NationStates Jolt Archive

i saw an article about this in the newspaper this morning but hte online link requires joining the newspaper. Essentially, the US is threatening to use chapter 11 of NAFTA to sue Canada over price controlling of drugs, as it is an unfair trade barrier. This is like when then US s ued brazil over the decision to provide generic HIV drugs to brazilians at a subsidized cost.

Good.

Government SHOULDN'T be imposing price ceilings or floors. Not only is it bad practice economically, but it's also morally wrong.

Good.

Government SHOULDN'T be imposing price ceilings or floors. Not only is it bad practice economically, but it's also morally wrong.


Allowing poor people access to healthcare - gosh how evil.

It is when OTHER PEOPLE are forced to pay for it whether they want to or not, or when their rights are restricted in some other way (such as their right to trade with others on whatever terms they can agree on).

It is when OTHER PEOPLE are forced to pay for it whether they want to or not, or when their rights are restricted in some other way (such as their right to trade with others on whatever terms they can agree on).


What about the right to life? Does that not supersede some of these freedoms you talk about.

The world would be a much better place if people stopped talking about their rights and instead thought for a moment about their responsibilities.

The right to life does not equal a guarantee to the physical goods necessary for life--it is simply the right to YOUR OWN LIFE, not to the products of someone else's life.

As for responsibilities, WHAT responsibilities? I have no responsibilities or obligations except those which I voluntarily assume. NO ONE is, by the mere fact of his existence, obligated to provide for others. To believe otherwise is to believe in the moral justification of slavery.

I'm sorry..I'm not responsible for someone else's responsibilities. I am obligated to allow you your life..that can be argued..but the quality of your life?..nope..that is the individual's responsibility

The right to life does not equal a guarantee to the physical goods necessary for life--it is simply the right to YOUR OWN LIFE, not to the products of someone else's life.

As for responsibilities, WHAT responsibilities? I have no responsibilities or obligations except those which I voluntarily assume. NO ONE is, by the mere fact of his existence, obligated to provide for others. To believe otherwise is to believe in the moral justification of slavery.

-Sniff sniff-

Hmmm a republican conservative are we?

I guess this is what the Shrub calls "compassionate conservatism" :roll:

Sorry health is not a trade good.

The right to life does not equal a guarantee to the physical goods necessary for life--it is simply the right to YOUR OWN LIFE, not to the products of someone else's life.

As for responsibilities, WHAT responsibilities? I have no responsibilities or obligations except those which I voluntarily assume. NO ONE is, by the mere fact of his existence, obligated to provide for others. To believe otherwise is to believe in the moral justification of slavery.

-Sniff sniff-

Hmmm a republican conservative are we?
No, I am a moral individual, which means that it is impossible for me to be a Republican Conservative.

Sorry health is not a trade good.
If PEOPLE are providing it, then it is whatever the people who choose to provide it decide it is.

Well, I doubt we're ever going to agree on this, since we all have different principles. Personally, I think human well being in general is far more important than economic fairness. Corporations are less important than individuals- even if they do have an employment related impact on individuals, the human cost of kicking a corporation in the teeth is less overall than that of leaving people to suffer or die rather than spoil somebody's trade. That, to my mind, defines 'right' and 'wrong' far more than any abstract guideline.

Then you're obviously wrong, since individual rights are more important than anything else.

Obviously the US is overcharging for these drugs if Canada can sell them Cheaper... and not just a little cheaper but WAY cheaper.


Free Trade agreements are nothign but bad news.

Should mom and pop stores be able to sue Wal-Mart for selling their goods for less than everyone else?

Isn't capitalism about allowing competition between companies? If the US has competition in the drug market, then maybe they should actually present fairer prices at levels that people can afford. The price of drugs in the US is insane. 400% profit (at least) on drugs is not necessary.

The right to life does not equal a guarantee to the physical goods necessary for life--it is simply the right to YOUR OWN LIFE, not to the products of someone else's life.

As for responsibilities, WHAT responsibilities? I have no responsibilities or obligations except those which I voluntarily assume. NO ONE is, by the mere fact of his existence, obligated to provide for others. To believe otherwise is to believe in the moral justification of slavery.

-Sniff sniff-

Hmmm a republican conservative are we?
No, I am a moral individual, which means that it is impossible for me to be a Republican Conservative.

Sorry health is not a trade good.
If PEOPLE are providing it, then it is whatever the people who choose to provide it decide it is.

Ahh but then said people should not be lobbying against alternatives. In California we had the medical marihuana fight. Well the pharmaceuticals were major players in the against camp.

Why? They had the Marinaul(sp) alternative.

A bag would run you on the average $200 US. Their alternative ran you $800 for what was roughly the same amount.

Also, why is it that with other trade goods, prices tend to drop over time and yet meds never drop?

The corp execs price gouge because meds are something you have to have. There is no competition.....

Then you're obviously wrong, since individual rights are more important than anything else.

1) Do you actually believe that someone who is too poor to pay for the medicines he needs to survive should be left to die because someone else 'does not want the government to touch his goods'?

2) Have you payed ALL the money required to educate you, to feed you, to cloth you? are you never going to pay taxes to educate others?

3) Would you still think that health is not a right if you were 'on the other side' (eg: poor and seriously ill). I guess not.

4) Do you believe that only those that are lucky (i'm saying lucky as it is not a merit nor a choice) enough to be born in a family that is not poor have the right to be healthy?

Obviously the US is overcharging for these drugs if Canada can sell them Cheaper... and not just a little cheaper but WAY cheaper.


Free Trade agreements are nothign but bad news.

Should mom and pop stores be able to sue Wal-Mart for selling their goods for less than everyone else?

Don't blame the Free Trade agrement for the fact that the US government keeps inflicting laws such as the recent medicare bill that specifically bars medicare from using the buying power of the 40 million people it cares for to negotiate the best prescription prices possible. Instead it forces Medicare to pay whatever the drug companies choose to charge them as if they were 40 million individuals.

Indeed, studies have concluded that over 60% of the costs of the new Medicare bill will go directly to new drug company profits. (http://www.bumc.bu.edu/www/sph/hs/images/health_reform/Medicare_Rx%20_windfall_for_drug_makers_highlights_15_Apr_04.pdf)

That is as biased in the other direction as Canada's negotiated agreements.

And before you buy into the rhetoric, that IS the primary place where we gain in our prices you know.

Well actually, there are two major diferences:

1) Drugs are not direct-marketed to consumers. We actually believe that your doctor should be educated enough to know what is best for his patients rather than have them flock in to try out this cool new purple pill that they saw during the Superbowl. This saves us paying the overhead of such silliness which would have you directing your doctor on solving your illnesses based on the best marketing campaign rather than letting the qualified medical experts determine what they deem is the best clinical course of action for you.

2) We negotiate prices for all consumers directly with the drug companies. Do we drive a hard bargain? yes! Do we force the companies to sell drugs below cost? No! Of course not. How could we?

The fact that the government is involved in the process does not equate to unreasonable controls you know. After all, no-one forces the drug companies to sell their products here. But they do. And at the prices we offer them.

There is nothing inherently wrong with leveraging buying power in a case where it obviously is in the public good to do so. I mean, those who call this an affront to capitalism don't mind WalMart doing it based on the buying power of all of it's franchises do they?

Making it a trade issue because you refuse to allow groups to negotiate with the companies in the same way as we do just makes it look like all you care about is corporate profits at the expense of your citizen's rights. Because your citizens should be allowed to do the same thing ours do.


-Z-

Good.

Government SHOULDN'T be imposing price ceilings or floors. Not only is it bad practice economically, but it's also morally wrong.
The Government of Canada provides health care to ALL of her citizens regardless of their ability to pay. This is one thing that makes me proud of my country. If you feel that it is morally wrong for my government to look after the health of her citizens than I feel sorry for you.

Obviously the US is overcharging for these drugs if Canada can sell them Cheaper... and not just a little cheaper but WAY cheaper.


Free Trade agreements are nothign but bad news.

Should mom and pop stores be able to sue Wal-Mart for selling their goods for less than everyone else?

Don't blame the Free Trade agrement for the fact that the US government keeps inflicting laws such as the recent medicare bill that specifically bars medicare from using the buying power of the 40 million people it cares for to negotiate the best prescription prices possible. Instead it forces Medicare to pay whatever the drug companies choose to charge them as if they were 40 million individuals.

Indeed, studies have concluded that over 60% of the costs of the new Medicare bill will go directly to new drug company profits. (http://www.bumc.bu.edu/www/sph/hs/images/health_reform/Medicare_Rx%20_windfall_for_drug_makers_highlights_15_Apr_04.pdf)

That is as biased in the other direction as Canada's negotiated agreements.

And before you buy into the rhetoric, that IS the primary place where we gain in our prices you know.

Well actually, there are two major diferences:

1) Drugs are not direct-marketed to consumers. We actually believe that your doctor should be educated enough to know what is best for his patients rather than have them flock in to try out this cool new purple pill that they saw during the Superbowl. This saves us paying the overhead of such silliness which would have you directing your doctor on solving your illnesses based on the best marketing campaign rather than letting the qualified medical experts determine what they deem is the best clinical course of action for you.

2) We negotiate prices for all consumers directly with the drug companies. Do we drive a hard bargain? yes! Do we force the companies to sell drugs below cost? No! Of course not. How could we?

The fact that the government is involved in the process does not equate to unreasonable controls you know. After all, no-one forces the drug companies to sell their products here. But they do. And at the prices we offer them.

There is nothing inherently wrong with leveraging buying power in a case where it obviously is in the public good to do so. I mean, those who call this an affront to capitalism don't mind WalMart doing it based on the buying power of all of it's franchises do they?

Making it a trade issue because you refuse to allow groups to negotiate with the companies in the same way as we do just makes it look like all you care about is corporate profits at the expense of your citizen's rights. Because your citizens should be allowed to do the same thing ours do.


-Z-

Good.

Government SHOULDN'T be imposing price ceilings or floors. Not only is it bad practice economically, but it's also morally wrong.
The Government of Canada provides health care to ALL of her citizens regardless of their ability to pay. This is one thing that makes me proud of my country. If you feel that it is morally wrong for my government to look after the health of her citizens than I feel sorry for you.


Ahh but you see that would get in the way of profits! To quote their attitudes more succinctly.

"And if they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Damn it's good to be a republican American! :roll:

It's funny but the claims of medical shortages only seem to follow when it was decided to run medicine like a business....

i saw an article about this in the newspaper this morning but hte online link requires joining the newspaper. Essentially, the US is threatening to use chapter 11 of NAFTA to sue Canada over price controlling of drugs, as it is an unfair trade barrier. This is like when then US s ued brazil over the decision to provide generic HIV drugs to brazilians at a subsidized cost.

Ah, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The WTO will rule in favour of Canada as usual :wink:

Obviously the US is overcharging for these drugs if Canada can sell them Cheaper... and not just a little cheaper but WAY cheaper.
Canada sells them cheaper simply because the Canadian government coercively imposes price ceilings, not because of any "overcharging" or market issues in the US.


Should mom and pop stores be able to sue Wal-Mart for selling their goods for less than everyone else?
No...however, that's a completely different scenario from Canada using the force of government to control prices.

Zepp you went way over my head. MY headacheis not allowing me to think critically today.

G Bugles, how is it completely different?

One person is mad that they are losing money because another person is sellign the same stuff for cheaper.

One country is mad that they are losing money because another country is selling the same stuff for cheaper.

The problem with our healthcare system is not that people use it, it's that it's being overused.

There are two ways to ration out this consumer good (yes, healthcare is a good, regardless of moral implications, much like food or water). The first is what Canada has, which is socialized medicine. Taxes are higher, but they do have free healthcare. So you may ask "What keeps the people from going in everyday to the doctor for every sneeze and cough that they have? The answer is quite simple: they have a hard time getting into a doctor, and for major surgeries like heart bypasses and cancer they can wait up to 8 months for treatment.

In a complete free-market healthcare system, the price determines the availability of the product. If you have the money and the means, then quick healthcare can be purchased. This is really good if you're rich, but really crappy if you're poor.

The demise of communism and true socialism and the explosion of capitalism in the global market should tell you, the average person, which method is better at rationing this commodity much like all other commodities.

The problem we have here in the US is that we try to use both systems. All this does is encourage those unable to pay to overuse the system (because hey, if its available and free or cheap, why not go in every time you have a cold?), and the cost must be made up elsewhere, which means taking it from able people via raised rates. On top of that, the increase in use artificially drives up the cost, making healthcare even more unaffordable by all (shortages).

By using both systems, we must accept the fact that there will be both the availability and cost problems associated with both methods. Socialization seems to be the most moral route, but it does have a cost.

Suffice it to say that healthcare is a commodity. As such, the price to develop and produce this good must be borne by somebody. If the US feels that Canada is providing too much cheap drugs, perhaps what it should do is change the system either way. I'd prefer if they got out of it altogether, but that's just a personal feeling.

Call me immoral, but somehow we got along fine long before socialized medicine was around...

The right to life does not equal a guarantee to the physical goods necessary for life--it is simply the right to YOUR OWN LIFE, not to the products of someone else's life.

As for responsibilities, WHAT responsibilities? I have no responsibilities or obligations except those which I voluntarily assume. NO ONE is, by the mere fact of his existence, obligated to provide for others. To believe otherwise is to believe in the moral justification of slavery.


1st paragraph is something that George Orwell would have been proud of. You either have the right to life or you do not, "the physical goods necessary for life"???? What are you talking about, you mean like a working heart and set of lungs? Perhaps even oxygen, that's a physical good necessary for life. Maybe when the Nazis shoved Jews in the back of vans and filled them with exhaust fumes they weren't denying them the right to life, just the material goods necessary for life.

I think it's sad that people will fight to the death to defend their right to be selfish but argue vehemently against any responsibility they might feel towards others, so much so that they throw around words like slavery. Likewise I might throw around words such as poverty, disease, famine and death but then again since they apply to the plight of othes I imagine they would carry less weight with you.

Individual rights mean nothing without a cohesive society. Either way judging by this and some of your other posts, you so called rights seem malleable enough to fit any economic or social structure that caters for greed.

Zepp you went way over my head. MY headacheis not allowing me to think critically today.

G Bugles, how is it completely different?

One person is mad that they are losing money because another person is sellign the same stuff for cheaper.

One country is mad that they are losing money because another country is selling the same stuff for cheaper.

Because in the latter case, the cheaper prices are due to the imposition of COERCIVE FORCE on those who are actually selling it, while in the former case they're a result of free choice of all involved.

The right to life does not equal a guarantee to the physical goods necessary for life--it is simply the right to YOUR OWN LIFE, not to the products of someone else's life.

As for responsibilities, WHAT responsibilities? I have no responsibilities or obligations except those which I voluntarily assume. NO ONE is, by the mere fact of his existence, obligated to provide for others. To believe otherwise is to believe in the moral justification of slavery.


1st paragraph is something that George Orwell would have been proud of. You either have the right to life or you do not, "the physical goods necessary for life"???? What are you talking about, you mean like a working heart and set of lungs? Perhaps even oxygen, that's a physical good necessary for life. Maybe when the Nazis shoved Jews in the back of vans and filled them with exhaust fumes they weren't denying them the right to life, just the material goods necessary for life.
Oh, bullshit.

Seriously.

Bullshit.

When your lunatic ravings stop and you begin to post something resembling a rational response, I'll stop calling it bullshit, because then it will cease to be bullshit.

I think it's sad that people will fight to the death to defend their right to be selfish but argue vehemently against any responsibility they might feel towards others, so much so that they throw around words like slavery.
Because any such responsibility only exists when the individual concerned voluntarily accepts it--it is not inherent to one's existence.

Likewise I might throw around words such as poverty, disease, famine and death but then again since they apply to the plight of othes I imagine they would carry less weight with you.
Why is it that morons such as yourself are incapable of differentiating between an individual's willingness to help others on his own accord and the forcing of OTHER people to help others regardless of whether they want to or not? Is it because you're just stupid? Or is it simply because it's too inconvenient an obstacle to your goal (and this IS your goal, whether you're intelligent enough to recognize it and honest enough to admit it or not) of slavery for all to deal with, so you pretend like it doesn't exist?

i saw an article about this in the newspaper this morning but hte online link requires joining the newspaper. Essentially, the US is threatening to use chapter 11 of NAFTA to sue Canada over price controlling of drugs, as it is an unfair trade barrier. This is like when then US s ued brazil over the decision to provide generic HIV drugs to brazilians at a subsidized cost.

Ah, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The WTO will rule in favour of Canada as usual :wink:
And then Stephen Harper will complain about degenerating relations with the US and the US ambassodor to Canada (his name escapes me, he's an ex senator from Massachusess i think) will talk about border slow downs.

it was always on republicans agenda to destroy medicare--just like they wanna destroy SS and anyother govt program that helps working people-Republicans believe govt exists solely to give welfare to billionaires

i saw an article about this in the newspaper this morning but hte online link requires joining the newspaper. Essentially, the US is threatening to use chapter 11 of NAFTA to sue Canada over price controlling of drugs, as it is an unfair trade barrier. This is like when then US s ued brazil over the decision to provide generic HIV drugs to brazilians at a subsidized cost.

Ah, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The WTO will rule in favour of Canada as usual :wink:
And then Stephen Harper will complain about degenerating relations with the US and the US ambassodor to Canada (his name escapes me, he's an ex senator from Massachusess i think) will talk about border slow downs.

Nah, the WTO ruled in our favour a few months ago.. and that didn't happen.. and who cares what Stephen Harper thinks? It's not like he really has any real chance of being elected. He's not our Prime Minister.

(His name is "Paul Cellucci")

Cheers, couldn't remember the guys name
If i remember correctly, the US still planned on not complying ont he WTO ruling.

Cheers, couldn't remember the guys name
If i remember correctly, the US still planned on not complying ont he WTO ruling.

Well, if I recall correctly there is a price to be paid for not complying with the WTO.. I guess we shall see. As far as the medicare thing goes, the Americans can take it to the WTO, but they really don't have a leg to stand on, my husband already explained in the thread why.. (see Zeppistan)

I think that the US has shown that it can find a way to get a way with these things, anyone pay their UN fees anytime recently?

I think that the US has shown that it can find a way to get a way with these things, anyone pay their UN fees anytime recently?

Haha, good point!

I think that if it came down to a chapter 11 suit through NAFTA, canada would opt to pull out of NAFTA and keep medicare.
To a certain extent, it is kind of refreshing to see the US pick on a white, english speaking country ;)

I think that if it came down to a chapter 11 suit through NAFTA, canada would opt to pull out of NAFTA and keep medicare.
To a certain extent, it is kind of refreshing to see the US pick on a white, english speaking country ;)

Is there any one the United States hasn't insulted in the last year? lol. I'm not sure Canada would pull out of NAFTA... I think the Americans might yeild before it went that far.

I wonder. They didn't yield when they went after Brazil's HIV program (although brazil is a poor country that speaks a different language, that could have been aprt of it).
And the groups the US have insulted (or done worse to) have been primarily non white and/or non english
the french, arabs, muslims, venezuelans etc....

Right, when the USA fights against unfair trade practices, we're being Evil Republican Heartless Imperialist Bastards, when Canada or China does it, they're striking a note for freedom and equality! That about sums up many of your opinions.

Capitalism hits another low.

Right, when the USA fights against unfair trade practices, we're being Evil Republican Heartless Imperialist Bastards, when Canada or China does it, they're striking a note for freedom and equality! That about sums up many of your opinions.

You putting Canada & China is the same box? LOL.. that's just knee slapping funny.. :lol:

When did China ever play fair? By most measurements, the RMB is 20-50% undervalued.

Right, when the USA fights against unfair trade practices, we're being Evil Republican Heartless Imperialist Bastards, when Canada or China does it, they're striking a note for freedom and equality! That about sums up many of your opinions.

You putting Canada & China is the same box? LOL.. that's just knee slapping funny.. :lol:

(this is just a joke, but flame away!)

You've gotta admit they both would elude GW on a map.

Seriously what are we gonna do, tell everyone in the US, "If the phone rings, don't answer it! I'll have the money next week!"

Right, when the USA fights against unfair trade practices, we're being Evil Republican Heartless Imperialist Bastards, when Canada or China does it, they're striking a note for freedom and equality! That about sums up many of your opinions.
I don't think it has been accepted that the way the Canadians are working is an unfair trade practice.

Maybe the US should make it's mind up and have a state healthcare system or full private health care. Plump for the later and the US can have an even greater gulf between the haves and have nots, maybe the greatest in the 'civilised' world.

When did China ever play fair? By most measurements, the RMB is 20-50% undervalued.
They never have. They blatantly steal our intellectual property and employ it wholesale, and love to play that little game of tying the value of their currency to the dollar. However, many neo-hippies in the USA criticize only the USA for 'unfair trade practices' such as agricultural subsidies. How in any way, shape or form are subsidies for medicines different from subsidies for agriculture? I agree that medications in the USA are ridiculously overpriced, and that we're probably being screwed over by the drug companies, but America's industries must be protected.

I don't think it has been accepted that the way the Canadians are working is an unfair trade practice.

Maybe the US should make it's mind up and have a state healthcare system or full private health care. Plump for the later and the US can have an even greater gulf between the haves and have nots, maybe the greatest in the 'civilised' world.
Right.. The have nots ought to work for their medical care, as does everyone else. Redistribution of wealth is a silly idea, anyhow. I haven't any problem with assisting my countrymen in getting a leg up in life, but that's what it ought to be, a leg up so that they can later become self-sufficient, not a perpetual subsidy for failure.

I don't think it has been accepted that the way the Canadians are working is an unfair trade practice.

Maybe the US should make it's mind up and have a state healthcare system or full private health care. Plump for the later and the US can have an even greater gulf between the haves and have nots, maybe the greatest in the 'civilised' world.
Right.. The have nots ought to work for their medical care, as does everyone else. Redistribution of wealth is a silly idea, anyhow. I haven't any problem with assisting my countrymen in getting a leg up in life, but that's what it ought to be, a leg up so that they can later become self-sufficient, not a perpetual subsidy for failure.

Makes no difference for this discussion what you may or may not think though. Those are your personal views. Canada didn't break any trade laws. So I guess the Americans are just going to have to deal with it! ;)

The right to life does not equal a guarantee to the physical goods necessary for life--it is simply the right to YOUR OWN LIFE, not to the products of someone else's life.

As for responsibilities, WHAT responsibilities? I have no responsibilities or obligations except those which I voluntarily assume. NO ONE is, by the mere fact of his existence, obligated to provide for others. To believe otherwise is to believe in the moral justification of slavery.


1st paragraph is something that George Orwell would have been proud of. You either have the right to life or you do not, "the physical goods necessary for life"???? What are you talking about, you mean like a working heart and set of lungs? Perhaps even oxygen, that's a physical good necessary for life. Maybe when the Nazis shoved Jews in the back of vans and filled them with exhaust fumes they weren't denying them the right to life, just the material goods necessary for life.
Oh, bullshit.

Seriously.

Bullshit.

When your lunatic ravings stop and you begin to post something resembling a rational response, I'll stop calling it bullshit, because then it will cease to be bullshit.

I think it's sad that people will fight to the death to defend their right to be selfish but argue vehemently against any responsibility they might feel towards others, so much so that they throw around words like slavery.
Because any such responsibility only exists when the individual concerned voluntarily accepts it--it is not inherent to one's existence.

Likewise I might throw around words such as poverty, disease, famine and death but then again since they apply to the plight of othes I imagine they would carry less weight with you.
Why is it that morons such as yourself are incapable of differentiating between an individual's willingness to help others on his own accord and the forcing of OTHER people to help others regardless of whether they want to or not? Is it because you're just stupid? Or is it simply because it's too inconvenient an obstacle to your goal (and this IS your goal, whether you're intelligent enough to recognize it and honest enough to admit it or not) of slavery for all to deal with, so you pretend like it doesn't exist?

If you don't have a decent counter-argument then just say so, really there's no shame in it.

You're right, I might not be able to appreciate all the sublte intricacies of the "welfare is slavery" argument - lol. Of course since you're being forced to pay taxes you could argue that "taxes are slavery". Of course if you didn't pay taxes you wouldn't have a police force, a firefighter service, any intelligence agencies, an army. Of course actually welfare isn't slavery since it's all part of the social contract you accept by being a citizen of a country. When you become a citizen you accept that there will be some small infringement of your civil liberties (such as taxes) and in return you are privy to all the benefits of being part of a state.

Whoever said responsibility was inherent to ones existence. All I said was that the world would be a better place if people talked less about rights and more about responsibility.

Anyway, there's no real reason for me to be writing this since you got squibbed anyhow *does a little dance*. Unfortunately one thing that I really cannot tolerate is when greed and selfishness masquerade behind an incredibly hypocritical and weak moral discourse. In this case you are its embodiment.

I hope all the Canadians understand that the cheaper drugs here in Canada are bought and paid for by our own government with CAN taxpayer money...

It is a subsidy, just like logging companies log on Crown Land at a set price for each tree. Its a government owned business so its tough to prove anything against the government. I also hope that Canadians realize that if the Americans begin to buy the cheaper CAN subsidized drugs then healthcare costs will increase in order to ensure that we have enough for our citizens and those Americans who buy it here. I also hope you realize that Public healthcare comes out of our pockets, costs us alot of money and our services are sub par at best. :?

Right, when the USA fights against unfair trade practices, we're being Evil Republican Heartless Imperialist Bastards, when Canada or China does it, they're striking a note for freedom and equality! That about sums up many of your opinions.
No, going after medicare or in Brazil's case, the ability to fight AIDS is morally deplorable.