One of the main reasons why these rouge pharmacies exist is due to the high cost of medication here in the U.S. When people are willing to take risks, buying from an illegal site, it means that they have more to win than to lose. Black markets arise from failures in the real market. It seems as if the market for legal pharmaceuticals is broken.
I think link 2 and link 3 is highly related. If people are unable to obtain appropriate health plan through exchange (presumably), they, especially some new immigrants, have to find an alternative approach. This potential demand forms a market which may be satisfied by some illegal suppliers.
What can we do to prevent rouge pharmacies from spreading? The risks of inaction are extremely high. If most internet pharmacies operate outside the law, many who rely on this method to receive medication are at risk. We need to do something now.
Obama realized that his reform was flawed. That it wasn’t to be the big thing he anticipated. That is why he is changing it. He is bending the law to the point of inflection (probably he has broken it several times) in order to deliver what he promised. Yet, he has failed miserably. He had no other option than to start giving out money to regain sympathizers.
There are more than 36,000 illegal (violating U.S. law) Internet pharmacies, mainly located abroad.
The U.S. doesn’t enforce the ban against reimportation. Every drug ordered from an Internet pharmacy abroad that is shipped to the United States has to go through Customs. While in Customs, each package is X-rayed and stamped and sent on. The packages are sometimes opened and the labeling read.
Customs tries to keep out controlled substances (e.g. don’t order Valium). Customs also tries to keep out counterfeit drugs (e.g. fake Viagra labeled as Viagra). Customs also tries to keep out unapproved drugs. But Customs doesn’t confiscate generic versions of name brand drugs that have not yet been approved for generic used in this country.
All this suggests the government quietly approves of seniors ordering drugs from abroad so long as the purchase don’t become rampant.
This mandate of “pay now verify later” is a double edge knife for consumers. On one side they will be happy to receive some credit and will spend it. But because the law has been so unpredictable, those who filed and received credit today might face a penalty tomorrow. I cannot believe the government is enforcing a law that hasn’t been redacted completely.
It is clear why the administration is asking the states to “pay now and verify later”. He wants people to be happy with the government, receiving the credit they are entitled to, so that they vote for a democrat in the elections. It is a political maneuver intended to portray the Republicans as the selfish individuals that don’t want to pay the tax refund and the Democrats as the benevolent individuals that trust you and deliver what they promised.
I don’t know why the Republicans are not speaking up against the actions of the president. He is using his executive powers to directly influence the results of the next elections. The law is flawed and he is doing everything in his power to make it seem that it is effective and that it works.
People that work within Congress have a way to escape the mandate, which make no sense at all. How can the government expect people to enroll in the program if the people who came up with the law dislike it? If the plans from the exchanges do not cover the needs of the people working in congress, why are they enough to cover the common American?
Politics and health shouldn’t be combined. The farther they are from each other the better it is for everyone, such as religion. Both pertain to the individual beliefs and ideals. Thus is hard for a government to give a solution for everyone. Obama tried to reform healthcare, and he failed like many believed he will. Let’s hope that the political consequences he faces are equivalent to the mistakes he made.
While Michael Cannon is usually an astute observer, I think that his piece on subsidies through a federal exchange misses two points.
One, and this is somewhat old news, a respected federal judge reviewed a lawsuit on this subject about 6 week ago. And the judge made a firm decision that granting subsidies was the intent of Congress, and if a state did not establish an exchange then building a federal exchange was a legitimate legal response. If Congress declared that all states should build flood walls, and a state does not build one, then it is acceptable for the feds to build that wall, according to the judge…..substance over wording, one might say.
Two, and this is a new point from me, is that it is a good thing if people can buy insurance through efficient private agents and then get a subsidy. This is the way the law should have worked from the beginning!! The government is good at one thing, which is writing checks…..and not running an insurance exchange!
Stuart Butler and a LOT of other conservatives have been in favor of subsidies.
I suspect that Mr Cannon will admit to a need for subsidies if we are to preserve private insurance. The analogy might be food stamps. The government gives people a voucher, and they buy the food they want. The government does not regulate prices at the grocery store.
One of the main reasons why these rouge pharmacies exist is due to the high cost of medication here in the U.S. When people are willing to take risks, buying from an illegal site, it means that they have more to win than to lose. Black markets arise from failures in the real market. It seems as if the market for legal pharmaceuticals is broken.
Just by watching Dallas Buyer’s Club we find out how apparent that is.
Yeah, instead of using whatever Drugs could be effective he is stuck with what the US is giving him
I think link 2 and link 3 is highly related. If people are unable to obtain appropriate health plan through exchange (presumably), they, especially some new immigrants, have to find an alternative approach. This potential demand forms a market which may be satisfied by some illegal suppliers.
What can we do to prevent rouge pharmacies from spreading? The risks of inaction are extremely high. If most internet pharmacies operate outside the law, many who rely on this method to receive medication are at risk. We need to do something now.
Reform the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry
This law is a joke. They’re making it up as they go along.
Trend has show yes
Obama realized that his reform was flawed. That it wasn’t to be the big thing he anticipated. That is why he is changing it. He is bending the law to the point of inflection (probably he has broken it several times) in order to deliver what he promised. Yet, he has failed miserably. He had no other option than to start giving out money to regain sympathizers.
There are more than 36,000 illegal (violating U.S. law) Internet pharmacies, mainly located abroad.
The U.S. doesn’t enforce the ban against reimportation. Every drug ordered from an Internet pharmacy abroad that is shipped to the United States has to go through Customs. While in Customs, each package is X-rayed and stamped and sent on. The packages are sometimes opened and the labeling read.
Customs tries to keep out controlled substances (e.g. don’t order Valium). Customs also tries to keep out counterfeit drugs (e.g. fake Viagra labeled as Viagra). Customs also tries to keep out unapproved drugs. But Customs doesn’t confiscate generic versions of name brand drugs that have not yet been approved for generic used in this country.
All this suggests the government quietly approves of seniors ordering drugs from abroad so long as the purchase don’t become rampant.
This mandate of “pay now verify later” is a double edge knife for consumers. On one side they will be happy to receive some credit and will spend it. But because the law has been so unpredictable, those who filed and received credit today might face a penalty tomorrow. I cannot believe the government is enforcing a law that hasn’t been redacted completely.
It is clear why the administration is asking the states to “pay now and verify later”. He wants people to be happy with the government, receiving the credit they are entitled to, so that they vote for a democrat in the elections. It is a political maneuver intended to portray the Republicans as the selfish individuals that don’t want to pay the tax refund and the Democrats as the benevolent individuals that trust you and deliver what they promised.
I don’t know why the Republicans are not speaking up against the actions of the president. He is using his executive powers to directly influence the results of the next elections. The law is flawed and he is doing everything in his power to make it seem that it is effective and that it works.
People that work within Congress have a way to escape the mandate, which make no sense at all. How can the government expect people to enroll in the program if the people who came up with the law dislike it? If the plans from the exchanges do not cover the needs of the people working in congress, why are they enough to cover the common American?
Politics and health shouldn’t be combined. The farther they are from each other the better it is for everyone, such as religion. Both pertain to the individual beliefs and ideals. Thus is hard for a government to give a solution for everyone. Obama tried to reform healthcare, and he failed like many believed he will. Let’s hope that the political consequences he faces are equivalent to the mistakes he made.
While Michael Cannon is usually an astute observer, I think that his piece on subsidies through a federal exchange misses two points.
One, and this is somewhat old news, a respected federal judge reviewed a lawsuit on this subject about 6 week ago. And the judge made a firm decision that granting subsidies was the intent of Congress, and if a state did not establish an exchange then building a federal exchange was a legitimate legal response. If Congress declared that all states should build flood walls, and a state does not build one, then it is acceptable for the feds to build that wall, according to the judge…..substance over wording, one might say.
Two, and this is a new point from me, is that it is a good thing if people can buy insurance through efficient private agents and then get a subsidy. This is the way the law should have worked from the beginning!! The government is good at one thing, which is writing checks…..and not running an insurance exchange!
Stuart Butler and a LOT of other conservatives have been in favor of subsidies.
I suspect that Mr Cannon will admit to a need for subsidies if we are to preserve private insurance. The analogy might be food stamps. The government gives people a voucher, and they buy the food they want. The government does not regulate prices at the grocery store.