View Full Version : Viagra and the PBS
Eagle_Fan
16 Jan 2002, 23:42
So it's going to be listed on the PBS, at a cost of between $50 and $70 per script to the tax payer.
Should it be subsidised? Or should it remain at a cost of ~$72 to the patient?
From my point of view, it's quite sad to see the pensioners saving up their $72.15 for four measly tablets, for something that will make them feel a whole lot better than half their subsidised medications. However, at the same time it isn't a life saving or health protecting drug, so are the government really obligated to blow so much of the health budget on one product alone?
EF I am majorly upset about this, I had to pay $30 for 4 days worth of antibiotics, I had to get 3 repeats which are necessary for your health, there is no way viagra should be on the pbs, what did guys do before they invented it, if it was a pill for women, wonder if it would even be considered for the pbs. :mad:
Grendel
17 Jan 2002, 06:09
All for it, pill for women? If it isnt of benefit for both men and women then what is it??
My mate was telling me that his brother was saying it (Viagra) was responsible for saving his marriage. Now I dont know what was wrong with the bloke that he needed to take it however to look at it only from the mans perspective (I was going to say point of view but thought better of it) is a little to narrow a scope.
Sex should be and mostly is in these types of cases (and yea im presuming) a mutualy bonding/loving thing. That a man cant perform the act when he wants to is demoralising probably from a physce outlook as well as a physical one. Also what of the women who may feel she is no longer attractive enough to stir interest?
Many many couples could be benefitted by the introduction of a cheaper rate of this drug. But id stress that it should be only scripted out to those that have a genuine need for it.
One last thing, health services in this country (lousy as they are) are way more beneficial towards women than they are men. Look at the figures spent on cures towards breast cancer research vs prostate cancer. Kills in equal sort of numbers, the breast cancer insitute gets four times the amount of funding the prostate one gets.
Sorry sandie, you just got to me over the anti-men line! ;)
Bloodstained Angel
17 Jan 2002, 06:43
agree with you Grendel but sandie has a point -
If Viagra was a pill for women, I sincerely doubt whether it would even be considered for inclusion on the PBS.
cheers
I think a female viagra would be on the PBS as it would be a marriage saver and happiness enhancer.
There are so many men (and women) who go to other partners because their husband/wife is not interested in sex any more. And that leads to a relationship breakdown. If a PBS drug is available to stop that breakdown then I think it is a great thing for the individuals and the community (bad for brothels though).
Drugs come in many catagories. Take Prozac, the happy drug, how does that differ from Viagra? It brings happiness where unhappiness existed.
There are other ways for a couple to enjoy intimacy without using just one part of the body, if you haven't tried it I suggest you experiment, you might be pleasantly surprised. ;)
Also, there are many drugs out there for treating life threatening diseases, that should be made cheaper before drugs like viagra & prozac etc.
Fat Red
17 Jan 2002, 10:32
I'm sorry about people whose sex lives aren't what they could be, but I don't want to pay to fix this with my taxes.
I am happy for my taxes to be used to stop them getting sick however. Including mental illness.
Originally posted by Fat Red
I'm sorry about people whose sex lives aren't what they could be, but I don't want to pay to fix this with my taxes.
I am happy for my taxes to be used to stop them getting sick however. Including mental illness.
How about if you were allergic to Beer and other enjoyable beverages but could take water without problem. Would you want society to help pay for drugs to overcome that?
Dippers Donuts
18 Jan 2002, 20:48
Of course Viagra should be on the PBS (and hold your horses it hasn't been approved yet)
Erectile Dysfunction, as it's called is not just emotional (neurological), it can lead to cardio vascular problems, so yes potentially it can be a life saving medication.
What about those paraplegics who when using Viagra, can achieve erection for the first time in their lives? Their problem is obviously physical, so why deny them the remedy?
It won't increase the cost to the taxpayer Fat Red, as listing does not mean necessarily mean an increase in diagnosis/prescription and besides there is already one other PBS listed product in this area (it's an injection!).
As to those who say if it was a female product it wouldn't be listed, absolute cobblers, viagra is currently being tested on women. Would it be removed from PBS listing once approved for women? Of course not.
Sorry Dipper you are wrong.
If it is approved for PBS, who is going to pay the difference in price the taxpayer, I'm sure the company making it isn't going to bring the price down.
Also as I said earlier, there are a lot of ways you can achieve intimacy apart from using one part of the male body.
Experiment people & you will realise you can be happy & satisfied without the wham bam thank you mam. :D
Eagle_Fan
19 Jan 2002, 00:56
If it goes onto the PBS, then the customer will pay either $22.40 or $3.60 per script. Since we sell it at $72.15, the government will reimburse us the remaining $49.75 or $68.55 on recieval of the script.
On Christmas Eve, (just as an example), my shop sold out of both strengths that we stock. (getting into the Christmas spirit I guess? :confused: ) We're a pretty small place, so that was only about 13 or 14 boxes. But we grossed around $1000. (Profit wouldve been around $400) Multiplty that by the number of pharmacies in the country, and add on the increase in patients being prescribed it when it's no longer private, and the cost to the government could be huge.
But, I still think it's worth adding it to the PBS.
btw- Fat Red, does that include mental illness induced by previous drug abuse? I'd rather pay to help make a couple happy than for the antidepressants prescribed to the young raver ;) who's counting the cost now...
Grendel
19 Jan 2002, 01:52
Originally posted by mantis
Experiment people & you will realise you can be happy & satisfied without the wham bam thank you mam. :D
So in other words your saying that its okay if the female can reach orgasm but the male has to be content through other stimulus (and I quite enjoy the other stimulus btw).
Bit one sided there sandie.
Originally posted by Grendel
So in other words your saying that its okay if the female can reach orgasm but the male has to be content through other stimulus (and I quite enjoy the other stimulus btw).
Bit one sided there sandie.
Geeze Gren
You just clarified what I said, you enjoy the other stimulus, what I am saying is why should every tax payer have to fork out for your enjoyment?
Originally posted by Eagle_Fan
If it goes onto the PBS, then the customer will pay either $22.40 or $3.60 per script. Since we sell it at $72.15, the government will reimburse us the remaining $49.75 or $68.55 on recieval of the script.
On Christmas Eve, (just as an example), my shop sold out of both strengths that we stock. (getting into the Christmas spirit I guess? :confused: ) We're a pretty small place, so that was only about 13 or 14 boxes. But we grossed around $1000. (Profit wouldve been around $400) Multiplty that by the number of pharmacies in the country, and add on the increase in patients being prescribed it when it's no longer private, and the cost to the government could be huge.
very good point made. In fact the biggest losers are the pharmacists who would sureley lose their 40% profit margin. I'm not against that because pharmacies are one of the big rip-offs of society. Too many of them that get rich very quickly.
Originally posted by mantis
Geeze Gren
You just clarified what I said, you enjoy the other stimulus, what I am saying is why should every tax payer have to fork out for your enjoyment?
Yea and I suppose you'd like to see all men castrated too :mad:
Dippers Donuts
19 Jan 2002, 11:38
Originally posted by mantis
Sorry Dipper you are wrong.
If it is approved for PBS, who is going to pay the difference in price the taxpayer, I'm sure the company making it isn't going to bring the price down.
Also as I said earlier, there are a lot of ways you can achieve intimacy apart from using one part of the male body.
Experiment people & you will realise you can be happy & satisfied without the wham bam thank you mam. :D
Don't be sorry Mantis, because I am right I believe....
PBS listing will not increase the taxpayers burden. As I stated earlier, there is already one PBS listed erectile dysfunction product. Once viagra is approved, the patient will have a choice of two products. They will not be prescribed both, so therefore there will be no increase in cost to the taxpayer.
Besides, the govt. has a budget for PBS products, if there were any concerns about increased usage once viagra comes online they would either drop another product off PBS or re-align the budget.
You also can bet your sweet Aunt Sally that the govt. will tightly regulate viagra once it is listed to prevent it from becoming a weekend love drug subsidised by the taxpayer.
Dippers Donuts
19 Jan 2002, 11:43
Originally posted by Frodo
very good point made. In fact the biggest losers are the pharmacists who would sureley lose their 40% profit margin. I'm not against that because pharmacies are one of the big rip-offs of society. Too many of them that get rich very quickly.
Actually I don't think the pharmacists will lose. The $40 (approx) difference in the sale price once viagra is subsidised will be made good by the govt. (ie the PBS listing).
BTW, what's wrong with 40% markup?
Grendel
19 Jan 2002, 17:40
Originally posted by mantis
Experiment people & you will realise you can be happy & satisfied without the wham bam thank you mam. :D
Sorry to have to go back again to what you originally said Sandie but this really reads like you dont know the male side of it at all.
Happy and satisfied without the ability to get or maintain an erection?? No, I think not.
Simply put, 99% of males (imo) would disagree. As I previously stated my mates brother said it (Viagra) saved his marriage and made him and him wife very happy.
Also how many women would feel the same sense of inferiority that no matter how aroused through other means they may get to be with their partner that they fail at a base level to stimulate that partner enough to cause erection?
DD showed that theres already a PBS listing for an injection (ouch) on the govt listings. Also I agree that theres no doubt there will be strict govt monintoring of usage of Viagra so that in Dippers words it wont be a 'weekend love drug'.
Besides taxes?? Hell taxes for a $300,000 sunning berth for seals (recently in Vic) taxes for a fringe arts festival that nobody understands but we need it for art, taxes for the local 'interest' groups in marginal seats, taxes for Pollies 'fact finding' missions overseas, taxes taxes taxes... you get the idea.
Id rather see my taxes 'wasted' helping out (and maybe its a 'man' issue) this way than of the myriad real wasting that some taxes go to.
vanders
23 Jan 2002, 22:06
As far as i see it, Viagra should not be given the PBS listing. Being unable to obtain/sustain an erection is not a life threatening thing.
I would find it very irritating if it was listed, as a couple of weeks ago i had to pay $40 for a thing of cream to put on a severe skin infection, and if it hadnt have been treated that soon god only knows what wouldve happened to me, but yet no discount on that.
Voice of Reason
23 Jan 2002, 22:18
Originally posted by Frodo
very good point made. In fact the biggest losers are the pharmacists who would sureley lose their 40% profit margin. I'm not against that because pharmacies are one of the big rip-offs of society. Too many of them that get rich very quickly.
Hey, Frodo, leave Woosha's profit margins alone!
I'm not sure what I think on this one. It sounds like a hefty subsidy, but I don't know what else is on the PBS. I suspect I would be horrified at some of the subsidies on there.
I'm a big fan of preventative medicine for a lot of things - proper exercise, diet, meditation etc. A lot of drug prescription is unnecessary (not that Viagra can necessarily be directly substituted by a half hour walk every other day).
Dippers Donuts
23 Jan 2002, 22:45
Originally posted by vanders
As far as i see it, Viagra should not be given the PBS listing. Being unable to obtain/sustain an erection is not a life threatening thing.
I would find it very irritating if it was listed, as a couple of weeks ago i had to pay $40 for a thing of cream to put on a severe skin infection, and if it hadnt have been treated that soon god only knows what wouldve happened to me, but yet no discount on that.
Hey vanders, was your skin infection life threatening?
vanders
24 Jan 2002, 10:12
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Hey vanders, was your skin infection life threatening?
yes it was actually