|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 29, 2003 11:07:59 GMT -5
Prescription drugs are not inexpensive. This is a problem that many of our senior citizens face. They have found their own, imperfect, solutions, but these solutions also put their health at risk. - Some tell the pharmacist to fill half of their prescription, because that is all they can afford.
- Some, who are on multiple prescriptions, have to pick and choose which prescription that they will fill, because they cannot afford to fill all of them.
- Others take the Taco Bell approach, and run for the border. Some go to Canada to get their medications, and others go to Mexico.
The governors of Illinois and Minnesota, recognizing this problem, and searching for better solutions are spearheading a drive to allow people to import medications from Canada, where price controls make the drugs cheaper. The FDA currently opposes this, saying that it will put people in danger of bad drugs, even though the governors say that the drugs would be imported from reputable pharmacies and point out that Canadians are not suffering from tainted drugs. In short, the FDA's concern, they say, is a red herring, that they are just interested in protecting the profits of drug companies. The drug companies, of course, say that the prices they charge are high because of the need for research and development of new drugs. Since other nations (such as Canada) have artificial price controls, we are footing the bill for the R&D. If we do not, they ask, who will? Others recognize the need for R&D, but think that the drug companies are simply taking advantage of us - even to the point where it is making it impossible for some Americans (and unfortunately this is not just a handful) to get the medication that they need. The reason for the high prices may be in part due to R&D costs, but it is also due to greed. How much do the future drugs matter when people cannot afford to use the ones they need today? Friends, I don't have answers...just questions at this point. With that, I open the floor to discussion.  |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 29, 2003 11:54:00 GMT -5
Yeah, a bunch of Congressmen are trying to ban buying drugs from Canada. They say that if we buy our drugs over there, the pharmeceutical industry will lose money and go into a crisis.
But I say why is that a reason to limit our freedom to buy drugs from whomever we want? Sure, we're subsidizing Canada's system by paying higher prices here, and if we start buying over there, it will hurt the industry. But that's not our problem.
The pharmeceutical industry will have to make a choice. They'll have to start selling drugs to Canada for a more reasonable price, or stop selling to them altogether. Canada's system is screwing us, and we need to get a little of the benefit. Let the American people buy where they want to buy, and the rest will sort itself out.
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 31, 2003 21:42:26 GMT -5
I posted about this on Stltoday and it inspired much more activity.
One of the things that came from that activity was an interesting observation on advertizing. There is no reason for drug companies to advertize their drugs to the public. We are not the experts. We should not be doing as the commercials say and asking if <insert drug name> is right for us.
Instead, we should go to the doc when we're ill and rely on his educated judgement on what prescription is the right one rather than suggesting what he should prescribe.
If the drug companies stopped the televised advertizing, it would surely free up more funds for research and development.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 31, 2003 23:27:12 GMT -5
One of the things that came from that activity was an interesting observation on advertizing. There is no reason for drug companies to advertize their drugs to the public. We are not the experts. We should not be doing as the commercials say and asking if <insert drug name> is right for us. Instead, we should go to the doc when we're ill and rely on his educated judgement on what prescription is the right one rather than suggesting what he should prescribe. If the drug companies stopped the televised advertizing, it would surely free up more funds for research and development. I disagree. I want to know about these drugs so I can make informed decisions about my healthcare. How many people have found good medication by watching a commercial and asking their doctor about it? I would guess quite a few. I think with all the regulatory bodies and such regarding healthcare today, it makes a lot of people complacent. People forget that in the end, the decisions about their healthcare are made by one person - themselves. People need to educate themselves to the treatment options available to them, and I think those advertisements help them to do so. Besides, if the advertising wasn't raising revenues enough to warrant running them, they wouldn't do it. By it's nature, the ads have to at least pay for themselves, or they're not worth it. Removing the ads would really just take those revenues out of R&D as well. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Nov 24, 2003 23:29:47 GMT -5
I disagree. I want to know about these drugs so I can make informed decisions about my healthcare. How many people have found good medication by watching a commercial and asking their doctor about it? I would guess quite a few. I think with all the regulatory bodies and such regarding healthcare today, it makes a lot of people complacent. People forget that in the end, the decisions about their healthcare are made by one person - themselves. People need to educate themselves to the treatment options available to them, and I think those advertisements help them to do so. Besides, if the advertising wasn't raising revenues enough to warrant running them, they wouldn't do it. By it's nature, the ads have to at least pay for themselves, or they're not worth it. Removing the ads would really just take those revenues out of R&D as well. - Rick I understand your point, and a very good one it is, about educating oneself about one's meds, etc. But how much useful information do you really get from pharmaceutical ads? Do you think Kurt Warner has asked his doctor if Levitra is right for him since it made the guy in the commercial throw the football so well? I like information being made available to me at my convenience, but ads are neither informative nor convenient. They're usually misleading and always promotionally motivated hence the laryngitical auctioneer they hire to whisper the side effects at the end of the commercial in the audial equivalent of fine print. I'd rather my doctor discuss all available options with me, give me his opinion and help me make an informed decision. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Nov 25, 2003 7:35:26 GMT -5
I understand your point, and a very good one it is, about educating oneself about one's meds, etc. But how much useful information do you really get from pharmaceutical ads? Do you think Kurt Warner has asked his doctor if Levitra is right for him since it made the guy in the commercial throw the football so well? I like information being made available to me at my convenience, but ads are neither informative nor convenient. They're usually misleading and always promotionally motivated hence the laryngitical auctioneer they hire to whisper the side effects at the end of the commercial in the audial equivalent of fine print. I'd rather my doctor discuss all available options with me, give me his opinion and help me make an informed decision. I agree that we should use our doctors and their training to help us make informed decisions, but doctors do not know everything, and their own biases about certain treatment options will always play a part in their reasoning. As a result, a patient will often find that some options will not even be discussed if they don't bring it up. Add to that the "perks" that doctors can get for pushing some drugs over others, and I still believe an informed patient is the best defense. Besides, under the First Amendment, the pharmeceutical companies have a right to free speech. The founders did not limit free speech to non-commercial speech. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Nov 25, 2003 8:45:20 GMT -5
I agree that we should use our doctors and their training to help us make informed decisions, but doctors do not know everything, and their own biases about certain treatment options will always play a part in their reasoning. As a result, a patient will often find that some options will not even be discussed if they don't bring it up. Add to that the "perks" that doctors can get for pushing some drugs over others, and I still believe an informed patient is the best defense. Besides, under the First Amendment, the pharmeceutical companies have a right to free speech. The founders did not limit free speech to non-commercial speech. - Rick Agreed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to run commercials, just that I wouldn't base any solid information on them. I think there might be a call for restricting doctors from receiving 'gifts' from pharm companies, as that has the potential to result in conflicts of interest. I would like my doctor to discuss all available options with me and then I would like a repository of factual information that I could use to make an informed decision. All in all, I want the option of buying the lowest-price pharmaceuticals available. If that means getting them from Canada, that is my right as an American. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Nov 25, 2003 19:35:13 GMT -5
Agreed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to run commercials, just that I wouldn't base any solid information on them. I think there might be a call for restricting doctors from receiving 'gifts' from pharm companies, as that has the potential to result in conflicts of interest. I would like my doctor to discuss all available options with me and then I would like a repository of factual information that I could use to make an informed decision. All in all, I want the option of buying the lowest-price pharmaceuticals available. If that means getting them from Canada, that is my right as an American. Look at that. We came to consensus. I didn't disagree with a single thing you said there. As far as the Canada thing goes - I agree. You don't respond to an unfree market by limiting your own freedom. - Rick |
|
