#91
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one.. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very near by. I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to Malaysia". In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or Mexico to buy medicine. Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but still. As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T..V. :-) And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs. Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here. Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet. There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice. The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out. The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html -- Jay Beattie. |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very near by. I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to Malaysia". In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or Mexico to buy medicine. Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but still. As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V. :-) And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs. Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here. Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet. There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice. The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out. The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html The largest drug company in the world is Roche and they have the largest R&D budget and almost ALL of their companies are American. So why are you using an example of a holding company that has gone to a tax haven? |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On 10/25/2017 1:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2017 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound.ÂÂ* But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking. In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part because there is no generic for that version. But there is a generic for the alternative that you must remember to take twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to that generic, and there have been no problems. Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the medication in question is literally necessary for life.Â* One recent example is the Epi-pen.Â* See https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/ "Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer, Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to about $500 today."Â* As I recall, the ultimate answer was "We raised the price because we could." Or more generally, there's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to control the patents not because of the medication, but because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is pretty offensive. Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists can change from one gear to another only using their bare hands." For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare. I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately. Epinephrine is generic and old; predates FDA regulation. The branded pen device is patented and they keep making minor changes to extend the device patent. Possession of a syringe was, in recent memory, a crime. That's no longer true. But hey if you find the pen device handy, it costs more. Using your own epinephrine and your own syringe sounds fine. Unless, that is, you're trying to fumble with it in the middle of an anaphylactic event. Especially if you're a kid. Fortunately, the public outcry and legislative interest kicked in and forced that poor, poor corporation to backtrack a bit. I do feel sorry for the corporation. Somebody needs to give it a nice hug, to make it feel better. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On 10/25/2017 3:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/25/2017 1:39 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/25/2017 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking. In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part because there is no generic for that version. But there is a generic for the alternative that you must remember to take twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to that generic, and there have been no problems. Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the medication in question is literally necessary for life. One recent example is the Epi-pen. See https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/ "Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer, Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to about $500 today." As I recall, the ultimate answer was "We raised the price because we could." Or more generally, there's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to control the patents not because of the medication, but because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is pretty offensive. Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists can change from one gear to another only using their bare hands." For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare. I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately. Epinephrine is generic and old; predates FDA regulation. The branded pen device is patented and they keep making minor changes to extend the device patent. Possession of a syringe was, in recent memory, a crime. That's no longer true. But hey if you find the pen device handy, it costs more. Using your own epinephrine and your own syringe sounds fine. Unless, that is, you're trying to fumble with it in the middle of an anaphylactic event. Especially if you're a kid. Fortunately, the public outcry and legislative interest kicked in and forced that poor, poor corporation to backtrack a bit. I do feel sorry for the corporation. Somebody needs to give it a nice hug, to make it feel better. There are competitors with similar devices but somehow the FDA has magically ruled against them repeatedly (safety first! it's for the children!) despite at least one being an exact copy of an older expired patent version of EpiPen. They are available in other countries. http://www.fiercepharma.com/sales-an...cruise-control Holy crap! I didn't know the situation had changed. Somebody is MAGA: http://nypost.com/2017/06/16/fda-app...ive-to-epipen/ I fully expect you to support this administration for a 2d term! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 1:40:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very near by. I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to Malaysia". In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or Mexico to buy medicine. Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but still. As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it.. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V. :-) And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs. Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.. Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet. There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice. The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out. The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html The largest drug company in the world is Roche and they have the largest R&D budget and almost ALL of their companies are American. So why are you using an example of a holding company that has gone to a tax haven? Roche is and always has been a Swiss company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffmann-La_Roche It has affiliates and subsidiaries in numerous countries. Their drug (as opposed to diagnostics) are apparently manufactured by Roche in Switzerland and China and Genentech in SF. https://www.roche.com/dam/jcr:4e9d25...fact_sheet.pdf I don't trust that .pdf. See https://static.roche.com/annual-repo...l_report16.pdf Go to page 2 for dots on a map showing the operations. I wish they had a 10K with all the companies listed, but because its an ADR, no SEC filings. Anyway, they never fled the US. They just acquired some US companies, and they don't look like reverse mergers or other tax dodges. -- Jay Beattie. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:49:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking. For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare. (1) pick a subject, (2) review face book and other "social" nets, (3) read complaints :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:49:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare. My only complaint about Walmart is that they moved from their convenient location in Sprawlmart, right on US 30, to a new development on North Detroit. Detroit Street is exceedingly narrow, and is the only way to get out of town headed north. It also carries SR 15. Short stretches of SR 15 are merely horrible. Then Aldi moved from Sprawlmart to a new location on Husky Trail, a county road that's even more crowded than SR 15. And I have to cross 30 to get there. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:59:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound.* But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking. In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part because there is no generic for that version. But there is a generic for the alternative that you must remember to take twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to that generic, and there have been no problems. Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the medication in question is literally necessary for life. One recent example is the Epi-pen. See https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/ "Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer, Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to about $500 today." As I recall, the ultimate answer was "We raised the price because we could." Or more generally, there's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to control the patents not because of the medication, but because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is pretty offensive. Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists can change from one gear to another only using their bare hands." For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare. I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately. I'm curious. Is EpiPen the only solution? I ask as when I was in basic training and went through the gas mask part of the training we were told that in areas where a gas mask was issued that it contained an Atropine Syrette , basically an encapsulated needle attached to a tube of stuff that counteracted nerve gas. You removed a plastic cover for the needle and jammed it into any part of your body and squeezed the tube. If you did this within seconds of knowing that you were exposed to nerve gas you lived. If you hesitated then you didn't. Morphine syrettes were also included in some military first aid kits. Same thing. Stab it in and squeeze the tube. -- Cheers, John B. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:04:34 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:59:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound.* But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking. In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part because there is no generic for that version. But there is a generic for the alternative that you must remember to take twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to that generic, and there have been no problems. Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the medication in question is literally necessary for life. One recent example is the Epi-pen. See https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/ "Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer, Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to about $500 today." As I recall, the ultimate answer was "We raised the price because we could." Or more generally, there's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to control the patents not because of the medication, but because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is pretty offensive. Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists can change from one gear to another only using their bare hands." For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare. I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately. I'm curious. Is EpiPen the only solution? I ask as when I was in basic training and went through the gas mask part of the training we were told that in areas where a gas mask was issued that it contained an Atropine Syrette , basically an encapsulated needle attached to a tube of stuff that counteracted nerve gas. You removed a plastic cover for the needle and jammed it into any part of your body and squeezed the tube. If you did this within seconds of knowing that you were exposed to nerve gas you lived. If you hesitated then you didn't. Morphine syrettes were also included in some military first aid kits. Same thing. Stab it in and squeeze the tube. P.S. I just came across this on you tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQajOum6wA -- Cheers, John B. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
California's Fires
On 10/25/2017 5:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2017 3:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/25/2017 1:39 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/25/2017 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote: an old observation but still true: Under capitalism, it's man against man. Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around. I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar corporation against man. Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a politically viable alternate? It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in ways that no individuals can hope counter. Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways, but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay FAR less.) As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to do so, and they want to keep getting that money. And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way. Other examples abound.ÂÂ* But when an industry like this has unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want. Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads. And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking. In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part because there is no generic for that version. But there is a generic for the alternative that you must remember to take twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to that generic, and there have been no problems. Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the medication in question is literally necessary for life. One recent example is the Epi-pen.Â* See https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/ "Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer, Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to about $500 today."Â* As I recall, the ultimate answer was "We raised the price because we could." Or more generally, there's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to control the patents not because of the medication, but because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is pretty offensive. Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists can change from one gear to another only using their bare hands." For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare. I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately. Epinephrine is generic and old; predates FDA regulation. The branded pen device is patented and they keep making minor changes to extend the device patent. Possession of a syringe was, in recent memory, a crime. That's no longer true. But hey if you find the pen device handy, it costs more. Using your own epinephrine and your own syringe sounds fine. Unless, that is, you're trying to fumble with it in the middle of an anaphylactic event. Especially if you're a kid. Fortunately, the public outcry and legislative interest kicked in and forced that poor, poor corporation to backtrack a bit. I do feel sorry for the corporation. Somebody needs to give it a nice hug, to make it feel better. There are competitors with similar devices but somehow the FDA has magically ruled against them repeatedly (safety first! it's for the children!) despite at least one being an exact copy of an older expired patent version of EpiPen. They are available in other countries. http://www.fiercepharma.com/sales-an...cruise-control Holy crap! I didn't know the situation had changed. Somebody is MAGA: http://nypost.com/2017/06/16/fda-app...ive-to-epipen/ I fully expect you to support this administration for a 2d term! From your article: "Mylan, which has US headquarters near Pittsburgh, launched generic EpiPens last December in an effort to deflect mounting criticism." I'll consider supporting the FDA. I don't think this has anything to do with any elected administration. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle Fires | Frank Krygowski[_3_] | Techniques | 5 | September 13th 12 03:41 AM |
California fires | raisethe | UK | 4 | October 28th 07 04:34 PM |
California fires | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | October 25th 07 09:38 PM |
Fires around Bright | Walrus | Australia | 17 | December 14th 06 08:14 AM |
After the fires - a RR | Michael Paul | Mountain Biking | 9 | November 11th 03 04:35 PM |