>>>>>>>>>>>BTW, I still don't understand why are American pharmaceutical companies selling their expensive drugs in other countries so far below its market price? I mean, the price here is the honest market price - what they sell them for in Canada must be unfair competition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Two words : Price controls
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Of course, you already knew that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>but it did not fit to the task: corporation must be guilty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's all so easy if you ignore all governmental blockades to a free market, you can then blame corporations for not being fair and proclaim the free market doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actually, 'blame corporations first' demagogues are a bit more sophisticated. They tell that 'free market does not work properly and should be improved', by applying another batch of blockades and prohibitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, and they should be ashamed. The corporations should be free to sell a $0.11 drug at $250, if the market can take it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The very idea of free market includes price mechanism based on supply/demand. It means that some company can sell some product for, let say, $250 unless another company comes up with the similar product selling it for $200. At this point, the first company will have to cut prices.
>>>>
>>>>The truth is that the 1st company will sue the 2nd one, and due to court costs etc, the price of the drug will go to $350.
>>>
>>>Wow, Alan. If it is all that you can come up with, then I still have some hopes in you (remember that thread about going out without pants).
>>
>>You think? When a company develops a pharmaceutical, they patent it. the patent is good for 17 years. During that time, they have a monopoly on that product. There essentially is no competition. If someone else develops a similar drug, there is very often a lawsuit filed over patent rights. Regardless that you've never heard of such a thing, it does happen.
>
>You could give these details in the first message for clarification purposes.
>Firstly, about patents. It is the only way to defend intellectual property and 17 years does not sound as awfully long time. Do you propose to abolish patent protection?

Nope. I believe in the right to protect intellectual property. I don't even disagree that the companies should be allowed to make a good profit. What I was disagreeing with was your seeming to imply that companies in Canada were suffering hardship because of government interference. They make quite a nice profit here in Canada too. It's one of the reasons they continue to sell here.

I was also disagreeing with the implication that if the controls were lifted, there would automatically be lots of competition and prices would drop.

>Secondly, there are no patents formulated so wide as you seemingly imply. There many brand-name drugs intended to cure the same medical conditions, i.e. they compete with no ensuing litigation. To be precise you would be hard-pressed to find a disease that could be cured by the only drug. On the contrary, there are well-known examples of multiple drugs for the same disease. Should I give you some?

Even with the price controls in Canada, there are drugs for some diseases that nobody but the extremely wealthy can afford. There are drugs that cost thousands of dollars a month, and not a lot of people can afford them, so many just do without. There is no competition to bring down the prices for most of those types of medications. I'm certainly glad I don't suffer from such a disease.