Let the gouging begin!

Why a 40-year-old drug is bankrupting cancer patients Thalidomide should cost a few dollars a day, but the exclusive U.S. distributor wants up to $3,000 a month...

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=C74ECA2F-79DF-4865-A29B-D56309CB02D8

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy doesn't work.

This is Canada we're talking about, land of free health care right?

It's not all free. I just paid $120 for prescriptions. Course I'm covered by work.

Originally posted by idologic_aw
It's not all free. I just paid $120 for prescriptions. Course I'm covered by work.

Holy cow! Did you get 12 prescriptions?

No, that was for 2 prescriptions and they were a generic brands. Otherwise the cost would have been as high as $500.

Originally posted by idologic_aw
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy doesn't work.
what the hell does this have to do with "democracy".
It's the result of (extended) patents caused by capitalism/neo-liberalism which resulted in other companies not being able to manufacture cheaper same drugs... the effect of this in the poor part of the world (80% of the world) is even worse ofcourse.

Meh. I was just making a Simpsons quote. The majority of laymen confuse democracy with capitalism anyway.

Originally posted by idologic_aw
No, that was for 2 prescriptions and they were a generic brands. Otherwise the cost would have been as high as $500.

Yipes! Mine are $10 co-pay each...

Originally posted by hostpath.com
Yipes! Mine are $10 co-pay each...

O. I pay upfront and get all the money back in two weeks but that is due to my work benefits, not the Canadian government.

Actually, it's easier argued that without capitalism, that drug, and if fact, the large sum of all modern drugs, would not have even been made.

Aside from that, it's not really the patent at issue here, the drug patent has expired, although they have certain patents on distrobution. The fact that it's HealthCanada itself that has banned the Mexican version should tell you something.

This drug was banned for 35 years for a reason. The reason they regulate it like that is because their goal is to monitor every pill to every person, that's not very common.

This drug has also come to market so fast it never got full approval for many of the uses it's being claimed for.

That being said, it does sound as though some gouging is going on. That's not a problem of capitalism, rather regulation within a system that happens to be capitalist.

MDJ2000:

Good explanation.

Originally posted by MDJ2000
Actually, it's easier argued that without capitalism, that drug, and if fact, the large sum of all modern drugs, would not have even been made.

no it isn't, most of the stuff we use today is a result of research payed by public funding and then later handed to private corporations to make profits ( the way you and i are now communicating (the internet) is a result of that). patents/copyrights etc aren't that old either, it's a means of protecting the difference in wealth in the world (i'll go into that later if you want cause i don't have much time now).

Originally posted by MDJ2000

The fact that it's HealthCanada itself that has banned the Mexican version should tell you something.



if they hadn't banned it the drugs would be imported from mexico which would result in a price change for the drugs in mexico, making them even more unpayable for the mexican population.

Eric Cartman

You are wrong on every point.

One of your comments doesn't even make sense. Patents aren't that old? What? What post were you reading?

Oh yeah, thanks for insult to my intelligence, but I'm also well aware of what patents are and why they exist.

Thankfully history and common sense exist to easily cast down your uneducated opinions and snide remarks. That saves my breath, as I don't care to waste any more of it on you.

Originally posted by MDJ2000
Eric Cartman

You are wrong on every point.

show me, thank you


Originally posted by MDJ2000


One of your comments doesn't even make sense. Patents aren't that old? What? What post were you reading?


Patents in generally aren't that old. In the past if someone invented something someone else just took that thing and made it better without paying that other person. Now you would need to pay/ask permission to the first person (read company). This slows down evolution (pretty obvious) and makes it much harder for poor countries or individual persons to develop something since they can't afford it all.
(patents are a result of capitalism/neo-liberalism)
So saying that without capitalism a lot of drugs wouldn't ever be invented is a lot of ********.

Originally posted by idologic_aw
It's not all free. I just paid $120 for prescriptions. Course I'm covered by work.

Holycow, that's expensive.

Eric Cartman, I don't know what you consider "not that old", but the US Constitution gave Congress the power to grant patents and copyrights and that held until the offices were officially founded. The UK Patent Office was founded in 1852 as a formal office to handle patents that had been ongoing for quite a while before that.

To me, that seems to have been a rather long time ago, especially when dealing with the subject of medicine.

Originally posted by Eric Cartman
show me, thank you




Patents in generally aren't that old. In the past if someone invented something someone else just took that thing and made it better without paying that other person. Now you would need to pay/ask permission to the first person (read company). This slows down evolution (pretty obvious) and makes it much harder for poor countries or individual persons to develop something since they can't afford it all.
(patents are a result of capitalism/neo-liberalism)
So saying that without capitalism a lot of drugs wouldn't ever be invented is a lot of ********.
Show you? What, that your opinions don't dictate fact?

You insist on making a fool of yourself. Patents, in the UK, has it's origins dating back to the 15th century. http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/history/fivehundred/origins.htm

I'm not aware of many drug manufacturers in the 1400's complaining about capitalism stifling their ability to bring a product to market.

However, this arguement is moot, as you fail to understand a basic concept concerning this topic, that the patent has expired on this drug.

Educate yourself.

Originally posted by auctionSuite
Eric Cartman, I don't know what you consider "not that old", but the US Constitution gave Congress the power to grant patents and copyrights and that held until the offices were officially founded. The UK Patent Office was founded in 1852 as a formal office to handle patents that had been ongoing for quite a while before that.

To me, that seems to have been a rather long time ago, especially when dealing with the subject of medicine.

i'm referring to international patents (which is now the standard patent) which aren't that old like 50 years or so in the western world cause the USSR etc didn't accept them ofcourse. Local patents are quite old, an interesting case in US history is the one from Henry Ford fighting the Selden patent.

Originally posted by MDJ2000

However, this arguement is moot, as you fail to understand a basic concept concerning this topic, that the patent has expired on this drug.


since the distribution patent still exists your point is?

Well, considering that global commerce is a fairly recent event, what would you expect? And I'm sure that if a company were competing in a foreign market with a product before the international patents were established that said company would obtain patent rights to the product with the country's local patent office or branch that handled patents.

Originally posted by Eric Cartman
since the distribution patent still exists your point is?

I'm afraid you lack the intellectual capacity to understand, so I'll spare you any further anguish.