.

having said that we would probably agree on most day to day things; but just because women lawyers make on average less than men i couldnt care less, when union labor and i think all crappy jobs have the same pay scale for both sexes.

[HDPM]

Not that it really matters for the debate, but - mid thirties, no inherited wealth. One side of the family never accomplished a whole lot, just middle class basic Americans. The other side were immigrants. My father was part of the first generation born here. My uncle spoke English as his second language as a child and got through some top level universities. So I suppose I inherited a desire to be educated and got some help in that regard. I married well so am moving from the middle class to what I consider the upper middle class. (Daschle would say my wife and I are robber barons or something of course.) Probably won't ever be rich. I have a low tolerance for injustice. The rich can do horrible things of course, but rich individuals have less power than lousy governments. Easier to quit, strike, find another job, start your own business etc... in a free country than it is to do what you want in Cuba or the USSR. My life has not been exactly difficult, but like all people I have been hurt by various events outside of my immediate control and have had to make decisions and move on as best I can in light of those factors. I am in no way a victim, of course, but still wouldn't consider myself a victim if things had gone worse. I think there can be regulation of business and people, but I don't think one person can be forced to do something for another. Where the exact line is? Well, that is the stuff of life.

[nicky g]

"Taxes should go to things like roads and defense only. "

Why? You don't want to be compelled to contribute some of your earnings to help someone who can't afford a particular medicine he needs. I don't drive, and I don't want to contribute the money I've earned to your road, which you and all the other drivers could afford if you grouped together. Build your own damn road, if that's how you feel, and leave me out of it.

[HDPM]

No, because individuals can buy medicine, thay can't reasonably build roads. Building roads also allows medicine to be produced and distributed. So you benefit from the road no matter what. You don't benefit by being forced to give to charities of your choosing. Sounds harsh, but I am right of course. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[nicky g]

You can't build your own road, no. But you can pay for it; ie all roads could reasonably be 100% paid for by tolls and road tax, and not from general taxation. Such costs would be passed on to the consumer on products that they benefited from that were transported by road. So again, why should any element of raod builidng be paid for by general taxation. Why should anyone pay tax for anything they don't want to, by your logic?

"You don't benefit by being forced to give to charities of your choosing".

I think you do benefit from living in a society that isn't full of poor, hungry and sick people. A lot more than you would benefit from spending that percentage of your income on yourself, as you do with the rest of it. You say that whether that's true or not, you shouldn't be forced to spend your money onthings you don't want to that don't directly benefit you. But I don't want to spend my money on arms, roads, subsidies to industry or farmers, nuclear energy, gulf war 2, blah blah blah - especially as i think a lot of them do me active harm. What's the solution?