Thanks for response, touchy matter indeed.
People differ, they have different background, different level of education and different access to information different life experience, etc., therefore everyone’s opinion must be different by default.
I share my personal opinion here, that’s all. I appreciate everyone’s opinion said, you can count on that.
Canadian drugs are cheaper. Yes, there is a price tag difference for every country where the drug/or product goes for sell. It based on this particular country economy and buying power, the price vary sometimes very significantly, it could be over hundred percent.
Canadian government subsidizes in part the cost of drugs, it was in press. Good for Canadians one could say, but then the issue of re-export arise. When Canadian pharmacies sell drugs back to America they actually steal money from Canadian and Americans. Pharma companies have loses by losing a part of the local market. To keep business running they will definitely manipulate with the price of drugs in the future to cover this loss. Who is the winner? Take a guess.
The same valid for every country when local price comes to ‘profitable’ disproportion to prices in others, usually wealthier, countries. Who benefits from that? Go to internet and check the number of pharmacies on-line.
Sorry, I like use cars for making analogy, because they are complex, easy to imagine, distinctive, well-known brands, people usually know the cost of car related expenses.
I believe that if you deliver Mercedes in developing country for the price of Civic it will be back, re-exported, in couple of weeks. Someone will put the difference into the pocket and buy a Civic. This is very usual situation for developing countries.
I believe that you could not secure the delivery o high-priced drug door-to-door, and if you even could, there are always will be people who will re-sell them by themselves (or forced to sell back) instead of take them.
I have met guys who made a fortune working as suppliers for developing countries under UN umbrella, with UN programs. You will sleep better if I don’t tell you their experience.
As Hamlet said: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
My point in previous post was that creation of confrontation between medics and Abbott, using such controversial issue as a reason, is far from fair play. I see the situation that medics being used as a cover for financial disagreement only, it has nothing to do with the fate of sick people in developing country.
Manchester wrote:What I stated was that with these preventable diseases who gets the drugs and who does not should not be down to the charity of drug companies.
I think Pharma companies do charity always, even for purpose to keep a good image, but I also think they do what they can afford in their current situation. Maybe they will afford it next year, maybe never, I don’t know.
Frankly speaking, I don’t understand why Abbott must have a headache with “prevention of diseases in developing countries” at all. This must be a function of local government and supervising NGO.
American or Canadian farmer (UK, EU, name it) don’t feel themselves guilty despite of fact that somewhere in the world people still having hunger.
What the difference?
Humanity must start at home first. When all people in your family, neighborhood, home country got everything they need, only then it could spread abroad. It is a shame that retired American must hop on the bus and go to Canada or Mexico on the ‘drugs tour’, who will help them?
"All truth passes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Second it is violently opposed.
Third it is accepted as being self-evident."