1. Jun 3, 2005

### Dennis4

According to the FDA, this is technically illegal, but millions of Americans do it, and some state governments, and a Senator, subsidizes this practice. The FDA and George W. Bush falsely scare us by saying the drugs may be unsafe, but Canada is a First World country and everything is safe, esp. since it is drugs Canada pharmacies have imported from American drug companies to being with. Also, the FDA stops some medicine shipments from entering the country, and detained an American bus full of American senior citizens coming into U.S.A from Canada with drugs they bought up there.

Are American pharmacies and drug companies ripping us off with huge markups? Should politicians do anything about it?

2. Jun 3, 2005

### ChrisW

Right now people only have themselves to blame if they purchase Canadian (or from god knows where) drugs and they are faulty.

Another thing is that most drug companies aren't making a huge amount of profit from their drugs. If the price was set at Canadian prices everywhere in the world, all of these companies would go bankrupt. While it is not fair, Americans seem to pick up the burden of paying the most for subscription drugs. I think, if anything, they should lower the prices here and force the prices up in other countries. I'm sure there's some politics involved with that, so it probably wont happen :grumpy:.

3. Jun 4, 2005

### Dennis4

But Canadian drugs are not faulty. Canada is not Mexico: it's a first world nation. All government approved Canadian drug companies are as good as American ones. Actually, compared to other first world countries, the American standards are lower: think of how animals are screened better for mad cow disease in Canda/Europe/Japan than in the U.S.A.

The FDA can easily approve Canadian drugs as safe, like they do with other imported foods, but they purposely don't because the FDA are not on the government payroll: they get their paychecks directly from the drug companies - it's true, there was a PBS special on this. So, why would the FDA turn on the hands that feed them? The FDA's fake accusations against Canadian drug companies are just meant to keep their bosses happy: the American drug companies, who benefit from us paying very high prices.

Can you prove this with figures? How much wealth does the CEOs and upper management of drug companies have?

If I can see the figures, I might believe this.

Are the American drug companies selling their drugs at a cheaper price to Canadian pharmacies than to American pharmacies?

Here is some data on FDA/drug company activities that some may argue are unethical: http://clarkhoward.com/library/tips/prescription_costs.html

Last edited: Jun 4, 2005
4. Jun 4, 2005

### Dennis4

Personally, I don't even like the fact that doctors have to prescribe a drug for one to legally acquire it. Rather, I think seeing a physician should be optional but extremely highly recommended to avoid possible injury or death; but I don't think it should be legally required.

5. Jun 4, 2005

### Mental Gridlock

For stuff like Antibiotics, I agree. It's annoying to have to make the appointment, which you have 30 seconds of actual contact with the doctor. That's while they're filling out the prescription sheet. It takes much more time getting your insurance information squared away. The only thing the doctor considers is your healthiness (which you know) and your allergies (which he/she knows only based on what you tell them! If you know your allegies, then why can't the packaging/instructions tell you not to take them. But the doctor needs to be the middle man so he can collect his free money!

6. Jun 4, 2005

### Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
It's not necessarily the drug companies that are marking up the costs, unless it's a new name brand. The pharmacies are cashing in huge profits from consumers. For example: A generic anti-depressant many take costs over $34.00 for 30 days at one pharmacy, another pharmacy charges less then$6.00 for the same amount.

7. Jun 4, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

There are two many stupid people in the world that cannot be allowed to self medicate. Some antibiotics work for some infections and not so well for others, knowing which antibiotic your particular infection requires is something most people wouldn't know or take the time to find out. If you have a virus, antibiotics won't work. Then if you're taking other medications, you have to know if you can't take certain medicines together.

The pharmaceutical companies are allowed to recoup expenses for the research they do. I for one am glad that these companies are doing the research and coming up with new drugs.

So no, those companies are not "ripping us off".

8. Jun 4, 2005

### Pengwuino

But Evo, there was a ... PBS special on it!!! :D

And self-medicating is fine, just look at me...

*watches left arm fall off*

9. Jun 4, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

:rofl: You know they have a medication for that.

edit: On second thought, I should be all for letting people self medicate, I'm sure quite a few would get Darwin awards. But, more likely they will just harm themselves enough that they become a burden to society.

It's a shame that we all have to suffer for the stupidity of others, but that's the way it is.

Last edited: Jun 4, 2005
10. Jun 4, 2005

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
I agree with everything Evo said here. In addition, much of the profit from pharmaceuticals goes right back into R&D for new pharmaceuticals. It also covers the cost of products that never made it to market, such as a drug that looked promising until clinical trials resulted in deaths.

Whoever made the argument regarding Mad Cow testing, that's not under FDA jurisdiction, that's USDA.

Pharmaceutical companies also have only a short time during which they can recoup their costs of development on a new drug before they have to deal with competition from generic manufacturers. It's really hard for them to compete at that point because the generic manufacturers don't have to spend all the time and money on R&D, they just take what's already available and mass produce more of it, so they can charge far less.

Edit: I should also add that pharmaceutical companies aren't charities. They are in business, and it's a tough one to balance ethics about making medicince available and ensuring their bottom line includes enough profits to continue operating and to retain valuable employees with competitive salaries. For all the headaches those companies have to deal with along the regulatory process, I wouldn't deny some of their top execs a cushy salary.

Last edited: Jun 4, 2005