Comments on: Lost Your Job? Get Free Drugs!

By: MLR

MLR — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:17:23 +0000

Very cool and good to know. Last time I hosted a carnival (not money hacks) I chose an article from Fire Finance as an editor's pick: Free Health Care for Unemployed. It is a similar topic, and good information for anyone who is unemployed! MLR's last blog post..Save Money On Gas By Knowing Your Cars Cost Per Mile (Thanks Fuelly!)

By: J. Money

J. Money — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:34:25 +0000

I like free beer. Do you know when that will be given away? J. Money's last blog post..The Financial Crisis Explained via Beer & PukeBonds.

By: Mrs. Micah

Mrs. Micah — Fri, 15 May 2009 11:19:03 +0000

It makes some sense. Though it wasn't the only reason I switched brands earlier this year, the fact that there was a generic which worked for my problem and cost only $5 whether or not I had insurance was very attractive. If people are losing their insurance, I think many (and hopefully their doctors) will take a closer look at generic options when they're just as good. Now that I have a $5 drug that works, the fact that I could get the old one for a $20 insurance copay is not at all attractive--even though I have good insurance and a job. I think drug companies are worried no one will switch back. So I'm with Kosmo. Mrs. Micah's last blog post..PF Bloggers Hit Up the Black Squirrel

By: Yana

Yana — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:47:39 +0000

I look at these examples as discretionary drugs, and if they are not discretionary, they should be. http://tr.im/llVg Celebrex – I like to follow that one up with “Celebrex WILL Kill You” at youtube. Many of the drugs that don’t bring positive results do bring further medical problems to continue feeding the industry. It would seem prudent to avoid taking drugs that don’t effectively treat a serious illness, and particularly ones that create illness. The jobless that take advantage of this offer may well remain jobless and disabled, if they live.

By: Kosmo @ The Casual Observer

Kosmo @ The Casual Observer — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:31:42 +0000

Sounds like a way to keep customers so that they don't defect to cheaper alternatives. People get their jobs back, and the income stream restarts. There really isn't a down side, from the consumer perspective. The key to this, of course, is that the production and distribution costs are a very small part of the total costs. I'm guessing that Pfizer can create Viagra pills for roughly the same cost of Flinstones vitamins (that might be an exaggeration, but not by much). Research and development is the big cost (consider how much R&D is spent on drugs that never make it to the market). The way to recoup the R&D costs are through high volume sales. Pfizer doesn't want its customer base to erode because of unempoyment. So Pfizer takes a bit of a loss by giving the drugs away, but comes out ahead in the long run when the customers get a job and remain customers for the next 20 years. Kosmo @ The Casual Observer's last blog post..Auto industry saga