posted on June 21, 2003 03:07:29 PM new
and this is from your greedy US administration, how can anyone in their right mind accept this present administration and the way they treat their seniors, they lied to get a war, for oil, they spit on helpless seniors, digusting republican ###@!#$#@, they are a curse to mankind, IMPEACH , IMPEACH THEM ALL
The Senate votes to allow cheaper drugs into the country, and the greatest beneficiaries would be our cash strapped seniors, but the Bush Administration says no!
By Stewart Nusbaumer
With the prices of prescription drugs skyrocketing, driving many fixed income seniors into poverty, straining the budgets of other Americans, the Bush Administration promises to veto a bill that would lower drug prices.
Using the war on terrorism as an excuse, the Administration strongly rejects the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Many Democratic legislators charge that the drug industry is resisting drug imports to keep prices up, and the Administration is favoring the industry's huge profits over the critical needs of Americans.
The Senate vote, a lopsided 62 to 28, would permit pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada and resell them in the United States. According to the vote, then, Senators overwhelmingly support American consumers and want them to benefit from lower Canadian drug prices.
“The U.S. consumer pays the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs,” said Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, who offered the Senate plan on drug imports. “We should and must put some downward pressure on drug prices.”
For years lawmakers have attempted to ease the strict rules that prohibit drug imports unless they have been authorized by the manufacturer, with Democrats such as Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts leading the effort. Although Republicans generally advocate a free market, in this case they actually want to prohibit the free flow of products.
“The reason the Republicans won’t allow cheaper drugs from Canada,” a Washington lobbyist, who insisted on remaining anonymous, told this reporter, “is because the pharmaceutical companies make huge financial contributions to their election campaigns. It’s as simple as being bought off.”
This is the second time in less than one year that the Senate has voted to allow the resale of Canadian drugs in this country. The House previously voted for legislation like the Senate bill.
“In both chambers,” the lobbyist said, “many Republicans vote to allow the importation of Canadian drugs to cover themselves politically, while knowing the Bush Administration will reject the bill.”
This new Senate proposal is contingent on a finding that the imported drugs would pose no risk to public health, which the Bush Administration says it will not agree to.
The commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Mark Mclellan, informed the Senate in a letter that his agency “cannot guarantee the safety of Canadian drugs.” He wrote that allowing such drugs into the United States would create “a wide inlet for counterfeit drugs and other dangerous products that are potentially injurious to the public health.”
Republican Senators, including Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader in the Senate, denounced the proposal to purchase cheaper prescription drugs, objecting to government interference in the free market and risks of terrorists using Canada as a portal into the United States.
The pharmaceutical manufacturers also denounced the plan to allow Americans to purchase cheaper drugs. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the trade association for brand-name drug companies, rejected Senator Dorgan's proposal citing the threat of terrorists and counterfeiters.
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service, however, found that, “The statutory requirements for approving and marketing pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada are, in general, quite similar.” Like the United States, Canada has rules and procedures to control the “chain of custody” of prescription drugs from factory to pharmacy, the report said. The Congressional Research Service seems to agree with Senator Dorgan and nearly all Democrats, then, that the safety risks to Americans were minimal.
The real reason the Bush Administration rejects cheaper drugs for Americans is to insure that it receives more money from drug manufacturers. Again, we are witnessing the best democracy money can buy, and who must pay the high cost is the public, especially our senior citizens.
Stewart Nusbaumer is editor of Intervention Magazine.
posted on June 21, 2003 07:55:21 PM new
Just how badly does he want to be re-elected? What a total a**hole. He keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper. Pretty soon he'll dig all the way to China and they can keep him.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 21, 2003 08:22:33 PM new
Money isn't going to help if our aging population decides he's not on their side.
I personally marvel at the "National Sercurity Risk" arguement here. On top of being patently ridiculous, is there any particular reason that our government insists on continually insulting Canada?
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on June 22, 2003 09:19:00 PM new
The White House is now proposing to revamp section 8, removing it from the control of local communities creating a state bureaucracy. This is a program that works efficiently (a rarity for government programs). The potential for putting millions of working Americans and their dependent children onto the streets is great.
posted on June 22, 2003 10:16:30 PM new
I think someone needs to get George a dictionary! He has confused a "war on poverty" with a "war on impoverished"
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on June 23, 2003 04:10:52 AM new
Why doesn't he just round up all the poor and put them in concentration camps? What a jerk he is. Giving control of Section 8 to the State of Ohio will be disasterous. We are already one of the highest taxed states in the nation and this will only be an excuse to figure out another tax to lay on us. The only politician I can rely on in this state is our congressman, Dennis Kucinich. What I don't understand is that before the Republicans took hold of Ohio we have a surplus, now we have a deficit. Where did all the money go? Bush has used the War on Terrorism to further his agenda. If 911 had never happened, I wonder what his reasoning would be for all of this? Thankfully, we'll never know.
Please, if you have the time, view this page and sign the petition!
posted on June 23, 2003 05:12:33 AM new
It just hit me that 2/3rds of our troops will spend the next 5 years of their life in Iraq gaurding US interests. I relize it is important that we stay their to win the piece but our soldiers shouldnt have ever been put in this situation.
2/3rds will remain in Iraq for the next 5 years. Thats 5 years of not seeing their families,and friends. Alot of them are married and have children.By the time they get back the wifes would of had to move on.5 years of no sex,no help or a companion. Some of their children will be in school or Have grown up to be teanagers.They wont even recognize each other by the time they return home. Think about this for a second. Put yourselves in their positions.
Our troops think they are doing this to save these people.The same people who light themselves on fire,and bath themselves in lambs blood when they have protests.
[ edited by bigcitycollectables on Jun 23, 2003 05:15 AM ]
[ edited by bigcitycollectables on Jun 23, 2003 05:19 AM ]
posted on June 23, 2003 05:23:43 AM new
These people dont even apreciate what the US has done for them.They want them to stay so they can set up a goverment but in truth they could give a damn about us.They just want us to finish the job and then get the hell out. Alot of them want us out now. They are forming groups and launching suicide bombings and sniping US soldiers.
posted on June 23, 2003 06:25:00 AM new Thats 5 years of not seeing their families,and friends. Alot of them are married and have children.By the time they get back the wifes would of had to move on.5 years of no sex,no help or a companion. Some of their children will be in school or Have grown up to be teanagers.They wont even recognize each other by the time they return home. Think about this for a second. Put yourselves in their positions.
Please do some homework or at least post some real facts about such things... never have served have you?
The "same" personnel will not be there 5 years... LOL...
posted on June 23, 2003 08:04:33 AM new
would these soldiers be able to come home for vacation or leave??
when we order drugs from overseas,lets admit it,we are taking a chance,but the $$ difference makes us willing to put up with the risk.
the prempro made in ireland,cipro made in india,prevacid made in spain are not FDA approved.
posted on June 23, 2003 08:47:27 AM new
Big - you are mistaking the amount of time it is being estimated that troops will be reguired with the length of individual deployments. Troops will rotate in and out of Iraq deployments.
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on June 23, 2003 08:55:15 AM new
Stop - do you really think that Al-Queda is going to infiltrate a Canadian drug company to spike Grams' blood pressure medication? I don't think anybody is going to buy this. If Bush really tries to throw this one out to the American public it's going to shed a bright and glaring light on the abuses being perpetrated under the guise of "National Security". They are overestimating the paranioa of the country.
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on June 23, 2003 06:50:45 PM new
The concern is the proper level of dosage not being correct. it has nothing to do with an al-queda concern. Many of the cheaper out of the country medications are not monitored in any way and you may not be getting what you think you are. Not a big risk on the basic antibiotics but when you start talking about cancer meds and such you may be saving money and losing your life. that is the concern. In this case if the manufacturers are regulated and monitored according to strict guidlines it would be a good thing. I am not familar enough with the canadian regulations or where they get there meds to say if it is a good thing or a bad thing.
posted on June 23, 2003 06:59:30 PM new
we take a chance with our own homegrown generic -synthroid is one example.
but we could ask ourselves,if they are selling indian made cipro in india,spanish prevacid in spain and prempro in thailand and ireland,we are taking no more or no less chance than their own citizens.
you know ,dont mean to get off the topic,but there are people who never eat leftovers and for good reason.never buy distressed,overstock,refurbished,remanufactured and returns
posted on June 23, 2003 07:23:44 PM new
Worse case scenario some of these unregulated meds start causing some people to drop dead from being over or under medicated then what. " why the hell didn't they do something about this ?" would be the cry. it's truly a tough situation but my feeling would be something should be done stateside to deter and control the price of the meds before you start having crap shoots and importing them. I can see both sides though and understand the cash strapped, I know people that have their meds picked up by friends in mexico and canada. If legislatur must get involved then do it correctly and fix the problem here.
posted on June 23, 2003 07:57:38 PM new
The meds you are referring to which are sold in Canada are the exact same drugs from the exact same manufactures however as Canada controls the marketplace internally they are sold for less by the manufacturers. These are not bootlegs, or substandard dosages. These are the real deal just cost less under Canadian law.
posted on June 24, 2003 05:36:04 AM new
davebraun,
they are often made by the same company in their foreign factories,but the difference is FDA.they do not have to comply to FDA guidelines as to material traceability,specification integrity but good companies have their own guidelines,some of them are stricter than FDA .
posted on June 24, 2003 08:33:58 AM new
In the case of Canada specifically the drugs are the exact same, no difference, nada, zilch, nothing except one thing about 30% less!
posted on June 24, 2003 01:44:58 PM new
we have FDA in the states,what is the equivalent of FDA in canada??
if there is no FDA regulations,then companies need not perform those tasks to comply with FDA regulations.
so if the drug is made by a foreign factory for foreign market by the same company,it could be different from those made in usa.
posted on June 24, 2003 01:52:37 PM new
This may sound of the track to you, but it really isn't. A Stop Smoking organization is attempting to get smoking outlawed in public places in Cleveland. The organizers comment when asked about their approach to city council?
"We need the government to protect us from our freedom of choice."
Sounds to me like this is what is happening here. I don't need the government protecting me from the choices I make. I make them because I am a FREE American. If I choose to take prescription drugs coming from Canada, I take that risk, not the government. "Freedom of Choice?" HA!
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 24, 2003 02:16:40 PM new
Stop - Many of the drugs sold Canada and Mexico are made in the US. That is probably the most annoying aspect of their higher prices here - it is the same drug made in the same plant but it is sold for dramatically higher prices here in the US.
Because of the lower prices on the identical product in other countries the drug lobby fought for and won an embargo of sorts on the importation of USA made drugs from Canada and Mexico. The new laws that Bush is threatening to veto would over-ride the old bans.allowing pharmacies to order the exact same drugs for a great deal less from Canadian suppliers. The drug lobby does not want this because it would spur a dominio effect collapse in their pricing structure.
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on June 24, 2003 03:27:21 PM newthey are often made by the same company in their foreign factories,but the difference is FDA.they do not have to comply to FDA guidelines as to material traceability,specification integrity but good companies have their own guidelines,some of them are stricter than FDA .
They are made in the same US factories under FDA standards, then shipped to Canada. If you think about it, why were the Drug companies threatening to stop exporting drugs to Canada and Mexico if these countries had their own factories? The only difference is, the American Gov't is allowing Drug companies to gouge the hell out of Americans. Other countries don't put up with that crap.
[ edited by mlecher on Jun 24, 2003 03:30 PM ]
posted on June 24, 2003 05:24:48 PM new
the reason is that someone has to pay for the research.for every drug which finally makes it to the market,it has to pay for its own startup cost plus some of the other drugs which bombed .
just like listing on ebay,unless your sell through rate is 100 %,else the ones which sell have to carry the ones which did not sell.
if mexicans have to pay the same price we pay,they will not be able to buy these drugs.
i know this is awful,we are paying for the research,plus the cruises offered to the docs and all the niceties .
who should pay for the research??
how much do you think a PHD in research cost a company??
i dont know what the answer is,but i know if no one wants to pick up the tab,then there wont be any incentive to develop new drug,we will just content with what we have -penicillum,aspirin.
remember the old days,take some meidcation and stay in bed and let our immune system fight it,we eventually get well,but now we want quick fix with least pain,thats what the drug co offer us.
posted on June 24, 2003 05:45:29 PM new
The drug companies would make sufficient profits at the lower prices. More of their budget is spent on advertising to the end user than R&D.
posted on June 24, 2003 05:49:29 PM new
I just love the TV ads. Kind of makes your doctor look stupid, doesn't it? They have reps that regularly visit doctors to keep them informed of the new drugs available. TV ads are just another way to waste money. I know of retirees that cannot afford their medication. When it costs $60 for one pill, that's excessive indeed! IMO there is no justifying that.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 24, 2003 06:55:16 PM newI take that risk, not the government
No you don't, you or your family would sue the hell out of the government if they allowed foreign drugs into this country and you got sick or even worse....
How would you feel if you had to sign away ALL rights to any aid or any financial gain, if you become unable to work because of taking foreign drugs?
posted on June 25, 2003 04:31:29 AM newNo you don't, you or your family would sue the hell out of the government if they allowed foreign drugs into this country and you got sick or even worse....
Sue the federal government? And just how do you expect I would win? A case like this, I believe would be considered a civil wrong or breach of a duty to another person (a Tort). Tort cases are tried in District Court. With the exception of the three territorial courts, all district court judges are appointed for life by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress authorizes judgeships for each district based on the caseload. So, these are judges appointed by the President and just how far do you think such a lawsuit would go? A soldier cannot sue the government for injuries sustained during a war so I'm going to be able to sue the government over medication I chose to take?
twelve, I don't know how you think you know me. Although I've had plenty opportunities to do so, I have never sued anyone over choices I make. I know there are those out there that make a career out of it. I don't think it's fair of you to make the assumption that everyone would behave that way.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 25, 2003 05:16:24 AM new
It is not only fair, but in all probability correct, you cannot control your family's actions if (God forbid) something bad were to befall you because you took foreign drugs.
I just hope you don't get that legal choice to make.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jun 25, 2003 05:18 AM ]
