It is hard to understand why our own Senator Kyl would vote to deny our seniors, or anyone for that matter, from getting cheaper drugs from Canada. Not that the drugs are different from those gotten here. No, they are the same, just don't cost as much in Canada.
http://www.themiddleclass.org/legislator/jon-kyl-459?gclid=COaekMD6rp8CFQ_yDAodKWoH1w
Our other Senator, John McCain said the bill could save consumers some $80 billion over 10 years. In addition the Congressional budget scorers estimated the Senate measure would save the government $19 billion in medicine costs over a decade.
Partisan politics, or the lack thereof, had nothing to do with this; it was strictly "money talk".
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2009/12/democrats-lead-in-killing-canadian-drug.html
The drug makers are making political contributions, big ones. As of last Nov. 8, 58 percent of Pfizer's $460,263 reported for the congressional 2010 election cycle went to Democrats. Democrats got 63 percent of Amgen Inc.'s $405,809 and 59 percent of Johnson & Johnson's $306,610, the Center for Responsive Politics reports.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/heavy-doses/2009/12/16/pharmaceutical-industry-defeats-drug-import-bill/
Looks to me like our Mr. Kyl must be on the receiving end of some of the "payola"
4 comments:
Sure, Kyl received donations from them. I bet he did.
Here's the rub. When these drug companies sell their product elsewhere, and those countries have different patent protections with lower year terms, competitors drive the costs down.
Sure, if drug reimportation passes, people would save money. But, they'd also probably have less medicine in the future to save their lives. Since the companies have to spend billions to design the drug, test it, and get it FDA approved, they have to make that money back.
If they can't do that, there's only less money for research, and thus, fewer new live saving drugs in the future.
Just a thought. My guess is Jon Kyl thinks through things to a higher degree than you do here on this blog.
Also, other countries have artificial price controls.
Yes, that means we bear a big brunt of the cost of drugs. But if I had a choice of more expensive drugs with a brighter future for more life saving drugs over cheaper drugs with a diminished future, I'd pick the former.
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t49649.html
Looks like $775,000 +/- over the course of his career is enough said.
Oh. Yes I do think them through. The drug companies are in this for a profit and allowing us to buy at the same rate of the rest of the world would only drive up the cost for everyone. Get real.
Post a Comment