Patty O'Furniture wrote:


They way I figure it, over the years I've had this treatment, the
Canadian Government owes me about $400,000. :)


Maybe we can give you dual citizenship so you can retire up here.
Would that make us even?

I take Remicade for my RA every six weeks @ $11,000 a pop - that's
$99,000 per year for very effective treatment for RA.

In Canada, it's $2,450 a pop.

Now, who is subsidizing who? :)

Canada doesn't simply tell drug companies what to charge. They made a
deal with the drug companies, offering the drug companies extended
patent life on their new drugs in exchange for charging lower prices.
The drug companies benefit by having more years without generic
competition, and the public benefits by having more affordable
medicines.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....re5s5ppj.html

They're probably afraid of getting pregnant, because that would force them
to deal with their commie socialist pinko medical system. (I thought I'd
save NOYB the trouble of saying this, in case he's busy).


I'm not trying to start a screaming match, but I found something out a
week or so ago that just amazed me.

I take Remicade for my RA every six weeks @ $11,000 a pop - that's
$99,000 per year for very effective treatment for RA.

In Canada, it's $2,450 a pop.

Now, who is subsidizing who? :)

You're making some pharmaceutical executives very rich.

In addition to subsidizing pinko commie socialist medical systems. :)

Actually, drug coverage is not a universal benefit provided by the
provincial health insurance systems in Canada. Many provinces do have
a drug plan for low income seniors, but as a rule, drugs are an out of
pocket expense unless the person has drug coverage through an employer,
which many do. This private insurance does not, necessarily, cover the
entire cost of a drug. And, since most senior citizens are not
employed, they aren't covered by an employer based insurance plan. So,
unless they have a very low income, Canadian seniors and low paid
workers have no drug coverage whatsover.

Contrary to this, the US has recently offered a drug benefit to the
seniors enrolled in the US's "socialist" Medicare system.

P.S. The US also has a "socialist" retirement pension system, known as
Social Security.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 18 Mar 2006 04:17:57 -0800, wrote:

I take Remicade for my RA every six weeks @ $11,000 a pop - that's
$99,000 per year for very effective treatment for RA.

In Canada, it's $2,450 a pop.

Now, who is subsidizing who? :)
Canada doesn't simply tell drug companies what to charge. They made a
deal with the drug companies, offering the drug companies extended
patent life on their new drugs in exchange for charging lower prices.
The drug companies benefit by having more years without generic
competition, and the public benefits by having more affordable
medicines.

At three quarters the cost?

Bull****. The only way they could get away with doing that is if they
pick up the rest of the profits from somewhere else.

Like me.


As a marketing consultant who has worked with several substantial offerers
of health insurance, I can assure you that the profits on many
"proprietary" medications transcend astronomical. There is plenty of room
for "negotiation" in the prices Rx companies charge providers and
purveyors.

Oh...by the way, Rx companies these days spend more on advertising and
marketing than they do on research.

They're the richer cousins of the oil companies. You know, the original
"bend over for us" guys.

Big numbers involved in health care. I just read that GM posted a 10+
billion dollar loss overall in 2005.
Part of their operating costs in 2005 was 5+ billion on health care for
active and retired employees.

RCE

I take Remicade for my RA every six weeks @ $11,000 a pop - that's
$99,000 per year for very effective treatment for RA.

In Canada, it's $2,450 a pop.

Now, who is subsidizing who? :)

Canada doesn't simply tell drug companies what to charge. They made a
deal with the drug companies, offering the drug companies extended
patent life on their new drugs in exchange for charging lower prices.
The drug companies benefit by having more years without generic
competition, and the public benefits by having more affordable
medicines.

At three quarters the cost?

Yes.

Bull****. The only way they could get away with doing that is if they
pick up the rest of the profits from somewhere else.


Like me.

If you think so, then thanks. But just don't point the finger at
Canada. The US is the only industrialized nation that has not
negotiated with the drug companies for lower prices. Prices for drugs
are also lower in Europe and Japan. The drug companies charge what
they do in the US because it is what that market will bear.

Don't complain that you're paying more because we're all doing
something that you're not. That's like a person complaining that their
own front lawn looks ugly because everyone else keeps their lawns
mowed. If that's the case, then mow your lawn. Don't complain to us
that we should stop mowing our lawns, because you don't want to mow
yours..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 18 Mar 2006 04:17:57 -0800, wrote:

I take Remicade for my RA every six weeks @ $11,000 a pop - that's
$99,000 per year for very effective treatment for RA.

In Canada, it's $2,450 a pop.

Now, who is subsidizing who? :)
Canada doesn't simply tell drug companies what to charge. They made a
deal with the drug companies, offering the drug companies extended
patent life on their new drugs in exchange for charging lower prices.
The drug companies benefit by having more years without generic
competition, and the public benefits by having more affordable
medicines.
At three quarters the cost?

Bull****. The only way they could get away with doing that is if they
pick up the rest of the profits from somewhere else.

Like me.

As a marketing consultant who has worked with several substantial
offerers of health insurance, I can assure you that the profits on many
"proprietary" medications transcend astronomical. There is plenty of
room for "negotiation" in the prices Rx companies charge providers and
purveyors.

Oh...by the way, Rx companies these days spend more on advertising and
marketing than they do on research.

They're the richer cousins of the oil companies. You know, the original
"bend over for us" guys.

Big numbers involved in health care. I just read that GM posted a 10+
billion dollar loss overall in 2005.
Part of their operating costs in 2005 was 5+ billion on health care for
active and retired employees.

RCE


Yes, indeed. And eventually we are going to have to have a federal system
in which every American is issued a card to obtain basic medical care.
Whether that involves all the insurance companies we have now or an
entirely different system remains to be seen, but we have to have changes
or we will all go broke.

We're all paying for it now; we're just handling it sloppily.


This is one of the relatively few areas that I might be considered a bit to
the left in my POV. Quality health care in the US should be available and
affordable to everyone. We apparently have made strides to make it equally
available http://tinyurl.com/prk4c but it's still substandard and too
expensive for individuals and corporate providers.

The answer lies in routing out the corruption in the drug industry and the
political porksters that are manipulating it.

RCE

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 18 Mar 2006 04:17:57 -0800, wrote:

I take Remicade for my RA every six weeks @ $11,000 a pop - that's
$99,000 per year for very effective treatment for RA.

In Canada, it's $2,450 a pop.

Now, who is subsidizing who? :)
Canada doesn't simply tell drug companies what to charge. They made
a
deal with the drug companies, offering the drug companies extended
patent life on their new drugs in exchange for charging lower
prices.
The drug companies benefit by having more years without generic
competition, and the public benefits by having more affordable
medicines.
At three quarters the cost?

Bull****. The only way they could get away with doing that is if
they
pick up the rest of the profits from somewhere else.

Like me.
As a marketing consultant who has worked with several substantial
offerers of health insurance, I can assure you that the profits on
many "proprietary" medications transcend astronomical. There is plenty
of room for "negotiation" in the prices Rx companies charge providers
and purveyors.

Oh...by the way, Rx companies these days spend more on advertising and
marketing than they do on research.

They're the richer cousins of the oil companies. You know, the
original "bend over for us" guys.
Big numbers involved in health care. I just read that GM posted a 10+
billion dollar loss overall in 2005.
Part of their operating costs in 2005 was 5+ billion on health care for
active and retired employees.

RCE

Yes, indeed. And eventually we are going to have to have a federal
system in which every American is issued a card to obtain basic medical
care. Whether that involves all the insurance companies we have now or
an entirely different system remains to be seen, but we have to have
changes or we will all go broke.

We're all paying for it now; we're just handling it sloppily.


This is one of the relatively few areas that I might be considered a bit
to the left in my POV. Quality health care in the US should be available
and affordable to everyone. We apparently have made strides to make it
equally available http://tinyurl.com/prk4c but it's still substandard
and too expensive for individuals and corporate providers.

The answer lies in routing out the corruption in the drug industry and
the political porksters that are manipulating it.

RCE


As a nation and as citizens, we are spending more than enough to provide
everyone with access to quality health care. Our system for providing it
sucks, though, and there are too many providers who "play" the system to
their gross financial advantage.


Well, why isn't it being addressed? I get very suspicious of politicians
like Ted Kennedy who remains popular and electable because he's been
flapping his jaws about the need for health care reform for, what now, about
20 or 30 years? You would think that someone with his experience,
connections and seniority would be able to *do* something by now, rather
than repeating the same mantra every election year. I doubt he suffers from
mediocre health care and he probably needs more of it than most of us.

RCE

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 18 Mar 2006 04:57:19 -0800, wrote:

I take Remicade for my RA every six weeks @ $11,000 a pop - that's
$99,000 per year for very effective treatment for RA.

In Canada, it's $2,450 a pop.

Now, who is subsidizing who? :)

Canada doesn't simply tell drug companies what to charge. They made a
deal with the drug companies, offering the drug companies extended
patent life on their new drugs in exchange for charging lower prices.
The drug companies benefit by having more years without generic
competition, and the public benefits by having more affordable
medicines.

At three quarters the cost?

Yes.

Bull****. The only way they could get away with doing that is if they
pick up the rest of the profits from somewhere else.


Like me.

If you think so, then thanks. But just don't point the finger at
Canada. The US is the only industrialized nation that has not
negotiated with the drug companies for lower prices. Prices for drugs
are also lower in Europe and Japan. The drug companies charge what
they do in the US because it is what that market will bear.

Don't complain that you're paying more because we're all doing
something that you're not. That's like a person complaining that their
own front lawn looks ugly because everyone else keeps their lawns
mowed. If that's the case, then mow your lawn. Don't complain to us
that we should stop mowing our lawns, because you don't want to mow
yours..

When I was in Ireland a few years ago, I had forgotten two of my meds
back home.

Went to the local druggist after we landed at Shannon and got enough
for the three weeks we were spending visiting relatives and seeing the
sites.

Cost me exactly 30% of what I paid in the US for the same amount of
non-generic drugs.

You cannot convince me that the US health care system isn't
subsidizing the rest of the world in terms of prescription drugs.

There isn't any other explanation.

Nobody is disputing that. But, complain to the drug companies, not to
us. That situation will happen anytime that a different price is
charged for same product in different markets.

At to your mowing analogy - between our house, the big house and the
real estate we own, I mow about nine acres of grass a week.

Don't remind me. :)

We mow ours too, we just negotiated a better price with the mowing
company.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 18 Mar 2006 04:57:19 -0800, wrote:


I take Remicade for my RA every six weeks @ $11,000 a pop - that's
$99,000 per year for very effective treatment for RA.

In Canada, it's $2,450 a pop.

Now, who is subsidizing who? :)

Canada doesn't simply tell drug companies what to charge. They made a
deal with the drug companies, offering the drug companies extended
patent life on their new drugs in exchange for charging lower prices.
The drug companies benefit by having more years without generic
competition, and the public benefits by having more affordable
medicines.

At three quarters the cost?

Yes.


Bull****. The only way they could get away with doing that is if they
pick up the rest of the profits from somewhere else.


Like me.

If you think so, then thanks. But just don't point the finger at
Canada. The US is the only industrialized nation that has not
negotiated with the drug companies for lower prices. Prices for drugs
are also lower in Europe and Japan. The drug companies charge what
they do in the US because it is what that market will bear.

Don't complain that you're paying more because we're all doing
something that you're not. That's like a person complaining that their
own front lawn looks ugly because everyone else keeps their lawns
mowed. If that's the case, then mow your lawn. Don't complain to us
that we should stop mowing our lawns, because you don't want to mow
yours..


When I was in Ireland a few years ago, I had forgotten two of my meds
back home.

Went to the local druggist after we landed at Shannon and got enough
for the three weeks we were spending visiting relatives and seeing the
sites.

Cost me exactly 30% of what I paid in the US for the same amount of
non-generic drugs.

You cannot convince me that the US health care system isn't
subsidizing the rest of the world in terms of prescription drugs.

There isn't any other explanation.

At to your mowing analogy - between our house, the big house and the
real estate we own, I mow about nine acres of grass a week.

Don't remind me. :)


The 'big house'??? You spending weekends in the slammer?

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:44:22 GMT, Don White
wrote:


At to your mowing analogy - between our house, the big house and the
real estate we own, I mow about nine acres of grass a week.

Don't remind me. :)

The 'big house'??? You spending weekends in the slammer?


The little house - we bought this after the kids moved out.

http://tinyurl.com/qxk28

Go north, down the S curve, first right, first house on the left is
the "big house" along with the barn and out buildings.

The fields, woods and pond to the south of Sheldon are those that I'm
always talking about including the woods behind the house.


That's quite a piece of land.


I agree. Very nice chunk of property Tom.

That lake to your west looks pretty big also. What sort of fish are in it?



Is that mowing marks or are you planting crops on that rectangular
section?