RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 33383
Two people that the right hates and calls "socialists", Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. Here they are grilling Big Pharma:

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


If we can lower our prices for drugs, and therefore get cheaper medicine, it will be because of people like this, NOT Republicans.

Republicans are the ones that barred the US government from negotiating prices with drug companies.

Right-wingers, tell me again why you vote for Republicans?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:27 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 14989
The Pharma lady makes a good point about Gov't price controls not being a true representation of market place competition. However, I am assuming that they would not be selling their products in places like Canada at a loss. So either they are selling at a profit or the higher prices we pay for the same drugs is indirectly subsidizing countries like Canada who do have price controls in effect.

So what we need to learn is are the big drug companies making a profit on the drugs they sell to countries like Canada at the Canadian price point. If they are then we need to establish a baseline that they cannot exceed when selling the same product in the USA. Say no more than the average of the 10 lowest prices in subsidized countries plus no more than 10%.

Of course there may be other things involved that we aren't aware of. In other countries are the drug companies subject to the same types of lawsuits that they are here in the USA. Or is there some sort of limits in those countries.

One more point, if they are selling their product at a loss and the higher US prices are indirectly subsidizing those countries drug costs. That would be something our Gov't would really need to deal with and put to an end. Either those countries that subsidize pay fair market value or they go without the drugs.

_________________
USA, First in War, First in Peace, Last in the American League


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 11766
The Pharma lady makes a good point about Gov't price controls not being a true representation of market place competition. However, I am assuming that they would not be selling their products in places like Canada at a loss. So either they are selling at a profit or the higher prices we pay for the same drugs is indirectly subsidizing countries like Canada who do have price controls in effect.

So what we need to learn is are the big drug companies making a profit on the drugs they sell to countries like Canada at the Canadian price point. If they are then we need to establish a baseline that they cannot exceed when selling the same product in the USA. Say no more than the average of the 10 lowest prices in subsidized countries plus no more than 10%.

Of course there may be other things involved that we aren't aware of. In other countries are the drug companies subject to the same types of lawsuits that they are here in the USA. Or is there some sort of limits in those countries.

One more point, if they are selling their product at a loss and the higher US prices are indirectly subsidizing those countries drug costs. That would be something our Gov't would really need to deal with and put to an end. Either those countries that subsidize pay fair market value or they go without the drugs.

The drug companies are making a profit when they sell to other countries like Canada. Canada has a national health system run by the provinces and they can utilize their size to negotiate prices like the DoD and the VA does. Your daughter is a pharmacist so ask her to compare the cost of drugs to her pharmacy (I assume she works for a large chain store) to what a mom and pop pharmacy would be.

I used DoD and VA contracts while in the AF to buy drugs for our hospitals and clinics and I knew what the prices we negotiated. There used to be, it might still exist, a book called The Red Book which listed drugs, the manufacturer, drug dosages, etc.. as well as the wholesale and retail prices for the civilian community. I compared a number of high turnover drugs using this book to our prices and they turned out to be 40-60% lower than to the civilian community.

Also note, the drug companies usually sell their products through a pharmaceutical distributor and the distributors negotiate discounts with the drug companies by buying in bulk. We purchased most of our drugs through a pharmaceutical distributor (known as a Prime Vendor) and our contracts with them had negotiated prices based upon how much we bought over the year. If we bought more than anticipated the price would be less. These contracts were setup on a regional base with one military hospital, usually the largest in the region, acting as the "lead" for the others so when the "lead" spoke with the Prime Vendor they were speaking for all military hospitals/clinics in the region. So our contracts included all the bases in the region increasing our leverage on price negotiation. The setup for the military is almost identical to the VA.

Do the drug companies make a profit with the military, the VA, or countries like Canada? You better believe it. Their profit margin may be less but they make up for it with bulk sales.

_________________
IMPEACH NOW, REPLACE LATER!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:54 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 6999
Location: miles from nowhere
The Pharma lady makes a good point about Gov't price controls not being a true representation of market place competition. However, I am assuming that they would not be selling their products in places like Canada at a loss. So either they are selling at a profit or the higher prices we pay for the same drugs is indirectly subsidizing countries like Canada who do have price controls in effect.

So what we need to learn is are the big drug companies making a profit on the drugs they sell to countries like Canada at the Canadian price point. If they are then we need to establish a baseline that they cannot exceed when selling the same product in the USA. Say no more than the average of the 10 lowest prices in subsidized countries plus no more than 10%.

Of course there may be other things involved that we aren't aware of. In other countries are the drug companies subject to the same types of lawsuits that they are here in the USA. Or is there some sort of limits in those countries.

One more point, if they are selling their product at a loss and the higher US prices are indirectly subsidizing those countries drug costs. That would be something our Gov't would really need to deal with and put to an end. Either those countries that subsidize pay fair market value or they go without the drugs.

No such thing as market competition. For one thing patents eliminate that from the start. Generics are fought by big pharma. As for governments forcing companies to sell at a loss I doubt it. Many pharmaceutical companies are foreign to start with.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:50 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 33383
"Market forces" don't work when you need a drug to live. I've said it before - if your child is sick and this pill will save their lives, what will you pay for that pill? The answer, of course, is all you have, all you can get, all you can steal. For pharma, that then becomes the price point. It is wrong and immoral, and they're getting rich off of death. Normal market forces is both sides negotiating a price. Big Pharma thinks market forces means they charge us whatever the fuck they want, and we shut up and pay them.

Remember that the Republicans made sure in Medicare Part D that the government was blocked from negotiating prices. As I said, ONLY the Dems will stand up for consumers. And, because she stands up for consumers, glen hates Elizabeth Warren.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 6999
Location: miles from nowhere
"Market forces" don't work when you need a drug to live. I've said it before - if your child is sick and this pill will save their lives, what will you pay for that pill? The answer, of course, is all you have, all you can get, all you can steal. For pharma, that then becomes the price point. It is wrong and immoral, and they're getting rich off of death. Normal market forces is both sides negotiating a price. Big Pharma thinks market forces means they charge us whatever the fuck they want, and we shut up and pay them.

Remember that the Republicans made sure in Medicare Part D that the government was blocked from negotiating prices. As I said, ONLY the Dems will stand up for consumers. And, because she stands up for consumers, glen hates Elizabeth Warren.

The same applies to doctors or hospitals. If your wife has cancer you want the best oncologist at the best hospital. Sure, you can shop for a cheaper MRI but the bottom line is rationality, the basic foundation of the economics of the Austrian school and the Republican Party (and of much of the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton) is faulty. Humans are Homo Sapiens, not Homo Economicus.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 14989
Two people that the right hates and calls "socialists", Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. Here they are grilling Big Pharma:

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


If we can lower our prices for drugs, and therefore get cheaper medicine, it will be because of people like this, NOT Republicans.

Republicans are the ones that barred the US government from negotiating prices with drug companies.

Right-wingers, tell me again why you vote for Republicans?


Once again you equate having a different political view as hatred. While that is obviously true about you personally and might be true of others here. It is generally a false and quite frankly dumb assumption of most people be they conservative or liberal or something in between.

_________________
USA, First in War, First in Peace, Last in the American League


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 33383

Once again you equate having a different political view as hatred. While that is obviously true about you personally and might be true of others here. It is generally a false and quite frankly dumb assumption of most people be they conservative or liberal or something in between.

You're the one that calls us Socialists and Communists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:54 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 2512
guaranteeing either slower invasive bad service or higher prices

TSA PreCheck members fume as their lines get longer

Quote:
......."Why is the PreCheck line so long?" I asked the TSA agent checking my boarding pass.

"Oh," he shrugged. "They sometimes randomly give PreCheck status to passengers."

.In case you're wondering, you want to be in that PreCheck line. There are no shoes to remove, no laptops to take out of the bag and best of all, no scanner to radiate your body. It's just like getting screened, pre-9/11. But some travelers would gladly give up those conveniences if they could get through the line faster. Hence their frustration.
......




FCC set to overturn Obama-era net neutrality rules with Dec. 14 vote

Quote:
.......New proposed regulations are being circulated among the commission today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Tuesday. The rules, which the commission is expected to vote on at its Dec. 14 meeting, would replace those Open Internet or Net neutrality rules, which prevented Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or throttling legal content users sought to access, as well as preventing ISPs from accepting payment to prioritize some data.

"Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet," Pai said in a statement Tuesday. "Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate."...........

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbHi_jDF-I


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13830
Nader stood up for consumers. Alas most of us were too fucking stupid to put him in charge. So we got Donald.

This is the most fucked up country on the face of the earth.

_________________
Image
I resent your insinuendos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13830
The Pharma lady makes a good point about Gov't price controls not being a true representation of market place competition.


There should be no market place competition issues or concerns in the delivery of health care. Warren should have just walked over and slapped her.

_________________
Image
I resent your insinuendos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 33383
What glen admitted is that the cost to manufacture a product has NOTHING to do with it's price. That's why the right is lying when they say things like a higher minimum wage will raise prices. It won't, as prices are set by supply and demand.

Except for health care, when the price of a life destroys a free market price, as a drug that will save a child's life is priceless to the parent.

And pharma is too greedy to set reasonable prices.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group