Okay, I have to give Bush credit.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

He came up with a very creative way to call Americans stupid.
Every problem that we're having is because we're under educated.
Got your PhD in Computer Science and you lost your job to outsourcing?
You need to go to community college to get yourself a better job.

[ducks]

americans are stupid they voted clinton in

[JohnnyMarzetti]

They also voted Bush in so what does that say about Americans?

[Bandit2981]

i thought the same thing last night when he said that, johnny...Bush said making it easier to get a higher education would help you out when you lost your job to outsourcing, but it usually is the college graduate worker that gets his job outsourced for cheaper, not some manager at mcdonalds

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

No amount of political rhetoric is going to make some company pay a programmer here in America $54 an hour when they can get the same work done in India for $12 an hour.

Like my cousin, who works at EDS up in Dallas said... during the dot-com boom we had secretaries making $90K a year.

Think about that... 90K to make some copies, take some messages... and people are shocked that the bubble burst...

[ClintSquint]

I'd work for $12 an hour.
What, that isn't good enough for some people?

[Hook Dem]

I'd work for $12 an hour.
What, that isn't good enough for some people?
Good reasoning Clint! And there are plenty of those jobs available in this country. Sometimes, pride causes hunger pains.

[SpursWoman]

http://www.communistsforkerry.com/images/Kerry_Jesus.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

Nice.


i thought the same thing last night when he said that, johnny...Bush said making it easier to get a higher education would help you out when you lost your job to outsourcing, but it usually is the college graduate worker that gets his job outsourced for cheaper, not some manager at mcdonalds

A couple of thoughts. First off, if you want the benefits of free trade such as all of the great imported products you enjoy then you are going to have to put up with greater competition in the labor market from abroad. Secondly, if you think it is important that the government do what it can to foster job creation then undoubtedly you will agree that the government should not be in the habit of imposing additional costs on employers through regulation of production processes and mandated employee benefits. Also, keeping tax rates low is somewhat important.

And finally, you will recognize that the only way this nation is going to continue to attract companies to invest in facilities in this nation and locate desirable high paying jobs here is if the workforce is highly skilled and that starts with making sure Americans have access to a quality education.

There are no guarantees in life and there are no guaranteed jobs in this country. That is the price we pay for living in a somewhat free land.

'Education' is one of the top long term issues with respect to improving the availability of future employment opportunities for Americans.

Bash Bush reflexively all you want, it still is not going to change the reality of the situation.

[exstatic]

And finally, you will recognize that the only way this nation is going to continue to attract companies to invest in facilities in this nation and locate desirable high paying jobs here is if the workforce is highly skilled and that starts with making sure Americans have access to a quality education.

A lot of IT professionals did everything they needed to in order to get a good job, having at least one degree, if not multiple degrees. Your statement is no longer true.

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually my statement did address that:


There are no guarantees in life and there are no guaranteed jobs in this country. That is the price we pay for living in a somewhat free land.

[exstatic]

Actually there is at least one guarantee: companies like outsourcing as much as crack hos like a rock now and then. It won't stop until most of the good paying technical jobs are offshore. USA circa 2020 will look an awful lot like England in the 50s and 60s.

[Marcus Bryant]

As long as federal, state, and local governments are in control of K-12 education, then perhaps so. Outsourcing will only occur as long as it makes sense for employers to do so. Of course, not all good paying highly skilled jobs have been outsourced. Just because someone is willing to work in China for 10 cents an hour does not mean that an employer is going to locate their facilities there.

[Useruser666]

Good paying jobs are not good paying jobs anymore when they are moved to India. I think that's the point. It's just the bottom line. If I can get the same thing done in China for 1/10th the cost I do it. Isn't the answer to the prescription drug dilema "outsourcing" to Canada? What about the jobs that could be lost in US from that? It's damn if you do situation.

[Hook Dem]

Good paying jobs are not good paying jobs anymore when they are moved to India. I think that's the point. It's just the bottom line. If I can get the same thing done in China for 1/10th the cost I do it. Isn't the answer to the prescription drug dilema "outsourcing" to Canada? What about the jobs that could be lost in US from that? It's damn if you do situation.
Good point!

[exstatic]

Isn't the answer to the prescription drug dilema "outsourcing" to Canada? What about the jobs that could be lost in US from that? It's damn if you do situation.

Then take a consistant position. Bush is perfectly willing to watch jobs evaporate overseas, but WON'T let the Canadian drugs in. WTF?

[Marcus Bryant]

Not that I agree with the Bush position, but there should be some consideration as to the impact of declining returns to pharma companies on future investment in R&D.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, if those companies would stop airing all those stupid ads about viagra and allergy, and depression drugs they could save some major money.
Shouldn't they be pampering the physicians and not the general public?

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_43/b3905044_mz011.htm

OCTOBER 25, 2004

Jobs: The Lull Will Linger
Structural shifts across several key sectors make the robust job growth of the 1990s unlikely to return anytime soon

Remember when the U.S. was a big, mean job machine? The 1990s saw the creation of 22 million jobs, the equivalent of adding another California and New York to the national labor market. Even after the 2001 recession and the September 11 terror attacks sent employment reeling, most economic observers -- including this one -- were confident that the job slump was just temporary. In fact, the employment market didn't turn up until August, 2003, and its performance since then has hardly been riproaring. In September only 96,000 jobs were created -- the fourth disappointing month in a row. And while the economy has added 1.7 million jobs in the past year, that's still 500,000 less than the 2.2 million average annual gain in the 1990s. True, the shortfall may be reduced a bit when the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises its data in early 2005. But there's little doubt that job growth has slowed significantly from the glory days of the '90s.

That sluggish performance is also starting to raise questions about the economy's underlying strength. Tepid job growth weakens household incomes and makes the economy more vulnerable to negative shocks, such as more bad news out of Iraq. That's why some economists have started lowering their gross domestic product forecasts for the fourth quarter and beyond.

What's holding back job creation? Many believe the problem is short-term in nature, caused by such factors as this year's unusually active hurricane season, political uncertainty, and the spike in oil prices. Others blame more persistent influences, such as high health-care costs and intense global competition.

Yet the data clearly suggest that the job machine may have developed a long-term stutter for other reasons. The current shortfall in job growth, in fact, is heaviest in a few surprising sectors, such as retailing, education, and health care; telecommunications is a big culprit as well. A comparison of how many jobs these sectors added over the past year with the average number they added annually during the 1990s indicates that these laggards, for the most part, are undergoing structural changes that make a return of robust job growth unlikely anytime soon.

The hardest-hit has been retailing, squeezed by low-cost Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT ) and high-productivity online retailers. Retail jobs rose by only 94,000 during the 12 months ended in September, far lower than the annual average gain of 210,000 jobs in the earlier decade. Next on the list is education, where the slowdown in growth of K-12 enrollment has dramatically reduced hiring. Other job laggards, such as telecom and health care, face severe pressure to reduce costs. And the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector, which created 65,000 jobs per year in the 1990s, added only 10,000 over the past year. One explanation: upheaval brought on by new technologies in areas such as the music industry.

The story in manufacturing, especially recently, is a bit more complicated. Manufacturers were not contributors to the job boom of the 1990s, with factory employment falling by 400,000 annually, on average, over the decade, and continuing to plunge in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Thus, the 9,000-job increase in manufacturing over the past year, however small, marks somewhat of an improvement.

Overseas Shift

Still, gains in manufacturing employment should have been a lot bigger thanks to the recent jump in retailing productivity. How so? The logic is simple: Lower costs and higher productivity help retailers hold down prices. Lower prices, in turn, enable consumers either to buy more from that company or to spend elsewhere. That creates a greater demand for services and other manufactured goods.

But while gains from higher retailing productivity are boosting demand for goods, the resulting factory jobs are showing up in other countries. Retail sales rose by a strong $62 billion over the past year, measured in 2000 dollars. But guess what? Imports of consumer goods, motor vehicles, and foods and beverages rose by exactly that amount. So rather than creating 100,000 or more manufacturing jobs in the U.S., that $62 billion in spending only hiked job growth elsewhere.

Given the continued pressures, it's unlikely that the forces holding down job growth are going to abate in the near term. The newfound productivity boom in retailing underscores the point. Until recently, much of retailing had been stuck in the productivity doldrums. From 1990-2002, output per hour rose by only 1.7% per year in department stores and motor-vehicle dealers, and a meager 0.2% per year at food and beverage stores, including grocers. Together these industries account for over 40% of retailing employment.

Over the past year, though, a combination of job cuts and new technology, from improved inventory-management systems to wireless computers that allow shoppers to cut checkout time by scanning their own groceries, have led to much bigger productivity gains in these industries -- 4% or more, according to estimates by BusinessWeek. But these retailers will still have to hold down hiring if they hope to compete with Wal-Mart and an ever-more-efficient set of online rivals. Published data show that online retailers boosted productivity by 16% in 2003, while BusinessWeek estimates suggest that productivity growth accelerated yet a further 20% by the middle of 2004. Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN ), for example, boosted its workforce by 8% in the year ended in June, 2004, but its sales were up 34% compared with the previous year. That translates into a 24% gain in sales per worker and explains why online retailers added only 12,000 in the past year. The bottom line: Retailing isn't likely to soon regain its prominence as a job creator.

The same is true in education, where slowing job growth is driven mainly by demographics. During the '90s, elementary and secondary enrollment rose by an average of almost 700,000 students per year, generating huge demand for new teachers. Today, the Education Dept. estimates that the increase in the student population is much slower, with enrollment growing by only 160,000 in 2004.

An Eye on Telecom

Partly as a result, the education sector added only 135,000 jobs over the past year, compared with an annual average of 240,000 in the 1990s. The BLS recently reported that the number of people working in education, training, and library occupations hadn't risen at all over the past year despite gains in most other occupations. Since teaching and related professions almost all require a college degree, such stagnation in education-related jobs is also one factor in explaining why the college-educated job market continues to remain troubled. That's a critical difference between the 1990s and today.

Given these demographic changes, it's unlikely that a rebound in education hiring to the levels of the 1990s is on the horizon. The only thing that could change the equation would be enough additional government money to significantly lower teacher-student ratios in K-12 schools or to significantly boost enrollments at the college level.

The long-term job situation is not all gloomy, however. Consider telecommunications, which was a moderate job creator in the 1990s, adding about 30,000 per year. Now, of course, the sector is in slash mode, cutting 40,000 jobs over the past year, with more to come. On Oct. 7, for example, AT&T (T ) announced plans to shrink its workforce by an additional 7,400 jobs on top of what it had already announced. But in the long run, telecom could again become a net generator of jobs as new services are developed and the need for workers to install and maintain broadband connections -- more temperamental and finicky than ordinary phone lines -- keeps growing. Both Presidential candidates have voiced support for an expansion of broadband connections.

Then there's health care, which added 280,000 jobs in the past year. That's a big number, but not as many as the annual job gain of 340,000 in the 1990s, with much of the shortfall coming in nursing homes and home health care. However, here demographics are a plus. As the population ages, health-care employment will likely accelerate.

The lesson here is that the days of prolific job creation are over, at least until another breakthrough innovation such as the Internet comes along. In the 1990s, the wind was at our backs, and jobs were easy to come by. Today job creation is much tougher for many reasons -- and for now that's just a reality we have to live with.


By Michael J. Mandel

[2pac]

I'd work for $12 an hour.
What, that isn't good enough for some people?

How old are you and how qualified are you for that work.

I would not do that for $12/hour, because my time is worth much more than that. What your time is worth, is based on skill level, qualifications, etc.

Also, they dont have to pay benefits for people in India.

Your argument is lame -because someone who has spent the money and time to be trained to be able to do this - their time is worth much more than $12/hour. That's waitstaff at Chili's money - if that.



IMHO, if those companies would stop airing all those stupid ads about viagra and allergy, and depression drugs they could save some major money.
Shouldn't they be pampering the physicians and not the general public?
They run the ads because they are proven in getting Rxs filled. When the public knows about Allegra or Viagra, they ask for it specifically, and if they could benefit from it, the DRs will give it to them when they ask for it.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, anyone who isn't willing to work for $12 an hour has nobody to blame but themselves. I respect all those who work from the busboys to the hot shot white collar workers who feel they are "worth" more than other workers.

[Opinionater]

They run the ads because they are proven in getting Rxs filled.

IMHO, this proves that it is all about the benjamins and not reducing the costs of their drugs.

[travis2]

IMHO, this proves that it is all about the benjamins and not reducing the costs of their drugs.

Should they be forced to reduce the price of their drugs regardless of the costs of development and production?

[Marcus Bryant]

this proves that it is all about the benjamins

Shocking.

[2pac]

IMHO, anyone who isn't willing to work for $12 an hour has nobody to blame but themselves. I respect all those who work from the busboys to the hot shot white collar workers who feel they are "worth" more than other workers.

That's because you are not worth more than that. Why should I work for 12 when I am qualified to make exponentially more?

Should a lawyer or a docter be willing to be paid 12/hour?

Everyone has their place in society - we need busboys and we need doctors. But someone qualified to be a doctor or something else where they can make 6 figures should not be willing to take less than what they are worth.

The qualifications of many people make their time with more than $12/hour.

If you are flipping burgers, living at home with your parents and making minimum wage - 12/hour sounds great. When you are a college grad - maybe with a graduate degree, with a wife and kids - 12/hour isn't crap .




IMHO, this proves that it is all about the benjamins and not reducing the costs of their drugs.

Companies are in business to make money. If they could not advertize their product to get its recognition out there, they would not sell products, which means they would not make money, which means they would not spend on R&D which means we would not get new products which means we would not be able to fight many diseases.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, there has to be away. No, I'm not saying they have to lower their prices and not make a profit. But something has to be done to bring prices down.
Why are there such huge differences between Canadian drugs and those sold in the US?

[travis2]

I won't say the Government is entirely to blame, but rules and regulations levied upon the pharmaceutical industry do cost those companies a lot of money...

[Opinionater]

IMHO, it is the lifestyle that you are accustomed too.
I have a wife and kids and live within our means.
Don't whine for your failure to get a job with a degree.
What I'm saying is that some must do what they have to to get back on their feet.
There are many successful people who have done dirty work.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/assets/images/carter180.jpg

"Life is unfair."

[Opinionater]

IMHO, it may be time to say goodbye to the American software programmer. Once the symbols of hope as the nation shifted from manufacturing to service jobs, programmers today are an endangered species.
They face a challenge similar to that which shrank the ranks of steelworkers and autoworkers a quarter century ago: competition from foreigners.

Some experts think they'll become extinct within the next few years, forced into unemployment or new careers by a combination of offshoring of their work to India and other low-wage countries and the arrival of skilled immigrants taking their jobs.

[2pac]

IMHO, there has to be away. No, I'm not saying they have to lower their prices and not make a profit. But something has to be done to bring prices down.
Why are there such huge differences between Canadian drugs and those sold in the US?

No - there doesnt have to be anything done to lower prices. We live in a free-market economy.

Canadian drugs are not as tightly regulated and are also partially paid for by their socialistic government medicine. There is more room for there to be errors in the drug - potientially fatal errors.

[travis2]

Canadian drugs are not as tightly regulated and are also partially paid for by their socialistic government medicine. There is more room for there to be errors in the drug - potientially fatal errors.

How many of the regulations we have are truly necessary?

There's a general principle people need to keep in mind...every 9 added to the reliability adds a 0 to the price tag.

[2pac]

How many of the regulations we have are truly necessary?

There's a general principle people need to keep in mind...every 9 added to the reliability adds a 0 to the price tag.

I find our regulations necessary. When drugs come out, we can be confident in taking them beacuse we know they have been tested extensively. We live in a very litigious society, and the regulations we have placed on drugs keeping them under testing for a long time is MUCH cheaper than it would be for us to have patients die, get sick and have long lasting medical bills and drug companies to be under HUGE lawsuits to pay out.

Where do you get the numbers from 9 and 0?

Even if that was true, having reliability from the beginning is cheaper than the costs of unreliable medicine in terms of deaths, sickness and lawsuits. I would rather have confidence in our medicine than know that it is something that could possibly make us sicker. You ultimately pay for what you get.

[Samurai Jane]

You ultimately pay for what you get

And that's the bottom line...

[travis2]

I find our regulations necessary. When drugs come out, we can be confident in taking them beacuse we know they have been tested extensively. We live in a very litigious society, and the regulations we have placed on drugs keeping them under testing for a long time is MUCH cheaper than it would be for us to have patients die, get sick and have long lasting medical bills and drug companies to be under HUGE lawsuits to pay out.

On what do you base your assertion that the regulations don't cost as much as litigation?

I agree with testing things extensively. But how much is enough?


Where do you get the numbers from 9 and 0?

It's an old saying I picked up while in the Air Force. It's just another way of stating the "principle of diminishing returns". Simply put, if a system is 90% reliable and costs $1000, making it 99% reliable would cost $10,000...and 99.9% reliable would jack it up to $100,000.

The numbers themselves don't matter...it's the principle. Adding those extra nines to the reliability does not result in a linear increase in cost. And notice that the nines are smaller and smaller increases in reliability...but the cost is increasing exponentially.



Even if that was true, having reliability from the beginning is cheaper than the costs of unreliable medicine in terms of deaths, sickness and lawsuits. I would rather have confidence in our medicine than know that it is something that could possibly make us sicker. You ultimately pay for what you get.

If a drug shows 99.99% reliability against non-fatal reactions (not an unreasonable reliability...and may even be small...), but you could increase it to 99.999% reliability...if you increased the cost of that drug by a multiplicative factor (lets say...3 times...)...is that a good trade off? What does that 200% increase in cost buy you? Is that extra 0.009% worth it?

[2pac]

Look at the costs of litigation. 6 Million people took FenPhen. They are each entitled to up to 1.5Million dollars. Add to that the huge legal team retained by the defendant.


The cost of bad drugs can't be looked at solely on the cost of more testing and regulation. What are the potiential lives lost cost? What are the costs associated with long-term illness because of potientially harmful effects of the drug?

Without massive regulation, there would be all kinds of companies trying to make the quick buck by putting something on the market, not adequately testing it and being prepared to take the money and run if the drug doesnt work. File a Chapter 11 and move to an island with the money made - damn the effects on the poor people who actually took the medicine.

[ClintSquint]

I thought this was about jobs?

[travis2]

FenPhen wasn't an FDA screw up. It was a screw up on the part of doctors who prescribed two separate approved drugs in a non-approved manner.

What makes a safe drug? A perfect record? 1 death in 500 million? 100 million? 1 million? And how much is a fair price to pay to go from one reliability level to the next?

The problem with the "safe drug" view is that no matter how much regulation you have, you will never ever have 100% reliability in a drug. Period. It's physically impossible.

Sure, people demand it all the time. Doesn't mean it can happen.

[travis2]

I thought this was about jobs?

It is. You can't separate the various aspects. They're all interrelated.

[ClintSquint]

http://www.ajax.org/images/people/bush-george-w-2.jpg
"A degree helped me land my current job."

[2pac]

FenPhen wasn't an FDA screw up. It was a screw up on the part of doctors who prescribed two separate approved drugs in a non-approved manner.

What makes a safe drug? A perfect record? 1 death in 500 million? 100 million? 1 million? And how much is a fair price to pay to go from one reliability level to the next?

The problem with the "safe drug" view is that no matter how much regulation you have, you will never ever have 100% reliability in a drug. Period. It's physically impossible.

Sure, people demand it all the time. Doesn't mean it can happen.

Drugs can be safe yet misused. Many times they are perscribed when they shouldnt be or used in a way they shouldnt be used.

[travis2]

Drugs can be safe yet misused. Many times they are perscribed when they shouldnt be or used in a way they shouldnt be used.

I believe that's what I implied, yes. Which has nothing to do with the "massive regulation" you speak about.

[2pac]

I believe that's what I implied, yes. Which has nothing to do with the "massive regulation" you speak about.

It does. The regulation that I speak of is the regulations that are already in place.

We should not drop that so that we can save a couple dollars on viagra.

[travis2]

You could have all the regulations in the world and drug could still be prescribed counter to those regulations.

Regulations won't stop that.

And the question of whether all regulations currently on the books hasn't been answered yet.

[2pac]

You could have all the regulations in the world and drug could still be prescribed counter to those regulations.

Which is medical malpractice and is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.



And the question of whether all regulations currently on the books hasn't been answered yet.

There is no question there.

"whether all regulations on the books" is not a question.

If you are in favor of dropping some regulations - what would you drop? My contention is that all these regulations are very much needed.

FenPhen wasnt a bad drug because it was perscribed wrong - it was a bad drug cause it ruined the heart of those who used it. If it was only perscribed wrong, then the doctors would have been sued, not the manufacturer - but in actuality, the manufacturer is the one sued and the one paying out for ruining the hearts of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

[SpursWoman]

Just FYI: PhenFen is a combination of (2) drugs fenfluramine & phentermine, when prescribed alone are completely safe...it's the combination of the two that caused the heart valve damage.

I've always wondered why it was the makers PhenFen that were libel and not the doctors, who should be aware of negative drug interactions. If I'm on birth control & take certain antibiotics which can render the Pill ineffective, do I sue my doctor, the makers of Ortho Tri-clyclin, or the manufacturer of the antibiotic if I got pregnant? There are, I'm sure, too many to count drugs when taken together are potentially deadly....highly regulated or not.



Sorry, for the interruption..... :)

[travis2]

FenPhen wasnt a bad drug because it was perscribed wrong - it was a bad drug cause it ruined the heart of those who used it. If it was only perscribed wrong, then the doctors would have been sued, not the manufacturer - but in actuality, the manufacturer is the one sued and the one paying out for ruining the hearts of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

Incorrect.

Fen-phen refers to the use in combination of fenfluramine and phentermine. Phentermine has also been used in combination with dexfenfluramine ("dexfen-phen"). Fenfluramine ("fen") and phentermine ("phen") are prescription medications that have been approved by the FDA for many years as appetite suppressants for the short-term (a few weeks) management of obesity. Phentermine was approved in 1959 and fenfluramine in 1973. Dexfenfluramine (Redux) was approved in 1996 for use as an appetite suppressant in the management of obesity. Recently, some physicians have prescribed fenfluramine or dexfenfluramine in combination with phentermine, often for extended periods of time, for use in weight loss programs. Use of drugs in ways other than described in the FDA-approved label is called "off-label use." In the case of fen-phen and dexfen-phen, no studies were presented to the FDA to demonstrate either the effectiveness or safety of the drugs taken in combination.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/phen/fenphenqa2.htm

[SpursWoman]

I have no idea how people could take that for extended periods of time. I was on that for about a week and didn't sleep the entire time.



That little white cocktail was messed up. :wow :wow

[2pac]

Fen-Phen was made of those two drugs, but they were marketed and perscribed as a package to combat obesity. The company was at fault, because they put them together for the one perscription of FenPhen.

[travis2]

Fen-Phen was made of those two drugs, but they were marketed and perscribed as a package to combat obesity. The company was at fault, because they put them together for the one perscription of FenPhen.

"Fen-Phen" was not a single drug.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/phen/fenphenpr81597.htm

[Bandit2981]

Canadian drugs are not as tightly regulated and are also partially paid for by their socialistic government medicine. There is more room for there to be errors in the drug - potientially fatal errors.
i think you're misunderstanding what will happen...the importation of cheaper drugs from canada isnt using canadian manufactured drugs, they are made and manufactured here in the US, sent to canada, and then, we would import them right back for cheaper. they are US drugs, complying with our standards.

[Samurai Jane]

i think you're misunderstanding what will happen...the importation of cheaper drugs from canada isnt using canadian manufactured drugs, they are made and manufactured here in the US, sent to canada, and then, we would import them right back for cheaper. they are US drugs, complying with our standards.

What? Please explain the logic of that to me and please give me a source that I can look at...

[SpursWoman]

We ship it there, and they ship it right back at a lower price? What do they do, dilute it? :lol

That doesn't make sense. :wtf

[Samurai Jane]

I just did a quick search for something on Canadian drugs and this is the first article that came up... I thought it was of interest...

Canadian drugs - too cheap to be true


National Post


Friday, October 15, 2004







As William Watson pointed out in his column yesterday, Canadians are used to being ignored by our neighbours to the south, particularly during a U.S. election year. That's why it's been something of a flattering surprise to find Canada -- or, more specifically, our relatively inexpensive prescription drugs -- figuring prominently in the last two presidential debates. But we can't help wondering at Senator John Kerry's short-sighted insistence on a plan to allow the importation of Canadian drugs into his country.

The reason our prescription drugs are currently cheaper than those in the U.S. is that ours are subsidized, discounted and price-controlled. Pharmaceutical companies charge Canadians less for prescriptions in part because Canadians simply cannot afford to spend as much as Americans on specific drugs. (Incidentally, the same goes for a pair of khakis at The Gap, though casual clothing has not yet become an election issue.) Meanwhile, our Patented Medicine Price Review Board legally mandates maximum drug prices.

The result is that pharmaceutical companies make less money in Canada than in the United States. They accept a lower return here, because they have a more profitable market south of the border, which helps pay for the research and development of new life-saving drugs that might otherwise go undiscovered. But company shareholders are unlikely to put up with Canadian price levels if they are extended to many Americans.

By emphasizing a promise to give Americans access to Canadian prescription drugs, Mr. Kerry is selling American voters on a scheme that can hardly deliver the expected benefits for long.

As Mr. Watson explained, faced with an open North American drug market, drug companies would probably reduce their sales to Canada, which could lead to drug shortages here and consequently would cut down the amount of cheap drugs available to Americans as well.

In the end, Mr. Kerry's "let in Canadian drugs" pitch is too good to be true. But given the effect it could have on our access to needed prescriptions, it warrants Canadians' careful scrutiny. Healthy as it may be for the ego, sometimes getting noticed just isn't worth the trouble.

© National Post 2004

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=70af936f-3d56-4193-8f79-9d671cc357f4

[travis2]

There's another possibility...I'm not saying this is what's happening, just putting it out there as one way to look at it...

The US Government gets their vaccines at a fixed price. The Canadian government can get their vaccines at the same or similar rates because of diplomatic agreements. These fixed rates either do not cover manufacturer costs or do not provide sufficient profit margin. Therefore, to recover lost profits, the company charges a higher price here in the US. The Canadian government, not worried about any profit margins, can sell the drugs at "their cost".

[travis2]

Damn...I was pretty close, wasn't I?

[SpursWoman]

....hence they aren't raising near enough money for research on new drugs.

[SpursWoman]

Very astute, Mr. Travis. ;)

[travis2]

....hence they aren't raising near enough money for research on new drugs.


Beem-bo...:)

[travis2]

:oops

Why thank you, Ms. SW

[Marcus Bryant]

As Mr. Watson explained, faced with an open North American drug market, drug companies would probably reduce their sales to Canada, which could lead to drug shortages here and consequently would cut down the amount of cheap drugs available to Americans as well.

Exactly.