5 ms·

The gov't statement makes it sounds like the "rogue illegal online pharmacies" were mostly just Canadian pharmacies? It's ridiculous how the US gov't treats Can

by aklein 15y ago

The gov't statement makes it sounds like the "rogue illegal online pharmacies" were mostly just Canadian pharmacies? It's ridiculous how the US gov't treats Canadian-approved pharmaceuticals in general; it's oligopoly protection for US big pharma.

T-hawk 15y ago
The argument for the oligopoly protection goes that, without that protection, the pharma companies would not have invented the drugs in the first place because their ROI would be insufficient without the government-protected price premium. IOW, the Canadian pharmacies can offer so cheaply because they copy from the original inventors rather than doing the expensive research themselves. To what extent the pharma inventors truly need the protection versus to what extent pharmaceutical policing is cartel profit-taking is an open question, but it's worth keeping both points of view in mind.
- blackguardx 15y ago
  Actually that is incorrect. Canadian pharmacies don't copy the drugs. There are international drug patents in place. Drug companies charge people in the US the most because the US allows it. In other countries, they charge a lot less because their governments demand it. Those governments are usually the customers in many countries with socialized medicine. When you buy in very large quantities of anything, you can always negotiate on price. Unfortunately there is a law in the US preventing our socialized medical services (medicare, VA) from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies.
  - shabble 15y ago
    There was an interesting article a while back about some of the shady practices of Group Purchasing Organisations (who negotiate with pharma/equipment suppliers for cheaper rates) I can't seem to find the original article, but http://www.medicaldevices.org/issues/GPO-Reform http://www.medicaldevices.org/issues/GPO-Reform has some interesting papers linked from there. Edit: bah, found it on the very next search: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.blake.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.blake.ht...
- chalst 15y ago
  The DOJ PR does not argue that the harm is undermining research, it cites putting US consumers at risk.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >without that protection, the pharma companies would not have invented the drugs in the first place because their ROI would be insufficient without the government-protected price premium. interesting, sounds like the invention and innovation would stop in that particular area of our technological civilization if the protection is turned off. Are we sure that the protection really stimulate the invention? I mean, in all other areas the government protection usually inhibits innovation - for example telecom started to boom as soon as demonopolization happened.
bonch 15y ago
This same "big pharma" comment was made at Slashdot. Google was not being investigated simply for accepting ads from Canadian-approved pharmaceuticals. In fact, Google had already blocked ads from Canadian vendors years ago. The DOJ's report explains how Google was accepting ads from drug companies that were selling counterfeit drugs from less-regulated areas of the world as well as controlled medications without a prescription. There's no grand AMA conspiracy here.

by aklein 15y ago

T-hawk 15y ago

The argument for the oligopoly protection goes that, without that protection, the pharma companies would not have invented the drugs in the first place because their ROI would be insufficient without the government-protected price premium. IOW, the Canadian pharmacies can offer so cheaply because they copy from the original inventors rather than doing the expensive research themselves. To what extent the pharma inventors truly need the protection versus to what extent pharmaceutical policing is cartel profit-taking is an open question, but it's worth keeping both points of view in mind.

blackguardx 15y ago
Actually that is incorrect. Canadian pharmacies don't copy the drugs. There are international drug patents in place. Drug companies charge people in the US the most because the US allows it. In other countries, they charge a lot less because their governments demand it. Those governments are usually the customers in many countries with socialized medicine. When you buy in very large quantities of anything, you can always negotiate on price. Unfortunately there is a law in the US preventing our socialized medical services (medicare, VA) from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies.
- shabble 15y ago
  There was an interesting article a while back about some of the shady practices of Group Purchasing Organisations (who negotiate with pharma/equipment suppliers for cheaper rates) I can't seem to find the original article, but http://www.medicaldevices.org/issues/GPO-Reform http://www.medicaldevices.org/issues/GPO-Reform has some interesting papers linked from there. Edit: bah, found it on the very next search: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.blake.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.blake.ht...
chalst 15y ago
The DOJ PR does not argue that the harm is undermining research, it cites putting US consumers at risk.
VladRussian 15y ago
>without that protection, the pharma companies would not have invented the drugs in the first place because their ROI would be insufficient without the government-protected price premium. interesting, sounds like the invention and innovation would stop in that particular area of our technological civilization if the protection is turned off. Are we sure that the protection really stimulate the invention? I mean, in all other areas the government protection usually inhibits innovation - for example telecom started to boom as soon as demonopolization happened.

bonch 15y ago

This same "big pharma" comment was made at Slashdot. Google was not being investigated simply for accepting ads from Canadian-approved pharmaceuticals. In fact, Google had already blocked ads from Canadian vendors years ago. The DOJ's report explains how Google was accepting ads from drug companies that were selling counterfeit drugs from less-regulated areas of the world as well as controlled medications without a prescription. There's no grand AMA conspiracy here.