 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Glaucoma / January 2004Canada drugs
Would anyone order drops from a Canadian pharmacy ? I ordered a supply of Lumigan & now ,to my dismay, I have to use Cosopt too.. My pressures were 23.My depth of fields have gone from normal to borderline.I don't yet know my corneal thickness. After nearly 6 years,I finally had the pictures taken to tell corneal thickness.I will go in in a month & I will be sure to ask about this. Since I only have 1 good eye, I really worry!Lora >Would anyone order drops from a Canadian pharmacy ? Hi Lora. As you know I'm new, but when I Googled for info on Xalatan last night I saw this question come up about it. I have also ordered other medications from Canada (my insurance won't cover Differin for a skin condition I have on my forearms, drat them), for what that might be worth. Anyway, because of the temperature sensitivity a number of people have expressed doubts about ordering glaucoma meds, but apparently some pharmacies do ship them in cooled containers. Perhaps you could ask the pharmacy you were thinking of trying how they protect the medication during shipment? If they don't have a plan to keep them in the storage range then you might want to skip that pharmacy and look for another. I've been pleased with the service/prices I've gotten from Canada on the Differin, and the only difference I've seen between the $112 US tube and the $34 tube from Canada is the Canadian one is bilingual (the package is bilingual, that is, so far the Differin itself hasn't said much). Without the question of storage temps, I'd order drugs from Canada without hesitation. I know that's not much help, but I do wish you the best! If you ask your dr. about shipping meds from Canada, would you mind posting the response here? It would be interesting to know. Leigh -- Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich. - D. Duck Hi Leigh,I don't think the temperature should be a problem with Lumigan & Cosopt. It doesn't require refrigeration. Xalatan is more temperature sensitive. I don't think I will ask my eye doc about getting drugs from Canada. I have a feeling he would hit the roof! But I will ask my regular physician when I go for my physical in early Jan. I feel I know him better. I will certainly query the Canadian phamacy about safety in shipping if I decide to order Cosopt. Lora > Hi Leigh,I don't think the temperature should be a problem with Lumigan > & Cosopt. It doesn't require refrigeration. Xalatan is more temperature [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I will certainly query the Canadian phamacy about safety in shipping if > I decide to order Cosopt. Lora Personally, It doesn't matter to me from where my patients get there medications...as long as they USE THEM. --Dr. Cohn I get my Xalatan from Canada in a normal package (not ice pack) and have had no problems. I told the DR I was going to do this and he had no objections. I got the impression that they have made it less temperature sensitive than it was, or claimed to be, when it first came out. But I always check to see that the liquid appears clear and not brownish before putting it in the refrigerator for storage. One of the nice things about ordering from Canada, other that the price, is you fax the prescription so you have the original. So if something happens to the shipment you can go to a local source and get it filled. Joe Lockwood > Would anyone order drops from a Canadian pharmacy ? I ordered a supply > of Lumigan & now ,to my dismay, I have to use Cosopt too.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > eye, > I really worry!Lora > I get my Xalatan from Canada in a normal package (not ice pack) and have had > no problems. I told the DR I was going to do this and he had no objections. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > source and get it filled. > Joe Lockwood A few months ago, my insurance company stopped covering Xalatan. My doc switched me to Travatan. The manufacturer's documentation which comes with Travatan says that it loses efficacy after 6 weeks. The problem is, the bottle has 90 drops and I use it in one eye, once a day, so if I go by the manufacturer's warning, I essentially have to throw away half a bottle of medication after 6 weeks (or equivalently, have to buy twice as many bottles as I would if I used one bottle in 90 days). I asked both the pharmacist and my doc about this. The pharmacist said I should abide by the warning and throw out half the bottle after 6 weeks, my doc said the medication won't lose its efficacy before I had used the entire 90 day supply. I'm going with my doc's recommendation for now since it is the most cost effective option and supports my low opinion of US pharmaceutical companies. I'll save my tirade on US prescription medication costs and insurance prescription coverage (or rather lack thereof) for another time. Dave Dave, >I'll save my tirade on US prescription medication costs and insurance >prescription coverage (or rather lack thereof) for another time. This isn't regarding glaucoma per se, but you might add this small tidbit to your tirade. I have a skin condition on my forearms called keratosis pilaris. United Health Care, my insurance company, would not cover the prescription my dermatologist recommended (Differin cream), so I shelled out the $100 for a tube of it from a local pharmacy, then ordered THREE more tubes from Canada for $99 total. Which isn't all that unusual, but... the best part is... My insurance company is currently sponsoring a sweepstakes giving away Carribean cruises. UHC can give away multiple thousands-of-dollars cruises, but they can't cover a tube of Differin to a premium-paying customer with a prescription from a licensed professional. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. NOT. Leigh -- got root? > Dave, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Leigh Hi Leigh, Sorry to hear about your predicament. I think it says a lot when Americans have to buy their prescription meds for signifcantly lower cost from Canada when these same meds are manufactured by American companies. Of course, if the pharmaceutical lobby has its way, this practice will be made illegal. The US has arguably the most backward health care system of any first world nation. My wife, an Australian citizen, cannot believe the ridiculous cost of health care here. They have equally good medical care in Australia, at a small fraction of the cost to the patient. In addition, in Australia one is not faced with the horrible complexities of health insurance that US citizens have to deal with (I cannot begin to count the number of times I had to contact my PPO provider and my wife had to contact her HMO provider to straighten out errors they made last year). I would venture to say the same is true of many other wealthy nations. Of course, the US pharmaceutical companies (along with other members of the US health care community who stand to lose out) would rather no one know that good health care can also be affordable health care. And when one segment of the health care community is cornered on cost issues, 9 times out of 10 they will blame their high costs as resulting from another segment of the same community. I find it laughable how our politians are patting themselves on the back (as our President did in his State of the Union address) for finally getting around to giving seniors a federally subsidized prescription plan (one which won't go into effect for another two years no less). Other countries have had such plans in place (or have been able to keep drug costs down) for *all* their citizens for years. Hmmm, you probably shouldn't have got me going :) Dave > I find it laughable how our politians are patting themselves on the > back (as our President did in his State of the Union address) for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hmmm, you probably shouldn't have got me going :) I live in Canada and hesitate to tell you all what I pay for Xalatan and Cosopt. Let's just say I don't lose any sleep over whether I can afford it. The thing I can never understand is how so many Americans who are opposed to universal free (at the point of service) health care on ideological grounds and yet have no problem with universal free education. <snip> > I live in Canada and hesitate to tell you all what I pay for Xalatan > and Cosopt. Let's just say I don't lose any sleep over whether I can > afford it. The thing I can never understand is how so many Americans > who are opposed to universal free (at the point of service) health > care on ideological grounds and yet have no problem with universal > free education. And what is your tax rate? Here we pay max 38%, based on income. Sherry > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And what is your tax rate? Here we pay max 38%, based on income. The tax rate is higher, but like the citizens of the vast majority of developed countries in the world, Canadians view subsidized health care as something they are prepared to pay for. We see universality as a right not a privilege, and as a responsibility shared by all citizens whether they're perfectly healthy or in constant need of medical care. No one likes paying taxes, but I've never heard Brits, Danes, French or the Canadians ever clamor for lower taxes destined for health care. I don't have kids, yet I still have to pay school taxes -- the argument against paying those taxes is attractive to me, but I recognize that the society I live in needs an educated populace as a whole, so although I don't like it, I still pay up. In any case, a lot of what you're saving on taxes in the US you're spending on health insurance and HMOs -- and I don't recall ever hearing anyone in the US say how much they love their HMO because they think they're getting their money's worth and spectacular service! In the rest of the developed world the details may differ (there's a private sector in the UK but not in Canada, for example) universal health care is available. You can't get turned down. You can't get cut off and in most places the quality of care is excellent -- if not as luxurious as in *some* US hospitals. Different countries, different systems, and different priorities. But the notion that lower taxes automatically means a better life is not one that I automatically buy into. Tax cuts aren't always beneficial either. In Canada we wiped out our deficit in recent years, and it's become an article of faith accepted by all the leading political parties (and supported by the public) that we should maintain that status quo -- even if it means maintaining higher taxes. The government of the US sees things differently, and is prepared to let the deficit climb. Different strokes. > > I find it laughable how our politians are patting themselves on the > > back (as our President did in his State of the Union address) for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ideological grounds and yet have no problem with universal free > education. The opponents of universal or socialized health care in the US have been successful in scaring the general public by saying that such a system will necessitate increasing taxes to absurdly high levels and that care under such a system will be signficiantly inferior to what it is now. Of course, all one needs to do is to look to countries such as Canada or Australia to know that both of these statements are simply not true. What's more, people here fail to take into account that when an uninsured person cannot afford to pay his $15,000 bill for outpatient surgery or $200,000 bill for major surgery which requires extended hospitlization, it causes costs to continue to rise and ultimately health insurance premiums (for those of us fortunate enough to have health insurance) to increase while coverage under these plans becomes more limited and more complex. I personally would gladly pay a few hundred dollars a year more in taxes to have the peace of mind that if my wife should need significant medical care when she is traveling (which currently would not be covered by her insurance) we wouldn't have to worry about paying medical bills which could amount to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars or that, if I were to lose my job, I wouldn't have to pay hundreds of dollars a month to keep my current health insurance coverage. Unfortunately, many Americans don't understand these realities until they are affected by them. >I live in Canada and hesitate to tell you all what I pay for Xalatan and >Cosopt. Let's just say I don't lose any sleep over whether I can afford >it. It's the issue of "fairness" that is bothering Americans. By paying high drug prices we are paying for the research that makes new drugs available. Then other countries offer our drug companies much lower prices, take it or leave it. Because the incremental [research-free] cost of manufacture is low, the companies can still turn good profit and they take the offers. So what's to be done. Unfortunately, nothing is to be done. If we won't sell them the drugs these other countries have made it clear they will just ignore our patents and manufacture the drugs. That leaves invasion, but we have already invaded Canada several times without success. John > >I live in Canada and hesitate to tell you all what I pay for Xalatan and > >Cosopt. Let's just say I don't lose any sleep over whether I can afford [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ignore our patents and manufacture the drugs. That leaves invasion, but we > have already invaded Canada several times without success. You make it sound as though all the research and development is done in the US and none is done anywhere else. But that's just not the case. The major companies do research around the world, wherever they have manufacturing facilities. I've done some PR work for Schering-Plough Canada and I can assure you that there is a *lot* of research conducted in Canada by the same drug companies that are doing research in the US. Many products are developed in Europe and Canada *before* they go on sale in the US. The reason prices are lower here and in other countries is *not* that there is no research conducted here and therefore the costs of research are not passed on to the customer. The reason prices are lower here and in other countries is because prices are *regulated* and profits are therefore capped. A lot of people in the US believe that drug companies are making obscenely high profits at the expense of the US customer -- simply because prices are not regulated there. If the political will existed, prices would be regulated in the US too. And that will may becoe more of a factor: As the population ages, watch for this to become a *huge* political issue. >> >I live in Canada and hesitate to tell you all what I pay for Xalatan and >> >Cosopt. Let's just say I don't lose any sleep over whether I can afford [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> ignore our patents and manufacture the drugs. That leaves invasion, but we >> have already invaded Canada several times without success. >You make it sound as though all the research and development is done in >the US and none is done anywhere else. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >are doing research in the US. Many products are developed in Europe and >Canada *before* they go on sale in the US. Please take the trouble to read what I said. I did not mention location. It does not matter in the least WHERE the research is done. It could be done in Bangladesh. What we are concerned with is who is PAYING for it not where it is done. The American consumer is paying for it through high prices and other countries are getting a free ride. And anything we try to do about it will not be effective. If the American consumer decides to follow the rest of the world, progress in pharmaceuticals will come to a halt. "Obscene" profits oil the wheels progress. >The reason prices are lower here and >in other countries is because prices are *regulated* and profits are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >obscenely high profits at the expense of the US customer -- simply >because prices are not regulated there. Profits are usually a very small part of the total cost of developing and marketing a product. Where they are not small you can be sure that risk is very high. "Regulation"/price-control solutions will just lead to scarcity. That's been proven repeatedly, from the Romans to the Soviets to Nixon to Carter. Look at what has happened to supplies of vaccines after the US government got into the act. If you think drug profits are high, buy some of their stocks and make your fortune. > Please take the trouble to read what I said. I did not mention location. > It does not matter in the least WHERE the research is done. It could be [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you think drug profits are high, buy some of their stocks and make your > fortune. I'm no expert, but I do not think that the drug companies can convincingly be portrayed as *victims* in all this when, according to Fortune 500 data, the top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in pure profit than the top seven auto companies, the top seven oil companies, the top seven airline companies and the top seven media companies. The 12 pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 made $10 billion more than the top 24 motor vehicle industry companies, which includes Ford and GM. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry has spent millions on television advertisements and lobbying against serious prescription drug legislation. How did they manage it? Maybe this might provide a few clues: http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/magazine/0503_bigfix.cfm >.... according to >Fortune 500 data, the top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >than the top 24 motor vehicle industry companies, which includes Ford >and GM. Profits are capitalism's measure of success, not an object of dark suspicion. Your figures indicate that the drug industry may be the world's most successful. Bravo to them, in the same way we would congratulate a World Series winning baseball team. Apparently your answer to their success would be to chop off their heads. But then some other industry would automatically become #1 and would come into your gun sights. And after all the heads of these profit making miscreants are lined up in a row, who will then supply improvements in our drugs and oil supply and autos and even in our food? John > >.... according to > >Fortune 500 data, the top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > most successful. Bravo to them, in the same way we would congratulate a > World Series winning baseball team. And yet, you complained in an earlier post of the inability to do well as a pharamceutical shareholder! > Apparently your answer to their > success would be to chop off their heads. But then some other industry [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > John I'm not against profits. I'm not against capitalism. I'm not against corporations. However I do feel uncomfortable with profits as great as these when the other side of the coin is an inequitable system that makes it impossible for many people to afford the drugs they *NEED* to stay healthy. And that's really all I have to say about this. You and I are evidently not going to see eye to eye on this matter, so from here in in I'll concentrate on matters that pertain to the medical conditions of our respective eyes. > >.... according to > >Fortune 500 data, the top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > John PS I notice you didn't have much to say about the practices on that site I referred you to -- fire away! "Profits are capitalism's measure of success, . . ." And preservation of vision is ophthalmology's measure of success. Never the twain shall meet. As Jesus said, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." If the cost of some drug company making a huge profit is a CEO pulling down $20 million a year and a health system revolving around money, while those unable to cough up the bloated price for medications lose their eyesight, something's terribly wrong, in my humble opinion. Sorry again -- injecting politics and religion into the discussion on the same day! Shame on me! > >.... according to > >Fortune 500 data, the top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > John > >.... according to > >Fortune 500 data, the top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > John I guess you would applaud the guy who sells drinking water for $15 per one liter bottle after an earthquake. MC, the Webster address you posted was interesting, and most of the information has been written in other articles. Unfortunately I don't think much will change so long as the special interests ,such as the pharmaceutical industries, are allowed to pump money into the coffers of the Washington "political whores" who value these industrial "johns" as to valuable to their election not to do as they wish. You buy someone and you expect them to perform, and as they say, "everyone has his price" and this seems true for most politicians. Joe Lockwood > > Please take the trouble to read what I said. I did not mention location. > > It does not matter in the least WHERE the research is done. It could be [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/magazine/0503_bigfix.cfm >Please take the trouble to read what I said. I did not mention location. >It does not matter in the least WHERE the research is done. It could be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >follow the rest of the world, progress in pharmaceuticals will come to a >halt. "Obscene" profits oil the wheels progress. Obscene profits oil the wheels of Congress and all the other elected crooks in office. The drug companies make large campaign contributions to prevent regulation of their activities and profits. Ed Patterson <snip> > Hi Leigh, > Sorry to hear about your predicament. I think it says a lot when [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Hmmm, you probably shouldn't have got me going :) > Dave Yes, but what is the tax rate there? Is it comparable to that of Canada and England, both of which the individual gets less from their paycheck than the government? "Affordable" health care = government subsidized health care. I can see where a national health would be a boon to the sick, but for the person who never gets sick is getting socked. And what about the waits? Someone from Canada once told me "you Americans would never be happy with our system because you don't like to wait". Why are so many Canadians coming down here for elective What says a lot about the med problem is not insurance or government subsidies, but the sheer high profits of the pharmaceutical companies. The reason that our prices are so high are in part due to the price- caps of the other countries - the pharmaceuticals aren't allowed to charge as much there as here. I've heard pharmaceutical reps state that drugs are priced according to the country's economy - well, haven't they ever looked at the poor in this country? Not everyone can afford their prices, not even the middle class who have a lot of med bills, only those in the "rich" bracket. Do you all realize, however, that the drug companies *do* have assistance programs for those who qualify? http://www.needymeds.com/MainPage.html Our system needs an overhaul for sure. Start with tort reform. Set a cap on 'Pain and Suffering' - HAH! Too many damn lawyers in Congress. Then when lawsuits are under control, maybe the docs won't feel the need to do every little test just to make sure the bases are covered. Next step is to just get the insurance companies to pay the bill. I've worked in medical records and the billing office and you wouldn't believe how much run-around we got from the insurance companies. Did you know that 70% of the doctor's office expenses are for BILLING?????? That includes all the re-billing, sending of medical records, etc to get the ins. co. to pay. There's a clinic in our area that takes cash only and the prices there are so low it's unbelievable! Sherry > <snip> > > Hi Leigh, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Yes, but what is the tax rate there? [... clip ...] * The personal income tax rate in Canada is roughly the same as in the US -- a bit lower, actually. It varies (in 2004) from 16 percent (first CA$35,000 of income)to a maximum of 29 percent on taxable incomes over CA$113,804. The provincial tax (similar to the US state tax) varies by province (just as the US state tax does) from roughly 6 percent up to as much as 14 percent on high-income individuals. http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/2004_rate-e.html for more details. Australian personal income tax rates are roughly the same as US, varying from 17 percent up to as much as 47 percent for high income individuals. For more data, see: http://www.acca.org.uk/news/releases/910591 The only coutries that have a maximum personal income tax rate above 50 percent are Austria 50, Belgium 55, Denmark 59, Germany 53, Japan 50, and Netherlands 60. (As a side issue, note that Germany, Netherlands, and especially Japan, have life expectancies significantly higher than the US.) Remember that these are the top marginal tax rates. Average rates would be substantially lower. Also remember that there is a lot of variation among these countries in the treatment of joint returns, etc. I would characterize the US health care system as very good in quality and extremely high in cost. It is the efficiency of our system that is no good. Pharmaceutical companies have extraordinarily high profit margins. They claim they need this profit to invest in R & D to keep new products coming out. But only about one-third of their profits are spent on R & D. earle * > <snip> > > Yes, but what is the tax rate there? Is it comparable to that of > Canada and England, both of which the individual gets less from their > paycheck than the government? "Affordable" health care = government > subsidized health care. My wife was in the 38% tax bracket in Australia. However, Australia states levy no state income taxes (state income tax averages out to around 5% in the US; those fortunate enough to live in Washington, Texas, and Florida of course pay no state income tax). Australia has no social security tax (employers there are required contribute directly to employees' retirement accounts). Social security tax amounts to about 8% of an employee's income in the US, and the employee will probably not get back all she has contributed to social security when she retires. No seperate medicare tax in Australia either. Nor state sales tax. I'd say once all the various US taxes are added up, Australians do equally well if not better tax wise than Americans do. > I can see where a national health would be a boon to the sick, but for > the person who never gets sick is getting socked. Few people never get sick or never need health care. How many people do you know have never been to a doctor? > And what about the waits? Someone from Canada once told me "you > Americans would never be happy with our system because you don't like > to wait". Why are so many Canadians coming down here for elective LMAO I'm glad you bring this up. Right now, my wife has a problem with her leg. Under her HMO plan, she must first see her primary care physician. She made an appointment a few days ago to see this doctor today (the soonest she could get in). The doctor cancelled; she won't be able to see her until late next week (assuming the doc doesn't cancel again). My wife's options now are to wait to see this doctor, to go to the emergency room (in which case her HMO will cover part of it), or to go to another doctor and pay full fee (probably in excess of $100). Some people in the US are already waiting for medical care. My wife assures me that in Australia, she would be into see a doctor, covered by insurance, in less than 2 days. > What says a lot about the med problem is not insurance or government > subsidies, but the sheer high profits of the pharmaceutical companies. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > afford their prices, not even the middle class who have a lot of med > bills, only those in the "rich" bracket. Drug company reps will say whatever it takes to keep the large profits rolling in. A friend of mine is in the drug clinical trial business and attends Drug Information Association meetings regularly. I went to Baltimore with her for one of these meetings a few years ago. I was simply astounded at the display of money. One clinical research company rented out the National Aquarium to woo business one evening. A drug company rented out Camden Yards. Drugs are big business in the US and the wealthy people in these companies certainly don't want to see their high quality of life diminish. So yes, unnecessarily high drug costs are part of the problem, but not all of it IMO. > Do you all realize, however, that the drug companies *do* have > assistance programs for those who qualify? > http://www.needymeds.com/MainPage.html I picked a drug that we have been talking about, Xalatan. I don't see it on this list. What does a person do who has had Xalatan prescribed for glaucoma and wants to get it at the lowest price? Well, judging from responses here, he or she gets it from Canada. For some of these programs, one has to be a patient in a hospital, for most, one has to be very poor. What about some members of the middle class who aren't poor enough to qualify for these programs but have no prescription insurance? > Our system needs an overhaul for sure. Start with tort reform. Set a > cap on 'Pain and Suffering' - HAH! Too many damn lawyers in Congress. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > get the ins. co. to pay. There's a clinic in our area that takes cash > only and the prices there are so low it's unbelievable! Large monetary law suit settlements are certainly a problem as well and should be controlled. However, bear in mind why these came about in the first place. Because juries perceive doctors and drug companies as getting filthy rich by sticking it to the little guy. This is a perception which many would argue has at least some validity. I can believe insurance companies bear some of the blame having talked to so many incompetent and uncaring insurance reps over the past year. However, they don't bear all of it IMO, and getting them to pay the bill will not work as the only solution to this large problem. In the end, they will simply increase premiums, restrict coverage more, etc. > Drug company reps will say whatever it takes to keep the large profits > rolling in. A friend of mine is in the drug clinical trial business [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > see their high quality of life diminish. So yes, unnecessarily high > drug costs are part of the problem, but not all of it IMO. The irony is of course that the drugs being sent from Canada to the US are made by the *SAME* companies. The difference is the prices are regulated here. > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I can see where a national health would be a boon to the sick, but for > > the person who never gets sick is getting socked. * The 'person who never gets sick'?? They just walk around healthy until they are 75 or 80 years old, then drop dead on the sidewalk? The whole idea of insurance is that everyone pays into it, and those who need care, get it. * [...] > > And what about the waits? Someone from Canada once told me "you > > Americans would never be happy with our system because you don't like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be able to see her until late next week (assuming the doc doesn't > cancel again). * This sounds *exactly* like my experience with my HMO (in California). * * You spoke of the cost of Xalatan. When Xalatan was added to my regimen, I paid over US$50 for that little half-teaspoon bottle. If I was lucky, I could get a month's supply (60 drops) out. That's almost a buck a drop. When dosing, if a drop missed my eye and rolled down my cheek, I thought -- there goes another dollar. I felt I should scoop it up with my finger and stick it in my mouth -- anything to get it into the system! The US health care system stinks! The quality of care varies tremendously depending on where you live. The postings to this newsgroup bear that out. The cost is extraordinarily high. We have a lot of room from improvement. earle * <snip> > A few months ago, my insurance company stopped covering Xalatan. My > doc switched me to Travatan. The manufacturer's documentation which [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > insurance prescription coverage (or rather lack thereof) for another > time. Dave When I was using Xalatan, my glauc doc said the same thing - for me to go ahead and finish off the bottle as long as I kept it in the required temp range. I think the pharmacist has a legal obligation to say what the standard protocol is - he probably could be responsible for giving you info that doesn't match what the pharmaceutical company recommends. I've also heard that meds are good for quite some time beyond the expiration date. I learned something interesting awhile back..... the expiration date that the pharmacist puts on the prescription bottle is one year from the date of the prescription, unless their bulk package shows an earlier one. The drugs could be good for more time than that one year. I found that out when the pharmacist had used the orig. bottle instead of putting the med in an Rx bottle and the orig. bottle had a longer shelf-life than what he put on the label! I think we're all feeling the tirades about pharmaceutical companies and how they're ripping us all off. Did you know that they have the largest profit of any business group? They make about 17-18% profits. Banks are next in line - they make about 13%. Really ticks me off when people's health is at risk and these companies are making such obscene profits from suffering! <getting down off of soapbox> Sherry I should have an order of Lumigan & Cosopt on its way to me now. With this cold snap I'm praying it won't freeze. I voiced my concerns about the temperature & drops to the person who took my order, & she said the pharmacist wouldn't send them if it wasn't safe & packs them good. Also they continually move along in truck.I would think these same things could happen enroute to a local drugstore.Lora As a matter of curiosity, what do you pay for Canadian Xalatan? > I get my Xalatan from Canada in a normal package (not ice pack) and have had > no problems. I told the DR I was going to do this and he had no objections. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > eye, > > I really worry!Lora Paid 110 US$ for 4 bottles on 9/18/03 plus 12.95 shipping. The shipping is per total order, so it was spread out over other meds for my wife. Shipment is air and I sign a receipt when delivered to my door. Good exp. date of 02/2006. Price will vary with dollar vs. Canadian dollar exchange rate. Also the price may rise as pressure from the Bush/FDA/Pharmaceutical axis of greed puts pressure on this. Sorry, I know all you wanted was a price(:. Joe Lockwood > As a matter of curiosity, what do you pay for Canadian Xalatan? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > eye, > > > I really worry!Lora Thanks Joe. It's certainly cheaper than at my corner pharmacy. > Paid 110 US$ for 4 bottles on 9/18/03 plus 12.95 shipping. The shipping is > per total order, so it was spread out over other meds for my wife. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > > eye, > > > > I really worry!Lora > I get my Xalatan from Canada ...SNIP to end. Well my post seemed to have generated quite a thread, and the posts were very interesting---especially the myth that US citizens a less taxed that elsewhere. Comparing tax rates is difficult because taxes come from many sources and the total is what counts. But another important factor is what do you consider you get back from the taxes. This is a very broad field so I'll limit it to medical. Canadian drugs are cheaper because the government acts as the peoples advocate. In the US, the government (excluding itself) sits back and lets anyone get all it can, i.e., law of the jungle. So, if you work for the government or large corporation you have a reasonable avocat on your side. But On the bigger issue of health care, it depends on where you are. I'm on Medicare because of age, so I have a quasi Canadian health insurance, except that I pay for supplemental coverage that Medicare does not cover. So I should add this to my tax base for a comparison. But take a much younger person who wants to have his own business (mom and pop in days gone by) and he has a family member with a pre-existing medical condition. He pays his taxes but he must buy a policy on his own for health coverage, and why should it not be as good as a government or corporate worker. So, if it is available, he should add the cost to his tax base if he wants to compare it to his Canadian neighbor. Now I wonder who is overtaxed. Well there are many facets to this subject, but simple comparisons of government tax rates between countries is, in my opinion, simplistic. Joe Lockwood > > I get my Xalatan from Canada ...SNIP to end. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > opinion, simplistic. > Joe Lockwood Hi Joe, I am in total agreement that comparing only tax rates is overly simplistic. For example, as I mentioned in another post, when people cannot pay their medical bills in the US, ultimately, others pay in the way of increased insurance premiums, higher deductibles, etc. Even if you have insurance through your work and your employer eats the total cost of increased premiums, that still affects you because there is now less money available for that raise you were hoping for. Just because these costs do not have the scary "TAX" label on them does not mean we are not paying for them, in one way or another. > > > I get my Xalatan from Canada ...SNIP to end. > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Just because these costs do not have the scary "TAX" label on them > does not mean we are not paying for them, in one way or another. Unfortunately, the way some Americans pay is with their eyesight, their health and their lives. Not all of those who can't afford medical care are able to find the "free" kind. That's one basic difference between the Canadian and American systems: in Canada (as I understand it), everybody gets a minimal level of health care, whether they can afford it or not; the government sees to it. Here, the government takes too much of a laissez-faire attitude, especially under Republican administrations, in my opinion. Republicans may have the rhetoric down ("No child left behind," etc.), but when it comes to the action, they too often look the other way and let good old capitalism run free, in my opinion. Forgive the politics! Don Singleton |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.