"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:40:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

snipped

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

It's more complicated than that. The same company that makes that drug
probably sells it across the Canadian border for a lot less too. Our
pharmaceutical companies have the government by the balls and get
sweetheart
deals you wouldn't believe. If they had to really compete we'd be paying
the
same, or nearly the same as you are.

Nope. They aren't competing at all. What it takes is government price
controls on drugs. Everyone has them but us. That's why most drugs are
developed in the US. Our prices reflect all of the development costs. To
make money in Europe, they use a different accounting -- one in which all
of
the development costs are sunk (in the US).

Another example, Bill Clinton was in
Africa promoting anti AIDS programs. They had one where drugs were being
supplied from Europe and it cost about 200.00 a year to keep someone
alive
who had AIDS. The same medication in the US was 10,000. There is
something
horribly wrong when you see that kind of a difference in costs of
medication.

What it says is that we're paying for the world's drugs. When you sort out
the arguments over this, you wind up with an accounting debate over
whether
we're making it up in pharma jobs and corporate taxes. I've tried to sort
it
out but it looks hopeless.


Not in the case of Zestril that I quoted. See the following:

Bruce, I worked in pharmaceutical marketing for four years and A-Z was one
of my clients, fer chrissake. Believe me, your costs have nothing to do with
manufacturing costs. Neither do ours. Yours are based on price controls and
accounting that covers only the marketing and distribution costs in
Thailand. Ours are based on everything they can get out of the market, with
no holds barred. Period.


AstraZeneca is one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies,
with a broad range of medicines designed to fight disease in important
areas of healthcare.

Active in over 100 countries with growing presence in important
emerging markets; corporate office in London UK; major R&D sites in
Sweden, the UK and the US.

In nearly all cases, I can buy a medicine cheaper here in Thailand
then in the U.S. and these are imported medicines. If they are made
locally it is about 1/10th the price.

Of course. You're larded with "compulsory licensing." That is, the Thai
government gives your pharma industry a license for pirating. d8-)


I realize that I'm using an example of an item where the price IS
controlled by the Government and I think it is a valid example of why
the U.S. prices are so much higher then other countries.

Why, because you have price controls and we don't? Sure, that's a good
reason why prices are higher here. It's also the reason we have the really
good jobs in pharma.


All pharmaceutical companies protect their developments by patent or
copyright and there is no reason for government price controls on
medicine except to ensure that pharmaceutical companies make a
killing.

Huh? You have that backwards. The price controls keep prices *down*, not up.


I heard the other day that the patents/copyright finally ran
out for Fosamax, a medicine used to treat osteoporosis. The made (I
forgot how many) billion dollars during the period the drug was
protected.

Of course. That's what the pharma business is all about. Big money on some
drugs, losses on many others. In the end, it's a highly profitable industry.
Or it was. Things are looking pretty iffy for Big Pharma right now.

Bruce, you started with an interesting point about manufacturing costs, but
you're barking up the wrong tree to use pharma as an example. There are no
conclusions that can be drawn about relative competitiveness from drug
pricing -- except that it's screwed up so deeply that every country is
different, and even every drug is different.

Why don't you try something else, like machinery or something?


you AIDs comment, I don't know whether the Thai government
subsidizes the AIDS program here or not but the cost to a Thai is just
at $1.00 a month under the 30-baht medical scheme. But, as I say I
don't know where the medicines come from except that they are legally
made.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

--
Ed-in-New Jersey