The company is Glaxo Smith Kline.

Great for many drug companies that they have very effective lobbies in Washington, etc.

They make major contributions - but it's the citizens who get the vote. Each citizen gets one vote.

If each citizen contributed a modest amount to the (re-)election campaigns, the politicians would have freer hands when it came time to vote.

Right?

Are part of your political contributions tax deductible?

joyful guy/Ed

No, political and lobbying groups are not tax deductible. It's a shame, I love Sierra Club, but since they lobby, no tax breaks.

Anyway, the other big drug company, Pfizer, is NOT planning to blackmail the Canadian distributers. Perhaps people can, in addition to complaining in writing to GlaxoSmithKline, they can also thank Pfizer in writing for being reasonable. Tell GSK that this is very bad in public confidence and public perception of their company, reinforces the money-grabbing uncaring perception people have of them.

Pfizer is the larger company, with many more drugs, so it is possible that people could find a similar drug made by Pfizer.

I think the deadline for GSK is Jan 31, so if you do order your drugs from Canada, do it now, just in case. I believe the Canadian distributers are suing GSK, but that could take a while.

I have heard about these cheap Canadian drugs, but I still don't get it. If the American pharacuticals are selling drugs to Canadian distributors, don't they convert their wholesale price from American$ to Canadian$? And then, when the retail price is converted from Canadian$ back to American$, where does the savings come from? The conversion is constant, isn't it? The only way that I could see a savings, is if these pharmacutical companies charge Canadian distributors less than American distributors (after conversion, of course.) Or, if the Canadian retailers do not mark up the retail price as much as the American retailers. Can someone explain this to me?

Make sure that what you are getting is the same thing though! An example is the tylenol with codiene sold in Canada is not near the strength of the perscription version sold here. I learned this the hard way when I was in Canada and decided to get some, as it is non-perscription up there. Check milligrams, etc. and make sure it is the same.

Brenda

Hi porker with bounce,

Some Tylenol up here is available without prescription, but I think that the stuff with codeine may require a prescription - I know that the kind with some levels of codiene does.

A druggist on the radio the other morning said that for most of the drugs, the only difference is that they are labelled in French, as well.

A number of the drug companies manufacture in Canada, as well - so their costs of production would be different.

Governments are more heavily involved in the whole medical establishment, up here.

And are the agency that pays for a substantial amount of the drugs - so there may have been negotiations with the drug companies over prices.

A number of drug companies make drugs available in places like Africa at little more than the cost of production, as they realize that they can't afford the higher prices charged here, which pay for the research to develop new drugs, which is hugely expensive.

With regard to the amount of the active ingredient involved - the prescription written by the U.S. doctor would specify, and the copy written by the Canadian doctor would be identical, in almost all cases.

joyful guy/Ed

windchime -- The Big Pharma companies are almost without exception headquartered in Europe, not the US. They do, indeed, charge their American distributors more than they charge any other country because most other countries (like the government of Canada) set limits on drug prices. The US government does not, which is the main reason Americans pay high prices for phamracueticals than anyone else.

The fuss is still going on: FDA just up here in discussions.

Savings something like 35% on quite a few of the Canadian-source drugs.

Drug companies are unhappy.

Broadcaster said the FDA arguments sounded much like drug cos. - suggested they seemed more interested in bottom line for drug cos. than inexpensive drugs for U.S. people.

Guess where a great number of U.S. legislators look for a major portion of the large amount of cash needed to run for re-election.

Good wishes for finding legislators whose main interest is the best interests of the citizens.

ole joyful