Go Bi-den! Go Biden! After a brief intro about Covid, our President lays out a bunch of common sense initiatives he is taking, or is pushing for Congress to act on, to drastically lower the price Americans, & America, pay for the exact same drugs for which other counties pay only 1/3 to 1/2 the price. He has instructed the FDA to accelerate the process of less-expensive generics coming into the market. He has directed Medicare to begin getting safe drugs from Canada, at huge discounts from what we pay (which Colorado is already doing). And he has put forth the most irrefutably sensible plan for Congress to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, across the board, with pharmaceutical manufacturers. He even is proposing an idea that I've advocated, on Political Forum, to invest funds in government lab research into new (drug) treatments for disease & other health conditions. He didn't mention the other aspect of this practice-- of the government, then being able to dictate to whichever manufacturer, to whom we give these discoveries, the price-limit they could charge; or else, getting for our invested research, a share of the drug's profits-- but I wouldn't be surprised if he is thinking along those lines. I urge all to listen to the 20 minute speech in which (after the very brief, Covid intro) President Biden explains these highly beneficial measures to save both Americans, and the American government, which they fund, a ton of money.
Why do you believe it will cost less for the government to research and develop new drugs than a private company and that our entire pharmaceutical industry would be better directed by government officials? Why do you believe there would MORE and BETTER discoveries. I'm always amazed that some think anyone in government is better at everything than people in the private sectors.
I'll respond to the first reply from the Right, before it even arrives. Since this will not cost us money but, rather, save us unnecessary expense, I suppose you'll have to go with, "he's a closet Socialist." And, I'll admit, I am yet again surprised at how liberal, & aggressively progressive, is a part of Pres. Biden's agenda. But here's the thing-- this is the kind of, "Socialist," policy, that will be immensely helpful to, and popular with, our population. Also, it is quite the misnomer to call Medicare using their clout, to negotiate lower drug prices, socialist-- that is CAPITALISM 101. Likewise, is the investing of our resources in research, from which we see a monetary savings/gain. In the speech, Biden notes that between 2016 and 2020 (I think), drug companies spent more on stock buy-backs & dividends, than they did on research. Once again, I urge even those who come to this thread, ready to criticize, to first listen to the President's presentation so that, if nothing else, you won't offer the utterly bogus claims that would only make one sound stupid and ignorant. In the speech, Biden emphasizes that all these things can be done, while still allowing drug makers to net sizable profits. So where is the Right going to stand on these actions & proposals? If they fight against them, but Dems are able to get them through-- and the propositions would have budgetary impact, so could well be done through, "reconciliation"-- I believe that this particular issue is the rare bird that would make a significant portion of Republican supporters, finally, ready to switch political teams.
Look how well they DNC has done for minorities and poverty.. I'm sure Gubmint run pharma will be just as successful
Its not "amazing" at all! Many of our drugs have been developed with government, with only the "last mile" effort by big pharma to grab the patents and knowledge and development to get the money to private companies.
Political Speech's always sound great, but once the Government gets involved quality drops, including life, prosperity, availability and generally ends up in the hands of foreign producers and distributors... See Chiners....
90% of all cost reductions in pharmaceuticals will be from allowing Americans to import those same drugs from overseas. George W Bush put america in this position by not allowing imports of the drugs produced in America, but sold in other countries. The idea that the a pill manufactured in America, could cost Americans more than the very same one that they had to export and then reimport is beyond ridiculous. But it does point out that we dont have the best healthcare in the world, and that healthcare is nothing but a business in the US.
You, obviously, did NOT watch the speech. Taking your slew of inaccurate comments, one at a time (& this is your one free pass, this thread; henceforth, inane statements will likely be ignored), Bluesguy misunderstanding #1) I never said that "it will cost less for the government to research and develop new drugs than a private company." Biden was saying that if private companies did not want to invest in research for certain things that would be real boons to society, government would have the funds to commit. Poster Misunderstanding #2) Your thinking that anyone claimed, "our entire pharmaceutical industry would be better directed by government officials," is a flight of fantasy, on your part. I never said anything close to that. Biden never said anything resembling that. The idea came from nowhere other than your own mind; so that question, you should ask to yourself. 3) Why would there be MORE discoveries, if more people were researching new compounds-- is that what seems illogical to you? Well, then, how about the fact that government laboratories HAVE, previously, made breakthrough discoveries, which were then handed off to Big Pharma, without the American people getting anything in return, for their investment. Watch the video. 4) "I'm always amazed that some think anyone in government is better at everything than people in the private sectors." And I'm somewhat amazed at the way a person can know how to read, yet come away from reading new ideas with nothing but his undisplaceable, old presets.
Not watching but can I assume there's something about ensuring illegals get a piece of this and of course for free?
Nothing in the speech even remotely approached the idea of," Gubmit run Pharma." Ditto, my posts. Well, at least you caught the general topic, of pharmaceuticals.
So if the government researches and develops all the new drugs for the future all those people work for free and the buildings are free to occupy and the materials and equip is all donated or something? What do you mean it will not cost us money? How do you cover the cost. And if it doesn't cost then there is nothing to save. Do you see the problem with your logic here? And I said nothing about socialism in my post. Stock buybacks have nothing to do with this and only shows Biden and his advisers know nothing about business finance and the economy. Stock buybacks actually shift capital into MORE research and development, let's see if you can figure out how. And again why do you, as I see many on the left assert, hold this belief that government can always do things better than the private markets? Or that it is cheaper of more efficient?
For the consumer there are very affordable ways to purchase the pharmaceuticals you need. I take several everyday and I pay $4 - $12 for 90 day supplies of them just through my insurance on my Medicare Part D or whichever it is and another which retails for about $150 I pay $30 through Goodrx. My total 7 scrips I pay a couple of hundred a year for them all. How much cheaper can they get for the consumer.
President can dictate private business prices with an EO? Lol It was purely symbolic and accomplished nothing
My main issue with this position is that you’re over-generalizing when you say, “Americans… are paying for the exact same drugs”. The example regarding insulin is certainly a case where the price of an identical drug is inflated in the United States. Trump actually negotiated for a lower cost generic, but that deal was ‘frozen’ by Biden. https://factcheck.afp.com/trumps-insulin-order-frozen-not-scrapped-biden In contrast, brand name blood pressure and cancer medications have been shown to work more efficiently and with fewer side effects. In fact, there was a study in Canada that demonstrated more side effects for patients that used generic drugs as opposed to the brand manufacturer. While most things about a generic appear to be the same, the difference usually comes down to the cheaper inactive ingredients within a product. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/do-generic-drugs-compromise-on-quality Moreover, Joe Biden merely uses the example of generic insulin to justify the forced reduction of prices for novel drugs that are without generic competitors. It’s not a negotiation. He wants to dictate the profit margin for pharmaceutical companies that have agreements with investors that funded these research projects, as well as pave the way for pharmaceutical competitors to enter the market. My objection is that his plan is overly broad, and therefore, not sensible. Given that Big Pharma is known as one of the biggest donor groups in US politics, they system will likely be abused to favor certain companies. We’ve seen such abuses occur with state and federal prosecutors. Also, the government funding research is also extremely political. Look at Fauci and his involvement in funding gain-of-function research for Bat Coronaviruses, or the expenditure for Covid research. In regards to the latter, certain treatments for Covid had demonstrated success, but were rejected due to political viewpoints regarding vaccines. Studies regarding Ivermectin have been rejected from Journals. This is a generic drug that pharmaceutical companies do not want used for the treatment of Covid-19, and government has placed roadblocks in the way of this treatment because???? I’ve worked on enough pharmaceutical cases to know the government picks winners and losers. https://libertyjournal.org/2021/08/11/indias-ivermectin-blackout/
It's hilarious that Joe Biden spent 10 minutes talking about the reduction of a generic drug that he suspended.
Have you priced lumber lately? Why not have govt run lumber mills? Cars too, they cost waaay too much. And computers. Those are basically a utility nowadays anyway. We need cheaper guns too, to increase access of a constitutional right to the underprivileged. And ammo. The govt already makes ammo, we should be able to buy that at a discount. While there is an argument to be made that the pharmaceutical industry is fleecing us in a rather piratical way and govt prolly has some obligation to do something about it ...did I miss the part where this doesn't set the precedent open to potentially replace all private industry in the US with cheaper govt-run industry that (ostencibly) can't turn a profit and therefore (theoretically) can always operate cheaper than the competition? It would arguably save us money, after all, right?
As you can, no doubt, read for yourself, I began what turned out to be post #3, saying that I would respond to the 1st poster from the Right, before he even replies. If you need me to do the math, here, for you: I began my post prior to your posting your reply, which I was not aware of until after I'd posted my own post, since you did not quote me, and therefore I got no alert. IOW, nothing in my 2nd post has anything whatsoever to do with your first post, for the simple reason that mine was completed before I ever saw your post (even if you did beat me to the #2 position, while I was still typing). Unbelievable. From the OP: Read it again, until you pick up on that A) If the government shares in the profits, it recoups it's costs and then some; B) If the government says to a company, we'll give you the patent and let you make this, but you can't charge more than X dollars, besides private citizens saving a huge bundle-- for a good number, the difference between whether or not they can even afford it, so determining if they can benefit from something they had funded, with their taxes-- Medicare and Medicaid would also reap great savings on those drugs, which would more than offset, over time, the research money spent on their development. As an example, govt. labs developed the estrogen- modulator tamoxifen, which was the best thing we had at the time (and maybe still is) for fighting breast cancer. After we gave away that patent to a Pharma giant, which had the exclusive rights to produce it for a dozen years, they charged an exorbitant amount, compared to their cost to produce it (and had spent nothing on research). This meant some Americans could not get the very drug that their own taxes had paid to have developed. But if you had breast cancer, and wanted to live, you would no doubt go to great lengths to obtain this drug. In the view of pharmaceutical companies however, they will charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of the human consequences. I reiterate my appeal to you: WATCH THE VIDEO, please, before you post.
I'd rather hear you try to explain how, because this seems a ridiculous contention, that if a company takes X number of dollars & wants to maximize their investment in R&D, they should NOT invest the money into R&D, but buy back their own stock, to raise its value, which will somehow lead to even MORE investment income than they'd poured into buying stock-- quick question: you believe in perpetual-motion machines as well, right? Only thing is, if I had $100 million to put into research, but my buying stock has now, hypothetically (if dubiously), yielded me $150 million to invest in research, I would have to be a dope, not to buy back more stock with that 150, in anticipation of getting $225 million for research... which I would, of course, use to buy back more stock. And again I respond -- since it appears I had not implied strongly enough, the last time-- WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING THE IDEA THAT I ASSERT OR BELIEVE, "that government can always do things better than the private markets? Or that it is cheaper (or) more efficient?"
First off, I thank you for having watched Biden, in the video, laying out his perspective, which allows us to discuss the actual proposals (instead of just throwing out ideas from some generalized, "Conservative," point of view, on the government versus the private sector). You are correct about this (at least practically-speaking). He is essentially proposing, in certain instances, price controls. And I acknowledge that you have a valid argument, there. I have not, obviously, seen the details of his proposal, but I'll just point out that, his saying that Medicare should set an upper limit to what it would pay, is suggesting just the same thing that most other (at least 1st world) countries do; it is using our size to control vendor prices, like any large business. Biden's adding the condition that the pharmaceutical company would have to give that same price to all, while not technically price control, would be a monopolistic, unfair business practice, anti-competitive, and would almost certainly be deemed illegal (perhaps even leading to our forced break-up)-- and yet, Google carries on, largely unmolested. The crossroads of this debate is the question of whether or not medicine falls into a special category of business. I will admit, off the bat, that I have no expertise in this area; I believe, though, that what is possible, is not cut & dried. Ultimately, though, I think it comes down to personal ideology, more than immovable certainties of law. That is, I think a case can be made for either way of looking at it; but that case will turn on what principles the arguer holds paramount, in importance. To try and elaborate-- already, public hospitals are disallowed from refusing to provide a certain level of care, regardless of a patient's ability to pay. Drug makers are a different class of business than public hospitals, at present. But that does preclude a change in the law, though that seems a rather drastic step, that is hard to imagine occurring. Thinking about your point, it seems clear that the Pharmaceutical Industry will certainly be pursuing legal options, if and when any of this comes to pass, whether under present law, or some new one.
LUCKY YOU! So you are telling us that you imagine that your own, personal situation, is comparable to EVERYONE ELSE'S? Can you not plumb the possibility that not all drugs are priced similarly to yours? Have you known a grocery store in which the prices of some items were very good, while certain others were quite expensive, relative to prices elsewhere? Maybe you were not particularly a fan of those over-priced items. Or perhaps it was not too inconvenient for you to pick them/it up on a different shopping trip, to another store. Or maybe you decided that it wasn't worth the price, or the trip to a different store, so decided to just go without it...People who need prescription drugs, rarely have that much flexibility, in their options, at least not without far graver consequences than living a life without Haagen Daas.* * I don't know where that example came from; I would guess-- quite randomly, since I have almost nothing to go by-- that you would typically take fried pork skins over ice cream; but chicharron is not all that expensive. Menudo, on the other hand...
