Reply With Quote
is this a serious question?
Of course not, she's a lying cunt who will do anything to get elected.
If she's smart, she's not gonna follow thru with her stance on Obamacare.
Of course not, she's a lying cunt who will do anything to get elected.
It will be interesting to see what she really does. Her proposed tax increases on corporations and individuals are an economy killer. Corporations will either leave of keep their profits overseas for good. Tim Cook explained it pretty well...
What do you say in response to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz’s comments on Bloomberg [television], where he called Apple’s profit reporting in Ireland a “fraud”?
I didn’t hear it. But if anybody said that, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Let me explain what goes on with our international taxes. The money that’s in Ireland that he’s probably referring to is money that is subject to U.S. taxes. The tax law right now says we can keep that in Ireland or we can bring it back. And when we bring it back, we will pay 35 percent federal tax and then a weighted average across the states that we’re in, which is about 5 percent, so think of it as 40 percent. We’ve said at 40 percent, we’re not going to bring it back until there’s a fair rate. There’s no debate about it. Is that legal to do or not legal to do? It is legal to do. It is the current tax law. It’s not a matter of being patriotic or not patriotic. It doesn’t go that the more you pay, the more patriotic you are.
I cannot picture Bern with his amount of backers caving in without some kind of solid agreement.
And I say that knowing Shillary will make stuff up.
Just that Bern has been around the political block so I can't see him endorsing her without some kind of assurance.
she will just say "she tried" and blame it on the Republicans.
Yeah....and they're damn good at it.
It's a business, they're not in it for moral reasons, but to make a buck. The state is the one that should have the competing interest in the well being of citizens, affordable access to healthcare, etc.
That's exactly the dilemma I'm talking about. Until you actually deal with profit-motive (and thus cost), nothing is going to change.
Rising cost of potentially life-saving EpiPen puts pinch on families
In 2009, pharmacies paid slightly more than $100 for a 2-pack of EpiPens. The price has since skyrocketed to more than $600.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/allergy-medication-epipen-epinephrine-rising-costs-impact-on-families/
"Don't wanna die? Then pay up."
More BS from the Heritage Foundation, which incidentally devised the Individual Mandate that became part of the ACA. Single-payer systems in Europe restrict access when they assess that the price of a new drug isn't commensurate with the increase in effectiveness over existing drugs. Guess what drug companies do when threatened with restricting access? In most cases, they give in and cut prices so that their drug is picked up by the country.
And that is the most important thing the US misses out on. If a drug company can prove a very minor increase in efficacy with a new drug and get a patent, they set high prices when the drug hits the market. There is no "drug review board" in the US which examines whether the price is worth the efficacy benefit. If I tried to sell you a product that's 5% better than what's on the market, but at a 50% higher price, you would tell me to take a hike unless I cut the price. The US healthcare system doesn't have a way of doing that. If the drug is FDA approved, healthcare payers will cover it because they don't want to impinge on individual choice.
Is the drug review board system perfect? Not always. Sometimes they deny access wrongly. But they publish the rationale for everyone to see, and are open to criticism from anyone. Sometimes public opinion has led them to reverse their decisions. No system is perfect, but the US system doesn't even attempt to correlate drug price and effectiveness.
Heritage Stink tank, one of the oldest, most corrupt outfits in the VRWC strategy. Of course Heritage would be against regulating drug prices, keeping America to be the only industrial country which doesn't.
5 ways drug makers and the health care industry are shaping campaigns
WASHINGTON — Vilifying drug companies has been de riguer among this year’s political candidates.
But for the pharmaceutical industry, today’s critic is tomorrow’s committee chair, or perhaps even president. And in Washington, tradition holds that early generosity, or even one small pre-election check, will be remembered by candidates once they are in office.
And so drug makers and others in the health care industry have responded in force during the 2016 election — contributing heavily to both parties, including to the very politicians who are criticizing them.
“Money is absolutely key for access, that’s the harsh reality,” said Wright H. Andrews Jr., a longtime lobbyist and former head of the American League of Lobbyists. “They are still going to make donations — directly, indirectly — or they will hire people who have.”
With that in mind, here are five things you may not have known about how the health care industry is spending its political money this year:
Drug makers and others are giving heavily to super PACs favoring Hillary Clinton
There’s big action in the states
Health care providers can rally to support their own
Forget what you’ve read. There really are no limits.
In some cases, the health care industry is withholding support
https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/16/...y-health-care/
aka, The Domestic Corrupt Practices Action.
Hilariously hypocritical that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act even exists.
FCPA is just another LIE that America tells its vainglorious self
American politics is total bribery at all levels.
Politicians run for office to get (more) wealthy.
The article isn't about single payer healthcare and that's not why I provided the link.
no, it's propaganda about HOW BAD are VA's drug regulations and typically boring Heritage stink tank transparent bull about why regulating drug prices is just another horrible overreach by hated big govt.
Contributors to Heritage:
"drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._Contributions
I know ... I was refuting the central argument in the article that price capping / negotiation will damage consumer choice and access
With the My EpiPen Savings CardTM, you could be eligible to save on up to three EpiPen 2-Pak® or EpiPen Jr 2-Pak® cartons every time you fill your prescription, now through December 31, 2016. You’ll even be able to reuse your $0 co-pay card for multiple purchases.
https://www.epipen.com/copay-offer/
That's a terrible read. He undermines his own argument from the get go: He first says drug companies can skip the VA price controls because they're a small market, then moves on to explain how Medicare is 40% of the pharmaceutical market in the US. With such a huge market, it's the drug companies that won't have a choice, as seen in countries like Canada and pretty much the rest of the world. Eventually you have to sell you product, and the only place on earth where they can do so with unrestricted prices is the US. You take 40% of that market from them, and they can't just sit it out. That's the whole point, and there's plenty of evidence worldwide that actually does work to reduce costs for beneficiaries. That's why importing drugs from Canada has been made illegal in the US. We're subsidizing those low prices everywhere else.
Thanks for sharing it though.
Because as we all know, if the government doesn't mandate something it doesn't happen.
When you're looking at regulation, that's pretty much how it works. Would you pay taxes if the government didn't mandate you to? How about getting a driver's license if you weren't mandated to get one in order to drive? Plenty of examples, tbh...
So you think medicare can negotiate the same prices as the VA if they also go to a single formulary that excludes 35% of the most common drugs prescribed to seniors?
If Medicare does get to negotiate the prices, it would actually make manufacturers of those 35% of drugs have to think very long and hard about pricing or they risk missing over 50% of the US market. It might work for them when it's just the VA, which is a small market, relatively speaking, but when you're talking half of their market, then that's a completely different story. And there's no other market they can go to, everywhere else outside the US already set prices.
At the end of the day the question is the same: do you want to control costs or not? If anybody holding a patent can charge whatever they want, then you're not going to bring costs down. There's zero incentive for them not to charge what the market will bear, so the only solution you have (considering the patent precludes actual compe ion), is to control the market and set the value. The alternative is what you have today, under the guise of "choice", which it really isn't if you can't afford insurance, the insurer won't cover it or you just can't afford the medicine. "choice" and "access" are two completely different things.
There are way too many "me too" drugs that have almost no advantage.
and old generic, cheapo, very well known metformin works just as well for blood sugar control as the hyper-expensive new drugs with all their side effects, at least the side effects known so far.
BigPharma is as a big a scam as the $700B MIC.
I never said I didn't. I provided the link to TB's comment that the VA was "damn good" at negotiating drug prices which is true but there is a reason why. If you think that medicare can simply copy the VA model and achieve the same results then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I also don't agree with your argument that if medicare did implement price controls then drug manufacturers would simply have no other options to make up the lost revenue.
They won't....different clientele.
Repugs' hated REGULATIONS that forbid Medicare from negotiating drug, device prices have to overturned first.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
