If you survey pharmacists - who generally understand drugs, how they work, and how theyāre made - youāll find that they, more than any other profession, eschew brand-name products, and almost always go for generic. Thereās really nothing magical about that bottle of twenty aspirins that cost more three times as much as the 500-pill bottle from Costco.
Start a new habit: never by any dish washing liquid thatās advertised on TV (so you donāt pay for all those frikkinā ads) unless itās cheaper than generic. Because you have your hands in that soapy water for a half-hour at a time, dish washing liquid is a really, really, mild detergent and safe for all sorts of other uses. Next, use that dish washing liquid instead of that expensive liquid detergent (you know the one) to wash your woolens.
Rinse, repeatā¦ Thisāll become easier as you keep doing this for other products.
/ In case youāre not aware: thereās no need at all to ārinse and repeatā when shampooing your hair. Itās a marketing ploy. 1) if you really need to wash twice, thereās something wrong with that shampoo, 2) really? like hand soap isnāt good enough, or how about using dish washing liquid instead?
They are also influenced by the parade of hotties who take them out to dinner, drinks and special events. Sex is strictly verboten.
The doctors insist it doesnāt influence their prescription choices. I hope it isnāt seen as a leap to say this is the same view espoused by HRC, with respect to her Wall St. speakerās fees and her approach to policing the investment industry.
Iāve got family who live in the Westchester area and work on Wall Street.
Itās effinā crazy. They get the $12 baby shampoo that smells just like Johnson & Johnson. Because to get anything less would just be embarrassing, yāknow?
Would those be the same doctors who donāt wash their hands? This will change nothing.
Also, did somebody say Drs. Who?
For aspirin, and likely most medicines, the generic is likely fine. I would check on the generic manufacturer though, if able. Ranbaxy and Apotex have rich histories of Warning Letters (i.e. flagrant, consistent violations) from the FDA. These are some of the biggest generic manufacturers in the world and they have some really sketchy shit going on in their facilities. Stick with Teva and Baxter, they have better GMP records.
There are also some differences between the brands. The processing of the tablets and other stuff has significant effect on the resorption and pharmacodynamics. I think the allowable range is 80-120% of the nominal. Which may have no important effect for most, but some patients can be more sensitive to these factors and for those the differences that shouldnāt matter much actually matter quite some.
Whatās that line from If I had a Million Dollars? Weād take the limousine, 'cuz it costs moreā¦
Even if the doctor prescribes a name brand, most insurance companies and most pharmacists will simply substitute the generic. I think the doctor can try to override this, Iām not sure.
Also, a few generics really arenāt the same - notably Warfarin.
Simply shocking!!! 
I suppose now youāre going to try to tell me that big business expects to affect lawmaker behaviour by ādonatingā millions of dollars?
Money is protected by the first amendment now.
Itās a form of speech.
Here in Germany prescriptions with a brand name drug are normally* binding for the pharmacy, generics are handed out when an active pharmaceutical ingredient is prescribed.
* naturally with exceptions. weāre talking about German bureaucracy
The Constitution says all āmenā are created equal.
How does that extend to corporate people?
Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people.
Because reasonsā¦ Money. Power. Influence.
No good reasons.
I doubt that they can override the prescription, but the patient will pay a higher co-payment.
Edit: sometimes the pharmacist will ask if you would prefer a generic, but I think that they have to get confirmation from the doctor before switching.
Prescription forms usually have a checkbox for āGeneric OK,ā allowing the substitution if checked.
Nonsense. Corporations have always been fictitious people for legal purposes, because you can sue them. The law draws a line between them and ānaturalā people. The big deal with Citizens United is they followed the logic that if corporations are people, they must have First Amendment rights.
I think it would be interesting next to see a corporation assert its Second Amendment rights.
Heh. Corporations were viewed as some vile compromises by the people that put them together originally. Dangerous entities that limited liability for the public goodā¦ For things like the ābuild this bridge together across this riverā corporation. They were intended to be unincorporated once their function was fulfilled.
Whatever we have now is a sort of crony capitalist hybrid of limited liability and corporate welfare backed by the power of the US Treasury.
Orā¦ The things people worried about when corporations became a thing in the first place.
As far as corporations having second amendment rights? I once saw a gorgeous troop transport at Texas Instruments. All black. 50 caliber mounted to a swivel mount on top. That was 20 years agoā¦ So yeah.
Thereās a precident.
Anaesthesia doesnāt get new and exciting drugs very often. When it does theyāre often too expensive to become part of routine practice in the public sector until the price comes down significantly (Merck, Iām thinking of Sugammadex, hint, hint). Plus, in New Zealand, Pharmac has pretty tight control over who our drug suppliers are. So no experience of a āparade of hottiesā trying to persuade me to use their wares.
Iām torn over whether this is a good thing or a bad thing ā¦ 
[Edit: For those with no sense of humour āthe last paragraph is a joke].
