President Bush will use Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to begin a new effort to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance and try to capitalize on state innovations. Bush’s plan would financially reward states that make basic private policies more widely available. Already, more than a dozen states from Massachusetts to California have proposed expanding private health insurance, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Monday.
The president’s plan would not involve any new federal money. It would redirect some of the $30 billion the government spends annually to care for people without health insurance who show up at hospitals and emergency rooms. The administration expects opposition from Democrats, particularly those who favor a system of government-subsidized health insurance.
The AmSpec Blog reports:
1) Under the plan, individuals purchasing insurance on their own or through their employer would be exempt from paying income or payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of their income. This would translate into $4,500 for a family of four with income of $60,000. In addition, small businesses such as S-corporations would get the same tax incentives for providing healthcare as larger companies.
2) The second part of the plan would recognize that even with such tax incentives, some people would still be too sick or poor to find affordable healthcare. So, the plan would call for federal dollars currently being sent to institutions to be diverted to individual states doing “innovative things” to help individuals afford private insurance.
I wonder if state-sponsored Web sites for ordering imported drugs from Canada qualify as “innovative things” by the White House’s definition? Unfortunately, I doubt it.
Merrill Goozer, via Spin Thicket, provides a less-than-glowing analysis of Bush’s plan, saying it would create a two-tier healthcare system that favors the wealthy.
The American healthcare system is often heralded as the most advanced, efficient system of its kind in the world. President Bush has stated, “America has the best healthcare system in the world, pure and simple.”
My question is, “Compared to what?” If overpaying for healthcare plans, the consistent increase in prescription drug prices well beyond the rate of inflation, and the steady rise of the uninsured make it the best healthcare system in the world, I don’t want to know who comes in second place.
The New York Times recently presented one possible solution to our healthcare debacle: single-payer health insurance. The article states:
Yes, single-payer — that much-maligned idea that calls for everyone to pay into one insurer, typically the government or a public agency. The insurer then pays doctors, pharmacists and hospitals at preset rates. Patients who want unapproved procedures and doctors not willing to accept the standard payment remain free to deal with one another directly, outside the system. Such a system makes it much easier to deal with the growing costs of medical care, like administrative expenses and prescription drugs. It could also reduce the mountains of paperwork plaguing the current system and provide insurance coverage for the 46 million Americans now doing without it. What’s more, as demonstrated in France, Britain, Canada, Australia and other countries with functioning single-payer systems, significant savings can come without hurting the overall health of the population.
The Blue Bayou blog from the Houston Chronicle offers a different viewpoint:
Whether you like the idea of single-payer system or not, it seems reasonable to agree that a discussion of our healthcare system should start with an honest accounting of its costs, the amount of money that goes into overhead (such as the insurance industry), and the actual patient outcomes. So why are we, as a nation, convinced that our healthcare is the best when by most objective standards, it’s not? Why are we convinced that a single-payer system would lead to a government bureaucracy, when our privatized insurance industry bureaucracy eats up more healthcare expenditures than the government systems of other countries? Why are we convinced that private insurers must be more efficient, when the most efficient health systems in the US are those run by the government?
Is single-payer health insurance the way to go? Let me know what you think.
We’re planning the official launch of eDrugSearch.com next month, but that doesn’t mean you can’t become a member of the site today. We encourage you to sign up now to begin saving on prescription medications by searching from our more than 20,000 listings. All drug listings are from licensed online pharmacies that meet the highest professional standards.
US firms likely to outsource pharma products’ production
ISLAMABAD: A number of US pharmaceutical companies are planning to outsource research and development projects and production of pharmaceuticals to countries which offer suitable conditions for these activities, Alan P. Larson, Senior International Investment Adviser to a US-based law firm and former under secretary of Economic Business & Agricultural Affairs, said during a meeting with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz here on Wednesday…
(Aziz) said wide-ranging structural reforms introduced during the last seven years, coupled with macro-economic stability, consistency and continuity of policies, have transformed Pakistan into a destination of choice for foreign investors and during the last financial year the country received a total investment of $3.8 billion which was a record in the country’s history … Mr Larson said there is tremendous potential in Pakistan to undertake research in life sciences, which will lead to increase in production and export of pharmaceuticals from Pakistan.
Let me get this straight: Big Pharma can get its R&D done in Pakistan, but U.S. consumers can’t buy their drugs in Canada because of Big Pharma’s high R&D costs?
CanadaDrugTalk.com posts this quote from David MacKay, an international pharmacy expert and consultant:
The bottom line in 2007 is that enrollment costs are going up substantially, drug coverage is declining and the brand name coverage in the doughnut hole is being eliminated… Medicare D is an insurance program, not a benefit. As consumption increases, so too will cost. The changes in 2007 clearly demonstrate the limitations of the program. Therefore, seniors are wise to re-evaluate their plans and consider online Canadian pharmacies… especially since Customs seizures are no longer an issue.
MacKay is also quoted in this Toronto Star piece on Canadian imports.
Here’s an interesting story that describes how the rising cost of healthcare forced more than 500,000 Americans last year to seek medical care from overseas. The story talks about three Americans who saved $140,000 (even after travel expenses) by having their surgeries in New Delhi.
This same group of uninsured and underinsured has also decided to outsource their prescription medications. As discussed here, many uninsured and underinsured have decided to buy their prescription medications from Canada in order to cut back on their personal healthcare costs.
The federal government claims that safety is the reason that they don’t support these options to reduce the cost of personal healthcare. John Terhune — who went to New Delhi to have his hip replaced — had the best response: “There’s just no decision to it.”
In the fight to legalize the purchase of prescription medications from Canada, the FDA’s primary argument against importation is safety. But the reality is, the risk of purchasing unsafe drugs is no greater in Canada than the U.S.
Let’s say you buy a car stereo from the trunk of someone’s car; you are at higher risk of receiving a bogus product than if you purchased a stereo from an electronics retailer like Best Buy. The same is true for prescription drugs; if you buy from an unreputable pharmacy, you run the risk of receiving poor quality or counterfeit medication.
Did you know that the U.S. government is the number-one importer of prescription medication from Canada? The U.S. government uses cheaper Canadian drugs to fill the prescriptions of retired veterans, as well as for humanitarian aid when helping other countries. Numerous city and state governments have also introduced programs encouraging their residents to purchase medications from Canada. The actions of the our government at the federal, state and municipal level speaks volumes about the quality of medications coming from Canada.
Most of the name brand drugs found in Canada are from U.S. manufacturers and distributors. Because Canada has price controls, drug companies are forced to reduce their profit margin and sell the exact same drugs we use here in America for a much cheaper price. Several drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, have threatened to refuse to distribute drugs to Canadian pharmacies that ship to the U.S.
The bottom line is that Canadian prescription medications are just as safe and effective as those in U.S. pharmacies, and whether you are purchasing your medication from Canada or America, you should always make sure that a reputable pharmacy is filling your prescription. eDrugSearch.com makes this process easier for you by including only licensed pharmacies that meet exacting quality criteria in our search results.
While it is well-known that prescription medications from Canada are less expensive than the same drugs in the U.S., many consumers have concerns about the safety of Canadian drug imports. But is there any real reason for consumers to fear purchasing medications from licensed Canadian pharmacies?
The fact is, drugs purchased from licensed Canadian pharmacies generally come from the same U.S. drug manufacturers that ship them to American pharmacies. Legitimate pharmacies in the U.S. and Canada rarely, if ever, receive counterfeit medications.
In 2003 the U.S. House of Representatives approved importing prescription medications from Canada by a vote of 243 to 186. The U.S. Senate has voted similarly. Many state and local governments are currently purchasing Canadian medications for their employees. These actions by government officials speak volumes about the quality of drugs coming in from across the border.
Canadians drugs from licensed pharmacies are safe — period. So, why has the Bush Administration opposed legalization? The pharmaceutical lobby has enormous influence in Washington — and they are worried about their profits. Millions of Americans are already buying their prescription drugs from Canada. Big drug companies such as Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline have even gone so far as to refuse to sell to Canadian pharmacies that ship medications back to the United States.
The FDA was created to serve the American public by assuring that our food and drugs are safe. In recent decades, however, the FDA has focused less on public health and more on protecting drug-company profits. That’s the real reason the Bush Administration and the FDA oppose medication imports from Canada. Let’s look at some of the arguments against Canadian imports and compare them to the realities:
1. Loss of Jobs
The Bush Administration claims that legal Canadian imports will cause a loss of jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. The reality is that allowing drug imports — like other forms of free trade — will simply create a more competitive market, yielding lower prices that will put money back into American citizens’ pockets and stimulate the economy to produce even more jobs.
2. Terrorist Threat
The FDA has stated that the legal importation of drugs from Canada could create another means for a terrorist attack. This is simply fear-mongering. Millions of Americans — as well as many state and local governments — import their prescription medications from Canada every day, and do so safely. There is absolutely no evidence that legalizing drug imports will increase the terrorist threat.
3. Canadian Drugs Are Unsafe
It is evident that Canadian prescription medications are safe based on the actions of the very government that won’t legalize them. The U.S. government is the single largest importer of Canadian drugs in the world. Additionally, many city and state governments defy the FDA and import drugs for their employees. These medications are apparently safe enough for them, as well as the millions of Canadians that use them.
Despite what the FDA would like for you to think, drugs coming from Canada are safe and affordable. The bottom line is the importation of Canadian drugs is prohibited by the FDA in order to protect the interests of large pharmaceutical companies. It’s time for this to change.
