Thoughts on the drug shortage in the USA

Thoughts on the drug shortage in the USA

Posted in the Harvard University Forum


United States

#1 Feb 13, 2012
Here are some of my thoughts on the issue of the current drug shortage in the United States of America.

I just saw on the evening news on television that there is a shortage of cancer drugs because of generic drugs and a reduced profit margin, because the profit margin has been reduced the manufacturers are stopping manufacturing of the drugs. It is sad that money should be an issue when it comes to the saving of lives, and it is sad that the prices for the drugs cannot be reduced without the drug companies stopping the manufacturing of the drugs. It sucks when people put money above the saving of lives, and it sucks that the greedy drug companies have to receive super high profit margins in order to continue the production of drugs. The government's answer is to pass legislation to force the drug companies to manufacture more of the drugs, but it should not require legislation to force people to save lives at the lowest cost possible for the patients. My answer would be to allow the drugs to be produced in Colombia, and Brazil, so that people could receive the same high quality drugs at a reduced cost, and I believe that pharmaceutical companies in Colombia and Brazil would welcome the opportunity to manufacture the drugs and export the drugs to the USA and that they would love to produce the quantity of drugs needed to prevent a shortage in the USA. I believe that the drug shortage could be averted by opening up our market to drugs from Colombia and Brazil, without the government doing anything other than approving it and monitoring the quality of the drugs. I also believe that there can be advancements made in the research and development of new pharmaceuticals in Colombia and Brazil with a good return on the money spent.

If I remember correctly, Republicans wanted to open the US drug market up to foreign competition years ago, and if they would have succeeded then we would not be having a drug shortage now. And certainly the drug companies have been giving money to the politicians who best support the interests of the drug companies. The politicians and drug companies win, while the people have been losing. I would be interested in hearing what Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have to say about allowing foreign competition, from Colombia and Brazil for instance, when it comes to pharmaceuticals.


Tony V.

United States

#2 Feb 13, 2012
On the issue of helping the homeless, and on the issue of who donates more to charity...

Republicans donate more money to charity than democrats do. And I am sure you have heard of the Christian right. Certainly Republicans want welfare reform, and Republicans want able bodied people to work, but many Republicans donate ten percent of everything they earn to their churches and they do charity work and stuff.


Charity's Political Divide, Republicans give a bigger share to charity (Democrats Don't)
The Chronicle of Philanthropy ^| 11.23.06 | Ben Gose

Posted on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:07:02 PM by Coleus

Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist

It's been a tough month for conservatives, with the Republican Party losing control of both houses of Congress, but a new book being released this week may help brighten their spirits. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others. Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."

"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity." Some scholars say Who Really Cares builds on the work of Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, which was published in 2000.


March 27, 2008

Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs.$1,227).

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.


Republicans donate more money and more time to charities than democrats, and many Republicans are Christians who donate ten percent of everything they earn to their churches.


Tony V.

United States

#3 Feb 13, 2012
On the issue of helping the homeless, in Orange County, California, which is mostly a Republican county, the federal government, state government, county government, and the city governments, as well as the churches and charity groups, and local businesses such as Disneyland, etc, all work together as a team to help the homeless people in Orange County, and everyone in Orange County is helped when they need help. Orange County also has health care available for everyone.

On Health Care:

OC had everyone covered on health before Obama's new health care plan. Between Medicare, Medi-Cal, Cal-Optima, programs such as ARTA, and CHOC for kids, and Pacifi-Care, and other programs, including health care for indigents, everyone in Orange County was already covered.

Here is a link for Cal-Optima:

Here is a link for CHOC:

Here is a link for ARTA:

Orange County has other programs too which I have not listed. Everyone in Orange County was already covered before the new health plan.

Los Angeles County, as well as other places in the USA, need to copy Orange County when it comes to programs to help the homeless and on health care, etc. Orange County is setting a good example for others to follow.

And also, so far as a better environment and more tools to help the homeless, now we have computers in the public libraries with access to the world wide web, and Craig's List, people can find a bed to rent in a group home now easily that is cheap, so people who have a job and who are earning some money, even just minimum wage, can at least rent a bed in a group home, or rent a room and have roommates, etc. So it is better now with the world wide web and computers and Craig's List.

On helping homeless families in Orange County:

Orange County has Shelter Plus, and other programs to help homeless families. And there is Section 8, etc.

Here is one Link:

Here is another link:

Orange County does not have horrible and dangerous welfare projects, so what Orange County does is to help needy families to live in nice, normal, apartment buildings with the good working people and good neighbors, etc.

And many families headed by low wage earners live with many people living in an apartment. For instance, there may be the husband and wife and children and the grandmother all living in a one or two bedroom apartment while the husband and wife works and while the grandmother baby-sits the children. Etc. And it is not rare to see a husband and wife and three children living in a one bedroom apartment. People do what they need to do to survive, and they still find happiness and have love even without wealth, many people are perfectly happy with 5 people in a one bedroom apartment while they work towards a better future.

Also of note, is that the people of Roseto, Pennsylvania, USA, obeyed the Lord's commandment to love their neighbors, and they had ZERO people on welfare, and they had ZERO crime, and they were healthier and lived longer and had fewer heart attacks than the rest of the population, and they did it without any help from the government.

Link to a Topix discussion about the Roseto Effect:


Tony V.

United States

#4 Feb 15, 2012
Here is another idea on something the government could do in regard to getting life saving drugs to the people who need them, the government could put a tax on dangerous and addictive drugs which are used recreationally, in order to raise the price on those dangerous drugs that people get addicted to and over-dose and die on, and by raising the price on the dangerous drugs hopefully the use of such drugs will be reduced, and then the government can use the money gained from taxing the dangerous drugs to fund free and low cost life saving drugs for those who are poor. Lives could be saved both by reducing the amount of people addicted to dangerous drugs, and by providing free and low cost life saving drugs to those who are poor.

Just an idea. And I hate new taxes on anything, and I am against the high taxes on cigarettes, but if this could save lives then it is an idea worth considering.

Tout les meilleur,

Tony V.

United States

#5 Feb 15, 2012
By the way, just so that new and better drugs are always being developed by the drug companies...

When a drug company invents a new drug then they get time to make their money back on the drug plus make a profit before the drugs are allowed to be made generic. So if they invent a great new drug then they are guaranteed that they will be rewarded for it. The ideas that I have suggested in this thread would in no way change that.


Tony V.

United States

#6 Feb 16, 2012
Here are some more thoughts...

Americans are good people who love to help other people, my wealthiest friends are also my friends who do the most for charity, I have a friend who is worth over one hundred million dollars and she is a good Christian lady who believes that to those whom much is given much is expected from, and she donates ten percent of everything she earns to charity, and she spends her time doing charity work to help others, she is awesome. The thing is, people want to be able to choose where they give their money, and which charities they help, and for instance the same people who hate giving money to Egypt, and to other nations, might really support the giving of free and low cost life-saving drugs to poor children who have cancer here in the USA and stuff, when it comes to life saving drugs I think that all Americans would want to save lives and help other Americans. I think that most Americans would go along with the ideas which I suggested in this thread.


Tony V.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Harvard University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ryan to start as UVA president earlier than fir... 10 hr Gematria News Sta... 3
News Schools seek to help immigrants amid mixed sign... (Sep '17) Wed sue 15
News Brandeis University won't tolerate Hirsi Ali's ... (Apr '14) Mar 18 roger 10
News Anti-transgender bus sparks protests as it visi... (Mar '17) Mar 17 Support Women 48
News History of African-American business can motiva... Mar 17 Bubba 3
Coinhealth ico Jan '18 Jimrhong 2
News 7 cities with the most residents struggling to ... (Aug '17) Dec '17 Just saying 4