Let’s see if they try to use more of my recommendations (posted on TMF years ago).
Canada is against it and the drug companies are against it. It’s hard to see how it works.
Well, when folk (and that includes governments, I guess) have finagled a deal for themselves, they rarely want to share their good fortune with others. One reason being it’d put their benefits in jeopardy if US consumers were able to muscle in on the act.
Here is the #1 point, which no one (besides myself) has made:
Why import drugs just from Canada?
We already get drugs (legal and otherwise) from:
and lots of other countries.
Re: drug companies are against it.
Yes, they need extra money to pay for all those ads on TV.
I’m thinking of those luminaries at J&J. that just went through the expense of carving off their consumer products division into a separate company, because the drug business was soooo much more profitable.
Not to mention the megamillion law suits faced by the company for talc in its baby powder said to cause some female cancer–was it ovarian cancer.
The spinoff was probably the famous Texas two-step method to spin off the lawsuits and protect the drug business (and the executive bonuses).
I fully expected the consumer products spin-off to be saddled with that talc obligation, the same way Honeywell saddled it’s Garrett spin-off with it’s asbestos obligations, but everything I have read says the J&J part retained the talc liability, not the consumer products part.
Because Canada actually has a pharmaceutical regulatory system more stringent than the US. If you’re order drugs from Canada, you know what you getting. That’s not necessarily true from Mexico or India.
I seem to recall a court decision telling J&J to keep the liability!
Their “Texas two-step” was thrown out by the court. (the scheme was a fraud, a NJ company trying to use a Texas law to offload the liability on a sham company in a third state, that went BK the day J&J offloaded the liability to it)
So you are saying my memory was correct! That is a relief; I usually have trouble what day of the week it is!
Only if the drugs are produced in Canada. Many of the drugs used in Canada are imported from a variety of countries, including China, Mexico, and so on. Because Canada uses a universal healthcare system (per province), they negotiate prices far lower than US prices. They also do not include many sales (from imports) to non-Canadians.
There is no rational reason imported drugs from most countries can not be safely brought into the US if they are tested before being allowed into the distribution network. So, I am now an official “job creator”. Those jobs will not just “go away” because it is an ongoing requirement.
Imported drugs are ok as long as their quality is checked. They have to catch the counterfeits.
Re: Texas two step.
Yes courts denied them the right. But they went ahead with the spin off anyway. One suspects the lawyers have an ace up their sleeve.
So do I. That is why I have had a day/date watch for over 50 years. I still forget what year it is at times.
I fully expected the spin-off to get the talc liability, but what I read said the mother company was keeping it. Maybe there was something buried deep in the prospectus for the spin-off, that it will pay the costs. Honeywell did that with the Garrett spin-off: require Garrett to pay to Honeywell, what Honeywell paid out to asbestos claims, in spite of the fact the Garrett division never made products that used asbestos. Garrett went BK, and the court invalidated the arrangement to cover Honeywell’s costs. I owned Honeywell when they announced the Garrett spin-off. I read the Garrett prospectus and laffed. Sold the Garrett stock as soon as I had it. I read a court decision regarding a shareholder suit against Garrett. The scheme that Honeywell hatched was truly scummy, with a Honeywell exec acting as sole board member, and top honcho, of Garrett, during the negotiations. I would expect nothing less scummy from J&J.
The plan of reorganization also eliminates the previous asbestos indemnity and all related liabilities to Honeywell incurred by Garrett in its 2018 spin-off, and settles all litigation between Garrett and Honeywell. The elimination of the 30-year indemnity substantially reduces Garrett’s effective leverage and increases its operational, financial and strategic flexibility. In return for elimination of the indemnity, upon emergence, Garrett made an initial cash payment to Honeywell of $375 million and issued to Honeywell Series B Preferred Stock that entitles Honeywell to certain cash payments from 2022 to 2030. The Series B Preferred stock is repayable at any time at a present value (which is approximately $584 million as of the date of emergence using the agreed discount rate of 7.25%).
If you or a friend are in need this is the best solution.