Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-do-drugs-eh dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Canadians are in a kerfuffle over the Trump administration's preliminary plan to allow Americans to import lower-cost prescription medications from Canada.

The plan was announced July 31 and is part of the administration's long-sought effort to drag down the US's skyrocketing drug prices. But it's a long way from being a reality. Even if the plan does pan out, it will likely be years before regulators review, approve, and scale up efforts to import drugs.

Still, Canadians are infuriated by the idea and already brainstorming ways to toss it down the garburator, according to a report by health-news outlet STAT. Many fear that American importation would exacerbate current drug shortages in Canada.

"You are coming as Americans to poach our drug supply, and I don't have any polite words for that," Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa told STAT. Prof. Attaran went on to refer to the plan as "deplorable" and "atrociously unethical." "Our drugs are not for you, period."

[...] On Monday, August 12, Canada's Minister of Health Ginette Petitpas Taylor was set to meet with pharmacists, patients, and industry officials to discuss a response to the US plan, according to STAT. Petitpas Taylor has pledged to "ensure there are no adverse effects to the supply or cost of prescription drugs in Canada."

In order to protect Canadians, some advocates and policy experts suggested that Canada could begin controlling the export of pharmaceuticals, pass new laws simply banning exporting drugs meant for Canadians, or impose new tariffs.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 17 2019, @12:50AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 17 2019, @12:50AM (#881373) Journal
    Sorry, AC, this kind of fallacy happens over and over again. General claim X is made, but in a futile attempt to forestall the bringing up of obvious counterexamples, Y, various fallacy arguments are made for why Y can be disregarded. And yet there we are. Claim X is made followed immediately by negating argument Y. All that is require to fully rebut the argument is to note that the arguer just shot themselves in the foot.

    In addition to the above example in this thread, we have someone dismissing [soylentnews.org] the claim that "resources are preferentially going to the older generations" with the moral assertion that "most healthcare supports those who are older (preventive care aside) is pretty much the way it ought to work". It still means that they just granted said preferential allocation of resources.

    Don't want the "disingenuous bullshit" obvious rebuttal? Then don't make the Wizard of Oz fallacy. We're never going to agree that the Wizard of Oz is mysterious and all powerful when we can see him running around like a chimpanzee behind the curtain. The mention of a counterexample never negates the counterexample. It's time to learn that.