| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"grinder" |
| Date: |
15 May 2007 10:03:21 AM |
| Object: |
Other countries get more for less - health care |
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be able to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.
The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the
six nations that does not provide universal health care, scores more poorly
than the others on many measures of health care.
"It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on
average," she said.
Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice
that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083
and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.
.
|
|
| User: "K0DIAK" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
15 May 2007 12:24:49 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZYj2i.6914$296.3600@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice
that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand
$2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.
Ever see a Canadian health clinic? Unless you have a detached testicle in
each hand they give you a 7 digit number and a magazine to bide your time as
you sit with the rest of the deceased.
No thanks. I'll keep my hard earned premium health insurance. If I stub my
toe the pregnant crack whores and meth lab burn victims will have to wait
till they're done with me... As it should be.
- KODIAK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
16 May 2007 12:05:28 PM |
|
|
"K0DIAK" <dx@dgd.net> wrote in message
news:xYl2i.22$4Y.16@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZYj2i.6914$296.3600@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice
that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand
$2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.
Ever see a Canadian health clinic? Unless you have a detached testicle in
each hand they give you a 7 digit number and a magazine to bide your time
as you sit with the rest of the deceased.
No thanks. I'll keep my hard earned premium health insurance. If I stub my
toe the pregnant crack whores and meth lab burn victims will have to wait
till they're done with me... As it should be.
- KODIAK
A right wing politico and a liar. What a combination. We are ranked about
37th in the world, thats right ahead of Tanzania. We aren't even in the top
10. Were 3rd world at best.
You want good care? Go to Quebec, Paris or anywere in Germany.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
17 May 2007 03:23:37 AM |
|
|
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
"K0DIAK" <dx@dgd.net> wrote in message
news:xYl2i.22$4Y.16@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZYj2i.6914$296.3600@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice
that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand
$2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.
Ever see a Canadian health clinic? Unless you have a detached testicle in
each hand they give you a 7 digit number and a magazine to bide your time
as you sit with the rest of the deceased.
No thanks. I'll keep my hard earned premium health insurance. If I stub my
toe the pregnant crack whores and meth lab burn victims will have to wait
till they're done with me... As it should be.
- KODIAK
A right wing politico and a liar. What a combination. We are ranked about
37th in the world, thats right ahead of Tanzania. We aren't even in the top
10. Were 3rd world at best.
You want good care? Go to Quebec, Paris or anywere in Germany.
The guy thinks things are going rosy in Iraq. You can't talk to or
convince these idiots of anything unless you change the Oxycontin
Junkie's script.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
15 May 2007 12:34:05 PM |
|
|
"K0DIAK" <dx@dgd.net> wrote in message
news:xYl2i.22$4Y.16@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZYj2i.6914$296.3600@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice
that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand
$2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.
Ever see a Canadian health clinic? Unless you have a detached testicle in
each hand they give you a 7 digit number and a magazine to bide your time
as you sit with the rest of the deceased.
Sure, that's why Canada has one of the highest life expectancies (about 80
years) and one of the lowest infant morality rates of industrialized
countries.
No thanks. I'll keep my hard earned premium health insurance. If I stub my
toe the pregnant crack whores and meth lab burn victims will have to wait
till they're done with me... As it should be.
- KODIAK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rood" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
16 May 2007 01:49:19 AM |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
"K0DIAK" <dx@dgd.net> wrote in message
news:xYl2i.22$4Y.16@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZYj2i.6914$296.3600@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102,
twice that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New
Zealand $2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per
person.
Ever see a Canadian health clinic? Unless you have a detached testicle
in each hand they give you a 7 digit number and a magazine to bide
your time as you sit with the rest of the deceased.
Sure, that's why Canada has one of the highest life expectancies (about
80 years) and one of the lowest infant morality rates of industrialized
countries.
Yes. Interestingly, life expectancy for individuals younger than 65 is
higher in Canada than the US, but life expectancy for individuals older
than 65 is in the US than Canada. So why is 65 such a magical age for US
citizens? Anybody want to hazard a guess?
No thanks. I'll keep my hard earned premium health insurance. If I
stub my toe the pregnant crack whores and meth lab burn victims will
have to wait till they're done with me... As it should be.
- KODIAK
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beal" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
15 May 2007 10:31:33 AM |
|
|
On May 15, 9:03 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be able to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.
It's quite simple:
US health care subsidizes the rest of the world. You're welcome,
world, and you better pray we never socialize healthcare over here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
16 May 2007 12:05:25 PM |
|
|
"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 9:03 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be able
to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations
on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.
It's quite simple:
US health care subsidizes the rest of the world. You're welcome,
world, and you better pray we never socialize healthcare over here.
Thats an absurd lie. How do we subsidize the rest of the world? Are our
health care execs so dumb that they are willing to hand money to the rest of
the world? If so we should get rid of those guys and bring in some hard
nosed execs.
However I've never seen a drug company who couldn't calculate to the nth
decimal place. The health care companies know what they are getting, money.
In the US they get more since they paid our government for the privilege of
over charging us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beal" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
16 May 2007 03:56:08 PM |
|
|
On May 16, 11:05 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 9:03 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be able
to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations
on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.
It's quite simple:
US health care subsidizes the rest of the world. You're welcome,
world, and you better pray we never socialize healthcare over here.
Thats an absurd lie. How do we subsidize the rest of the world?
Pharmaceutical companies, whether inside or outside the US, pour
billions in to research and development, testing and trials. Do you
think they do this in order to sell their pills for a nickel a pop to
Canadians? Or to sell them for 50 cents a pop to Americans?
They will only sell their pills at massive discounts to other markets
as long as they believe it will not drive down costs in the US.
However, since importation from Canada is currently a relatively minor
inconvience (or possibly even a welcome method to price discriminate,)
they are perfectly willing to sell to price-fixing governments because
the variable cost of physically manufacturing drugs is a tiny portion
of the cost that goes in to creating the drug. They already sank the
cost of R&D. Might as well sell it anywhere they can now...
In the US, where we don't price fix (at least to the degree that
Europeans and Canadians do,) we pay a huge premium for drugs because
our government does not try to "negotiate" down their prices. Without
this attractive market, R&D dries up. The US, by refusing to price
fix, subsidizes research and development for the rest of the world.
You're welcome, world.
Are our
health care execs so dumb that they are willing to hand money to the rest of
the world?
I didn't claim that health care companies subsidize anything. I
claimed that our system does.
If so we should get rid of those guys and bring in some hard
nosed execs.
However I've never seen a drug company who couldn't calculate to the nth
decimal place. The health care companies know what they are getting, money.
In the US they get more since they paid our government for the privilege of
over charging us.
Define "over charging."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Titix" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
17 May 2007 12:41:39 AM |
|
|
"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179348968.242523.114700@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 11:05 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
"They will only sell their pills at massive discounts to other markets
as long as they believe it will not drive down costs in the US."
So, the American people is to be skinned alive, eh? No wonder Bush's
part D prescription drug prohibits Medicare from negotiating with
pharmaceuticals for lower prescription drugs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beal" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
17 May 2007 09:16:31 AM |
|
|
On May 16, 11:41 pm, "Titix" <nos...@spamfree.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179348968.242523.114700@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> On May 16, 11:05 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
"They will only sell their pills at massive discounts to other markets
as long as they believe it will not drive down costs in the US."
So, the American people is to be skinned alive, eh? No wonder Bush's
part D prescription drug prohibits Medicare from negotiating with
pharmaceuticals for lower prescription drugs.
I guess so, if that is what you want to call people paying the market
rate. I call it "not foolishly setting price ceilings like our
dumbass government has tried many times in the past, always with
disasterous results."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
17 May 2007 09:14:35 AM |
|
|
"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179348968.242523.114700@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 11:05 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 9:03 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be
able
to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other
nations
on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a
statement.
It's quite simple:
US health care subsidizes the rest of the world. You're welcome,
world, and you better pray we never socialize healthcare over here.
Thats an absurd lie. How do we subsidize the rest of the world?
Pharmaceutical companies, whether inside or outside the US, pour
billions in to research and development, testing and trials. Do you
think they do this in order to sell their pills for a nickel a pop to
Canadians? Or to sell them for 50 cents a pop to Americans?
A new report by the consumer health organization Families USA refutes the
pharmaceutical industry's claim that high and increasing drug prices are
needed to sustain research and development. The report documents that drug
companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising,
and administration than they do on research and development.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beal" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
17 May 2007 02:01:25 PM |
|
|
On May 17, 8:14 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179348968.242523.114700@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 11:05 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 9:03 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be
able
to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other
nations
on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a
statement.
It's quite simple:
US health care subsidizes the rest of the world. You're welcome,
world, and you better pray we never socialize healthcare over here.
Thats an absurd lie. How do we subsidize the rest of the world?
Pharmaceutical companies, whether inside or outside the US, pour
billions in to research and development, testing and trials. Do you
think they do this in order to sell their pills for a nickel a pop to
Canadians? Or to sell them for 50 cents a pop to Americans?
A new report by the consumer health organization Families USA refutes the
pharmaceutical industry's claim that high and increasing drug prices are
needed to sustain research and development. The report documents that drug
companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising,
and administration than they do on research and development.
Ah, so Families USA is the authority over what percentage of cash flow
a company should spend on R&D? Are they aware that pharmaceutical
companies spend more of their annual cash flow on R&D than any other
industry? Are they aware that a large portion, if not majority of the
cost of marketing is spent on free samples? Why don't we compare
financials across industries with some large-cap public companies and
see just how "little" pharamaceutical companies spend on R&D?
Let's start with Toyota. They must spend a lot on R&D, what with all
of those new hybrids they are developing, lightweight materials,
concept cars and whatnot.
2006 R&D costs: 812 billion yen
2006 Revenues: 16,578 billion yen
R&D/Revenues: 4.9%
only 4.9% of revenues? 1 out of 20 yen?
Well what about software? They must spend a shitload on R&D, right?
All those programmers? So how about Microsoft?
2006 R&D costs: $6.58 billion
2006 Revenues: $44.282 billion
R&D/Revenues: 14.9%
Ok so this is a little higher. A little over 1 in 7 dollars of
revenue goes to R&D.
Hmmm, ok well what about a diversified conglomerate? Someone who
researches everything from electrical components to jet engines? Such
a company must spend a lot of their cash flows on R&D. So how about
GE?
2006 R&D costs: $3.4 billion
2006 Revenues: $150.242 billion
R&D/Revenues: 2.3%
2.3%? That's it?
How do these line up to, say, Merck?
2006 R&D costs: $4.783 billion
2006 Revenues: $22.636 billion
R&D/Revenues: 21.1%
Looks like the pharamaceutical company is spending a shitload more of
its cash on R&D than the others. Oh but your religion tells you that
I cherry picked, right? Actually those were the first 4 companies I
randomly pulled out of thin air. So if you think I am full of *****,
by all means name a few other companies and we will take a look at
their numbers as well.
Links for all of the above:
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/ir/library/annual/pdf/2006/p57_131.pdf
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041216/news_lz1e16bandow.html
http://www.ge.com/files/usa/company/investor/secreport/pdfs/ge_10Ka_2005.pdf
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/downloads/MS_2006_10K.doc
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/73/73184/10k/022807_MERCKCOINC10K.pdf
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=73184&p=irol-reportsannual
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
17 May 2007 02:30:16 PM |
|
|
"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179428485.735599.302220@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:14 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179348968.242523.114700@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 11:05 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 9:03 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be
able
to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other
nations
on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a
statement.
It's quite simple:
US health care subsidizes the rest of the world. You're welcome,
world, and you better pray we never socialize healthcare over here.
Thats an absurd lie. How do we subsidize the rest of the world?
Pharmaceutical companies, whether inside or outside the US, pour
billions in to research and development, testing and trials. Do you
think they do this in order to sell their pills for a nickel a pop to
Canadians? Or to sell them for 50 cents a pop to Americans?
A new report by the consumer health organization Families USA refutes the
pharmaceutical industry's claim that high and increasing drug prices are
needed to sustain research and development. The report documents that
drug
companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising,
and administration than they do on research and development.
Ah, so Families USA is the authority over what percentage of cash flow
a company should spend on R&D?
No Mary. They are reporting FACTS!! If you want to say they spend billions
on R&D fine. I am saying they spend billions +++++++ on advertising and
marketing.
And do you really want to start comparing drug companies with other
industries like Toyota? Drug companies have a profit margin of close to 20%
while the average for other industries is around 5% (and since I can read
you like a cheap comic - please don't bring up google or another anomaly).
Another difference is the fact that drug company products are not
discretionary. People can live without a T.V., new furniture or car. The
same cannot be said about people who require cancer or AIDS fighting drugs.
So you can shuck and jive, wiggle and jiggle all you want. At the end of
the day Americans pay more for health care, including drugs, than other
industrialized countries and receive less in return - including lower life
expectancies. But as long as people like you think that is o.k. they will
continue to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beal" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
18 May 2007 10:24:09 AM |
|
|
On May 17, 1:30 pm, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179428485.735599.302220@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:14 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179348968.242523.114700@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 11:05 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 9:03 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be
able
to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other
nations
on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a
statement.
It's quite simple:
US health care subsidizes the rest of the world. You're welcome,
world, and you better pray we never socialize healthcare over here.
Thats an absurd lie. How do we subsidize the rest of the world?
Pharmaceutical companies, whether inside or outside the US, pour
billions in to research and development, testing and trials. Do you
think they do this in order to sell their pills for a nickel a pop to
Canadians? Or to sell them for 50 cents a pop to Americans?
A new report by the consumer health organization Families USA refutes the
pharmaceutical industry's claim that high and increasing drug prices are
needed to sustain research and development. The report documents that
drug
companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising,
and administration than they do on research and development.
Ah, so Families USA is the authority over what percentage of cash flow
a company should spend on R&D?
No Mary. They are reporting FACTS!!
I see one person, so far, listing and citing facts: me. Everyone else
is just writing down whatever they believe is true.
If you want to say they spend billions
on R&D fine.
Not just that they spend billions on R&D, but that they spend a larger
proportion of their revenues on R&D than any other industry.
I am saying they spend billions +++++++ on advertising and
marketing.
And I am saying:
1) It's none of your damned business.
2) You cannot and will not differentiate between advertising and
marketing because the majority of those funds went to free samples.
3) The industry spends more on R&D as a percentage of revenues than
any other industry.
And do you really want to start comparing drug companies with other
industries like Toyota?
You better believe I do.
Drug companies have a profit margin of close to 20%
And you are the judge of how much profit a company is allowed to
make? Ok let's operate under the assumption that it is any of your
damned business. Have you ever heard the phrase "risk versus return?"
while the average for other industries is around 5% (and since I can read
you like a cheap comic - please don't bring up google or another anomaly).
Another difference is the fact that drug company products are not
discretionary. People can live without a T.V., new furniture or car. The
same cannot be said about people who require cancer or AIDS fighting drugs.
Those drugs didn't exist before those evil companies created them. So
in fact, people did have to live (or die) without them. Unless you
are some kind of Georgist crank or for some other reason think that IP
is somehow not "ownable" then you have to agree that what they created
is theirs. It didn't exist before, and whatever the hell they want to
charge, they get to charge. They have the right to, they have the
moral authority to, they have the legal authority to, they _should_
have the legal authority to, and you have no business saying
otherwise. If you can't afford to buy it, then go invent your own
drug, or try aspirin--which would be your only choice if not for the
big evil pharmaceutical companies.
So you can shuck and jive, wiggle and jiggle all you want.
And you can preach like Hugo Chavez all you like, nationalizer.
At the end of
the day Americans pay more for health care, including drugs, than other
industrialized countries
....because they subsidize research for those other countries.
and receive
....the most cutting edge technology, breakthroughs in drugs,
procedures, and treatments every day, and the most beautiful breasts
on the planet.
less in return - including lower life
expectancies. But as long as people like you think that is o.k. they will
continue to do so.
As long as thieves such as you stay out of power, they will continue.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hc23hc" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
17 May 2007 06:42:11 PM |
|
|
Beal wrote:
Looks like the pharamaceutical company is spending a shitload more of
its cash on R&D than the others.
To an OxyContin-addled idiot, it might look like that. But, on closer
examination...
They Did the Crime, But They Do No Time -- Corporate Drug Pushers
How does street crime work?
You commit the crime, you do the time.
How does corporate crime work?
Big pharma corporation commits a crime and hires a highly paid white
collar crime defense lawyer.
Defense lawyer approaches prosecutor and says -- let's make a deal.
You agree not to prosecute the company.
I'll give you a shell company that does little business but has a
similar name. That company pleads guilty to the crime. It no longer
sells drugs and thus when Medicare excludes it, it loses nothing. We
turn over a couple of executives. They plead guilty. And you promise
no jail time.
You can hold a press conference and say -- we cracked down on
corporate crime.
We can get on with our business of making millions of dollars off
average Americans addicted to our opiate of choice.
That's pretty much what came down last week when the Justice
Department went after the maker of OxyContin, the addictive pain
killer that addicts will die for.
OxyContin is a Godsend for cancer patients and others in chronic pain.
But it's also an easy high for thousands of down and out Americans.
Crush the pill and snort it.
It's like heroin -- without the needles. It's big in Appalachia. You
don't need to ship it in from overseas. You can get it at your local
doctor's office or pharmacy.
Talk to family doctors working in hill country and one of the first
issues they raise is Oxy addiction. Abuse is so rampant that some hill
doctors have stopped prescribing it. No more break-ins and harassing
phone calls from addicts claiming back pain.
Last week John Brownlee, the U.S. Attorney in Roanoke, Virginia tried
to pin the blame where it rightly belongs -- on the company and
executives who pushed the drug on an unsuspecting public with claims
that it was less addictive than other painkillers.
Emphasis on the word "tried."
If you read the papers last week, you might now believe that Purdue
Pharma, the Stamford, Connecticut-based maker of OxyContin, pled
guilty last week to pushing OxyContin by making claims that it is less
addictive and less subject to abuse than other pain medications and
that it continued to do so despite warnings to the contrary from
doctors, the media, and members of its own sales force.
You might believe, as the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers
reported, "Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to one felony count of
fraudulently misbranding a drug."
One problem.
Purdue Pharma did not plead guilty to this crime.
It was Purdue Frederick that pled guilty.
Why is this distinction important?
Well, if you are a pharmaceutical company and you are convicted of a
felony, under federal law, you are automatically excluded from federal
insurance programs like Medicare.
The idea behind mandatory exclusions is clean government -- if you
commit a serious crime, the federal government isn't going to do
business with you.
Unless you are a giant corporation with hundreds of millions of
dollars in profits at stake.
Then you get a deal.
In this case, the deal was brokered by Howard Shapiro, a partner at
WilmerHale in Washington, D.C. -- the lawyer for Purdue Pharma.
Shapiro did not return calls seeking comment for this story.
Shapiro offered up Purdue Frederick to plead guilty.
What is Purdue Frederick?
We sent an e-mail off to company spokesman James Heims.
We asked -- what is the difference between Purdue Frederick and Purdue
Pharma?
He writes back immediately.
"They are independent, associated companies. Please let me know if you
have further questions."
Well, yes, we do have further questions.
Why did Purdue Frederick plead guilty and not Purdue Pharma?
No answer.
We call Mr. Heims.
Now he's busy.
No response.
So, we turn to the press packet sent out by Heidi Coy, the public
affairs person for U.S. Attorney Brownlee.
It's 89 pages.
It contains Brownlee's statement, the press release, the information,
the agreed statement of facts, the plea agreements with Purdue
Frederick, Michael Friedman, the president and CEO, Howard Udell, the
company's general counsel, and Paul Goldenheim, the company's former
medical director.
What doesn't the press packet contain?
It doesn't contain the non-prosecution agreement.
And, not surprisingly, out of the hundreds of mainstream news outlets
that carried this story last week, not one mentioned the non-
prosecution agreement.
The non-prosecution agreement is the one that protects the companies
that make the money.
Purdue Frederick takes the hit. It's the felon. It is excluded from
government programs. But so what? We can assume it has little if any
government business to lose. (Brownlee says he doesn't know. The
company won't return calls.)
The more than 200 other affiliated Purdue Pharma companies scattered
around the world and listed in Appendix A of the non-prosecution
agreement get off.
No felony charge.
No exclusion.
Business as usual.
Purdue is a privately held, very secretive company based in Stamford,
Connecticut.
It's controlled by the Arthur Sackler family. Arthur Sackler is the
guy who, before he delivered OxyContin, brought to you the marketing
for Librium and Valium. Walk on the mall in Washington and you walk by
the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur Sackler Gallery.
Art brought to you by Oxy.
New York Times correspondent Barry Meier is probably the most plugged
in journalist on the topic. A couple of years ago, he wrote a book
detailing the problem titled Pain Killer: A "Wonder" Drug's Trail of
Addiction and Death (Rodale Books, 2004.)
In his statement that he read before the cameras last week, U.S.
Attorney Brownlee said that Purdue Frederick is the "manufacturer and
distributor" of OxyContin.
Well, as it turns out, they used to be. No longer. Now, that's Purdue
Pharma.
In an interview with Corporate Crime Reporter, Brownlee admits that
Purdue Frederick was chosen to plead guilty because "we didn't want to
ban the future sale of the drug."
Had Purdue Pharma been forced to plead guilty, Oxycontin would have
been excluded from Medicare coverage, he said.
"And we didn't want that," Brownlee says.
The other document that was not sent out in the press packet was the
corporate integrity agreement.
This was the agreement that Purdue Pharma entered into and that
requires the company to hire an independent monitor to make sure it
doesn't engage in future criminal activity.
But Brownlee won't give the name of the independent monitor who has
been appointed.
Why not?
He won't say.
And he says that while all documents in the case weren't released to
the media in the press packet, they were posted on the web site of the
federal court in Roanoke.
You a reporter? Go find it.
The bottom line is that Brownlee prosecuted a case that few other U.S.
Attorneys would touch. He proceeded against a powerful privately held
and secretive pharmaceutical company with major resources at its
disposal. He secured a guilty plea against an entity and three top
executives.
As part of the settlement, the company will pay over $600 million in
fines, restitution and a civil settlement. The three executives will
pay collectively over $34.5 million in penalties.
But in the end, he pulled his punches.
Purdue Pharma not charged.
Independent monitor's name not made public.
And perhaps most importantly, the executives will not face jail time.
Why not?
Brownlee dodges the question.
This irks Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen's Health Research Group.
Wolfe called the fines and guilty pleas "an important message to the
drug industry that this kind of malicious, death-dealing behavior will
not be tolerated."
But the government could have come down much harder on what he called
"white-collar drug pushers."
Wolfe pointed out that from 2000 through 2006 alone, according to data
from Drug Topics, the news magazine for pharmacists, there have been
$9.6 billion in retail U.S. sales of OxyContin. It was one of 25 top-
selling drugs from 2000 to 2005 -- it was the 11th largest selling
prescription drug in 2003.
"The government should have forced the company to disgorge far more of
its ill-gotten profits in this case," Wolfe said. "Hundreds of
thousands of people are languishing in jail for relatively minor drug
possession or distribution crimes involving illegal drugs or, in a
smaller number of cases, prescription drugs such as OxyContin.
"Why have the three wealthy Purdue executives, who have pleaded guilty
to orchestrating this dangerous promotional campaign, escaped jail
time, and why are they paying merely $34.5 million in penalties? The
damage to the public from these white-collared drug pushers surely
exceeds the collective damage done by traditional street drug pushers.
Why do we have such a double standard of justice?"
-- Corporate Crime Reporter, May 2007
if you think I am full of *****
I do. So what ?
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beal" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
18 May 2007 10:34:43 AM |
|
|
On May 17, 5:42 pm, hc23hc <hc23...@mac.com> wrote:
Beal wrote:
Looks like the pharamaceutical company is spending a shitload more of
its cash on R&D than the others.
To an OxyContin-addled idiot, it might look like that. But, on closer
examination...
<Off-topic load of stupidity snipped and unread>
I have cited both real world earnings statements and news articles to
prove my point that Pharamaceuticals spend a greater portion of
revenues on R&D than any other industry. Do you have some evidence to
the contrary or are you only capable of changing the subject and
posting your favorite, off-topic article from moveon.org?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beal" |
|
| Title: Re: Other countries get more for less - health care |
16 May 2007 06:16:41 PM |
|
|
On May 16, 11:05 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179243093.236169.240990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 9:03 am, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
Until there is universal health care, small businesses will not be able
to
compete with foreign companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations
on
measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the
non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.
It's quite simple:
US health care subsidizes the rest of the world. You're welcome,
world, and you better pray we never socialize healthcare over here.
Thats an absurd lie. How do we subsidize the rest of the world?
Pharmaceutical companies, whether inside or outside the US, pour
billions in to research and development, testing and trials. Do you
think they do this in order to sell their pills for a nickel a pop to
Canadians? Or to sell them for 50 cents a pop to Americans?
They will only sell their pills at massive discounts to other markets
as long as they believe it will not drive down costs in the US.
However, since importation from Canada is currently a relatively minor
inconvience (or possibly even a welcome method to price discriminate,)
they are perfectly willing to sell to price-fixing governments because
the variable cost of physically manufacturing drugs is a tiny portion
of the cost that goes in to creating the drug. They already sank the
cost of R&D. Might as well sell it anywhere they can now...
In the US, where we don't price fix (at least to the degree that
Europeans and Canadians do,) we pay a huge premium for drugs because
our government does not try to "negotiate" down their prices. Without
this attractive market, R&D dries up. The US, by refusing to price
fix, subsidizes research and development for the rest of the world.
You're welcome, world.
Are our
health care execs so dumb that they are willing to hand money to the rest of
the world?
I didn't claim that health care companies subsidize anything. I
claimed that our system does.
If so we should get rid of those guys and bring in some hard
nosed execs.
However I've never seen a drug company who couldn't calculate to the nth
decimal place. The health care companies know what they are getting, money.
In the US they get more since they paid our government for the privilege of
over charging us.
Define "over charging."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
