posted
News site Fark.com has an article up for comment about a group of prescription drug protestors who feel Amtrak wronged them. The Fark.com comments can be a very interesting read at times, and there should hopefully be some Amtrak discussion (unless it devolves into an all out flamewar on prescription drug costs). LinkPosts: 88 | From: Omaha, NE | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently the sponsors of this excursion comprised of two comparatively spartan "PV" were of thought that they could delay Amtrak #63 while they had their K-9 and pony show of "I can't eat if I take my meds....'
Amtrak had other ideas and they were wise to so advise the sponsors. No need for elderly folk to board or alight the train other than origin or destination and expose Amtrak to the potential liability arising from personal injury matters.
If the sponsors contemplated a "whistle stop' tour of sorts, they should have gone and chartered an entire train such as the Kerry campaign did this past summer.
My sympathy for these folks is rather short; would be even shorter if I were a Canadian citizen (what sayeth you Mr. Royaltrain), considering that with a national healthcare system in place some portion of the cost of the meds these pill poppers were in search of could be subsidized by Canadian taxpayers.
Here is info on the two cars chartered and moved MIA-97-NYP-63-TWO: Pacific Union Mohave
[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 10-14-2004).]
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Mr. Norman, my sympathy for these people is also rather short. It comes across as grandstanding. If you can affort the private car train trip, you ought to be able to afford you medicines. Reminds me of the woman who complained she could not afford to buy milk for her children, but somehow she managed to afford the cigarette hanging out of her mouth. Yes, medicines are expensive, and more expensive in the US than almost everywhere else, but a lot of that is our legal climate. (Who's the rich malpractice lawyer running for VP?) Do you want the rest of the package that goes with the Canadian National Health system? If not, quit your griping, and lets try to fix what we have, not kill it.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Mr. Norman I am sympathetic to the seniors on the RX express, although I understand Amtrak's postition in not delaying the trains for news conferences. I think the seniors are on the right track (please forgive the pun)in pointing out that the multi-billion dollar drug industry, thanks to the protectionist Bush administration,is able to prevent various health authorities in the U.S. from buying prescription drugs in bulk. Here in Canada, the government health care monopoly (for better or worse) at least has the power to buy drugs in bulk and pass on the savings to all Canadians regardless of financial need. The RX train is obviously a publicity stunt, but I think it has done a creditable job in pointing out certain deficiencies in the U.S. health system. Of course from a Canadian perspective, if huge numbers of Americans flood the Canadian market, it could drive our cheap drugs nearer to U.S. prices. So please try to help your seniors so they don't have to come to Canada.
Posts: 524 | From: Toronto Ont. Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks to the protectionist Bush administration,is able to prevent various health authorities in the U.S. from buying prescription drugs in bulk.
Royaltrain, it has been the law of the land for decades; long before Bush became President. In fact, Congress would have to repeal the law that bans drugs from other countries without our FDA approving those drugs. IOW, you are attempting to blame someone that has nothing to do with the ban.
[This message has been edited by mikesmith (edited 10-15-2004).]
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was not referring to drugs coming from outside the U.S. but the ability of the states or other jurisdictions to negotiate bulk purchases from manufacturers (that are mainly in the U.S.).
Posts: 524 | From: Toronto Ont. Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also a great problem, now, with Canada unable to purchase enough pharmaceuticals, from legitimate companies, to fill the demand from US customers. In some cases, they have purchased "copy cat" drug products from Central and South America, Mexico, and China. Many of the drugs coming from these areas are subpotent or do not comply with good manufacturing standards.
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are outside the US, one of the best assurances doctors use is, the medicines we prescribe are either imported from USA, "US FDA approved" or "Meet US standards". Sometimes we hear, sorry, but we can give you this European or British or German or Japanese alternative. Funny, we don't usually hear of much of anyone else. Also funny that these same US medicines are cheaper here than in the US.
For all the silliness of some US regulations one I have little problem with is the FDA. Remember Thalidomide and the thalidomide babies? As was said, this can not be blamed on Bush. That is pure political grandstanding. The regulations are much older. Now as far as the legal climate we have, that is a different story, and one thing the Canadian suppliers have is insulation from the US legal system. If they lose that, see what happens to the prices.
[This message has been edited by George Harris (edited 10-17-2004).]
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
