Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Doc said: "Drug prices are too high! Arrrrrgggghhhh!" Trump issues EO lowering them. "That's socialism!" or "my pharma stocks are tanking!" because it's true. It's a half assed attempt to appease people drowning under health care costs at the expense of private industry. Let's say you owned an ice cream stand and demand was so high you could charge $10 per cone. And trump told you that $5 was the most you could charge. In response you limited your ice cream to a cheap brand of vanilla only. Drug innovation will decrease. When wacka can't get his super expensive anti rejection drugs, there will be hell to pay. You maga's always frame things in false choices. It's not a choice between price controls and high prices. There are other ways to bring prices down. A formulary like the VA or medicaid use would allow pharma to negotiate prices with medicare which represents the vast majority of consumers of drugs. Edited May 12 by Joe Ferguson forever 1
Niagara Bill Posted May 12 Posted May 12 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: So, the Presidents you originally listed (Obama, Bush, Biden) bypassed the democratic process previously? So, it’s primarily the number and the agenda this time? I don’t disagree with you, but we deal with what’s in front of us. This is the way government works, and it seems unreasonable to complain primarily when your guy isn’t in office. That’s the standard these days, and when it’s brought up, the fallback position is “Whatboutism”. I see that as fact avoidance, because how it works in practice is pretty important when considering what things might look like in the future. I think considering the number of EO is only one issue. The types of orders, ie are they subverting traditional processes, using emergency measures in frankly non emergency situations are serious reservations to EO. When Obama and in particular Biden opened the borders was perhaps the greatest blunder and divisive step in US history, but that does not exonerated trump on EOs violating rights and bypassing judicial rulings no matter how great the good. EOs are subject to further legislation, they are not kingly actions.
Niagara Bill Posted May 12 Posted May 12 8 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: because it's true. It's a half assed attempt to appease people drowning under health care costs at the expense of private industry. Let's say you owned an ice cream stand and demand was so high you could charge $10 per cone. And trump told you that $5 was the most you could charge. In response you limited your ice cream to a cheap brand of vanilla only. Drug innovation will decrease. When wacka can't get his super expensive anti rejection drugs, there will be hell to pay. You maga's always frame things in false choices. It's not a choice between price controls and high prices. There are other ways to bring prices down. A formulary like the VA or medicaid use would allow pharmacy to negotiate prices with medicare and the vast majority of consumers of drugs. Joe...while so many love your HC systems, the prices for drugs, the availability of drugs, the cost of many medical procedures, hospitals that make even the rich embarrassed by their wealth, needs review. Even Obama care costs are outrageous. How Pharma can sell a medicine in Canada for $50, and charge $250 in the US is nothing short of financial rape. Every street corner has luxurious medical buildings processing paper work, running plans and they are Uber rich. Every pharma organization is Uber rich. They are all untrustworthy. Why do they want cures when treatments are so beneficial to them. One only needs to see the history of oxy. The money, the sales job, the rich organizations, the crooked doctors, the Wall Street love, versus the deaths. That is the pharma industry. They need to be reined in...if not by trump, then who. Obama didn’t, Biden couldn't even consider.
Doc Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: because it's true. It's a half assed attempt to appease people drowning under health care costs at the expense of private industry. Let's say you owned an ice cream stand and demand was so high you could charge $10 per cone. And trump told you that $5 was the most you could charge. In response you limited your ice cream to a cheap brand of vanilla only. Drug innovation will decrease. When wacka can't get his super expensive anti rejection drugs, there will be hell to pay. You maga's always frame things in false choices. It's not a choice between price controls and high prices. There are other ways to bring prices down. A formulary like the VA or medicaid use would allow pharma to negotiate prices with medicare which represents the vast majority of consumers of drugs. Interesting take there. So you're siding with Big Pharma here? That they're selling their ice cream for $10 here and $5 just North of the border doesn't bother you at all? We should be subsidizing the rest of the World, even though millions here are struggling with high prices? Because it affects your stock prices? You libs always change your arguments when what you say you wanted done gets done by someone else. As for negotiating lower rates, I'll bet this gets drug companies to do just that. Edited May 12 by Doc 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 12 Posted May 12 19 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: I think considering the number of EO is only one issue. The types of orders, ie are they subverting traditional processes, using emergency measures in frankly non emergency situations are serious reservations to EO. When Obama and in particular Biden opened the borders was perhaps the greatest blunder and divisive step in US history, but that does not exonerated trump on EOs violating rights and bypassing judicial rulings no matter how great the good. EOs are subject to further legislation, they are not kingly actions. That doesn't change the fact that EOs are used and supported in this fashion, and complaining because one doesn't like the agenda reveals a massive hypocrisy. You say Obama/Biden made a "blunder" with respect to their open borders EO, others see it not as a blunder, but as a deliberate, tactical assault on the sovereignty of our nation. It's not a matter of exonerating or not, it just is the way the political game is played. Using Andy's post as an example, he seemed perfectly fine with EOs when signed by those he wants to see in power, not so much now. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: Joe...while so many love your HC systems, the prices for drugs, the availability of drugs, the cost of many medical procedures, hospitals that make even the rich embarrassed by their wealth, needs review. Even Obama care costs are outrageous. How Pharma can sell a medicine in Canada for $50, and charge $250 in the US is nothing short of financial rape. Every street corner has luxurious medical buildings processing paper work, running plans and they are Uber rich. Every pharma organization is Uber rich. They are all untrustworthy. Why do they want cures when treatments are so beneficial to them. One only needs to see the history of oxy. The money, the sales job, the rich organizations, the crooked doctors, the Wall Street love, versus the deaths. That is the pharma industry. They need to be reined in...if not by trump, then who. Obama didn’t, Biden couldn't even consider. no argument until "if not by trump". Do it legislatively. For example, allow government funded agencies (some at universities like Harvard) to develop and even produce drugs. Let the gov't hold the patents and change the patent laws so the pharmacy companies can't change the molecule's stereochemistry to get another 7 years for example. Many health care laws are currently skewed massively towards the health care biz. Less radical is the formulary option. Medicaid pays a small fraction of the street cost of drugs. But there are only a few drugs of each class on the formulary. the others are shut out of the market. For insurance companies, make them liable as I suggested. Regulate their price increases tied to their actual costs. Limit malpractice awards severely. But much more simple and more effective is single payor. My private practice was initially tied closely to a small independent hospital where the doctors actually ran things. It was an old but well maintained building. It ran efficiently and care was excellent. Then it sold out to a big conglomerate as did all the surrounding hospitals. Eventually, so did almost all the docs. And now we have a uber expensive taj mahal hospitals with $hitty care. They can't attract the best and the brightest cuz they treat their staff like minions. The CEO is making 5X what the highest earning neurosurgeon is making. So we agree that things need to change but our solutions are very different. 13 minutes ago, Doc said: Interesting take there. So you're siding with Big Pharma here? That they're selling their ice cream for $10 here and $5 just North of the border doesn't bother you at all? We should be subsidizing the rest of the World, even though millions here are struggling with high prices? Because it affects your stock prices? You libs always change your arguments when what you say you wanted done gets done by someone else. As for negotiating lower rates, I'll bet this gets drug companies to do just that. the gov't negotiating on drugs for a formulary is still free market. Extending the ice cream analogy, it would be like the local school system negotiating prices with the ice cream stand for all the students. In exchange for an exclusive group of customers, they get lower prices. Negotiations are the key. Edited May 12 by Joe Ferguson forever
JDHillFan Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 4 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I have a great advisor. Met with her last week. At 5% return, will have a nice sum to give our heirs. Good for you but it makes it seem like all the pissing and moaning about your finances is more theatrical than anything. Oh well, if you weren’t talking out both sides of your mouth, you wouldn’t be talking at all. Edited May 12 by JDHillFan Grammar 1
Doc Posted May 12 Posted May 12 12 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: the gov't negotiating on drugs for a formulary is still free market. Extending the ice cream analogy, it would be like the local school system negotiating prices with the ice cream stand for all the students. In exchange for an exclusive group of customers, they get lower prices. Negotiations are the key. You guys were all fine with Harris' plan to control prices. And here, I'd be willing to bet Trump/his Admin have been trying to negotiate with Big Pharma and they're not budging, hence the EO.
SCBills Posted May 12 Posted May 12 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: you maga's love capitalism until you don't....pick a side. I choose capitalism. and single payer. Your issue is that you think MAGA/Trump is/are Republicans. There’s crossover, but they’re not Republicans. They are/He is moderate to conservative socially and populist economically. 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 12 Posted May 12 58 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: Joe...while so many love your HC systems, the prices for drugs, the availability of drugs, the cost of many medical procedures, hospitals that make even the rich embarrassed by their wealth, needs review. Even Obama care costs are outrageous. How Pharma can sell a medicine in Canada for $50, and charge $250 in the US is nothing short of financial rape. Every street corner has luxurious medical buildings processing paper work, running plans and they are Uber rich. Every pharma organization is Uber rich. They are all untrustworthy. Why do they want cures when treatments are so beneficial to them. One only needs to see the history of oxy. The money, the sales job, the rich organizations, the crooked doctors, the Wall Street love, versus the deaths. That is the pharma industry. They need to be reined in...if not by trump, then who. Obama didn’t, Biden couldn't even consider. "I don't want to talk about that..." --Fergie 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 12 Posted May 12 44 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: no argument until "if not by trump". Do it legislatively. For example, allow government funded agencies (some at universities like Harvard) to develop and even produce drugs. Let the gov't hold the patents and change the patent laws so the pharmacy companies can't change the molecule's stereochemistry to get another 7 years for example. Many health care laws are currently skewed massively towards the health care biz. Less radical is the formulary option. Medicaid pays a small fraction of the street cost of drugs. But there are only a few drugs of each class on the formulary. the others are shut out of the market. For insurance companies, make them liable as I suggested. Regulate their price increases tied to their actual costs. Limit malpractice awards severely. But much more simple and more effective is single payor. My private practice was initially tied closely to a small independent hospital where the doctors actually ran things. It was an old but well maintained building. It ran efficiently and care was excellent. Then it sold out to a big conglomerate as did all the surrounding hospitals. Eventually, so did almost all the docs. And now we have a uber expensive taj mahal hospitals with $hitty care. They can't attract the best and the brightest cuz they treat their staff like minions. The CEO is making 5X what the highest earning neurosurgeon is making. So we agree that things need to change but our solutions are very different. the gov't negotiating on drugs for a formulary is still free market. Extending the ice cream analogy, it would be like the local school system negotiating prices with the ice cream stand for all the students. In exchange for an exclusive group of customers, they get lower prices. Negotiations are the key. It sounds to me like you're saying greed is driving all sides of this equation. Hospitals selling out. Doctors selling out. With respect to the CEO of the hospital, what type of salary are you speaking of? With respect to the top dog neurosurgeon, what type of earnings are you speaking of for him/her? As an alternative, what you you suggest as a fixed income for both?
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, SCBills said: Your issue is that you think MAGA/Trump is/are Republicans. There’s crossover, but they’re not Republicans. They are/He is moderate to conservative socially and populist economically. There are very few real R’s left. I can think of only 2 in the senate and they’re both female. MAGA is now the party, the party is now maga. Disappointing the real R’s folded like cheap suits. 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It sounds to me like you're saying greed is driving all sides of this equation. Hospitals selling out. Doctors selling out. With respect to the CEO of the hospital, what type of salary are you speaking of? With respect to the top dog neurosurgeon, what type of earnings are you speaking of for him/her? As an alternative, what you you suggest as a fixed income for both? 4 million, 800k. No, I suggest single payer with the option for patients to go private if they want to pay substantially more. The UK system does this. Edited May 12 by Joe Ferguson forever
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 12 Posted May 12 24 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: 4 million, 800k. No, I suggest single payer with the option for patients to go private if they want to pay substantially more. The UK system does this. Does the UK system require all physicians to participate in the single payer system at some level before they can freelance and set their pricing as they see fit?
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 39 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Does the UK system require all physicians to participate in the single payer system at some level before they can freelance and set their pricing as they see fit? I don't believe so. I had a relative in England diagnosed with a rare condition which required a super specialist. She could see someone with specific expertise in that field in several months, see a more general specialist much sooner or see the super specialist as private pay. In the US, there are already many private pay concierge primary care docs. They usually don't deal with any insurance at all except for referrals, labs and X-rays. And they have a very small patient panel so you get more personalized care. And before you start complaining about bout a tiered system, it's always been tiered. Especially if you are on medicaid. Many docs refuse to accept it. Pharmaceuticals are much the same. You can get the one on the formulary at low cost or you can buy the newest weight loss drug for $500 per month for cash. And with the government negotiating for medicare, medicaid and the Va and having a closed formulary, prices will decrease greatly. It's what almost all of Europe does and one reason why their prices are so much lower. we don't need to reinvent the wheel. the blueprint is well established. hospitals the same.. you can go to a taj mahal at your own cost or an ordinary one covered by single payer. Edited May 12 by Joe Ferguson forever
JDHillFan Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 5 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Well, there goes my pharma stocks....Thanks donnie the commie. Dems supported negotiating lower prices through Medicare's bargaining power. R's voted it down every time. If the entire medicare population obtained lower prices, it would spill over to the private sector as it does for other health care costs… Instead he price controls and tanks my stocks. f him. Pfizer, Merck, J&J, Eli Lilly all doing well today. You are completely clueless as indicated by your earlier post. That much is obvious. On the bright side for you, take the profits immediately and run with them. Think of the whining and embarrassment it will save you. https://www.barrons.com/articles/pfizer-merck-stock-pharma-prices-trump-dbab7d47 🤦🏻🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♂️ Edited May 12 by JDHillFan & 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 12 Posted May 12 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: There are very few real R’s left. I can think of only 2 in the senate and they’re both female. MAGA is now the party, the party is now maga. Disappointing the real R’s folded like cheap suits. There are few independent thinkers on either side of the isle. Rare is the Senator or Representative that breaks rank on votes. Rarer still is bi-partisan collaboration. I suspect if Trump worked with Congressional leadership to legislate lower drug prices few to none Democrats would vote "yes". Because, well you know why. The dictator narrative prohibits the President from being viewed as following the Constitution.
Doc Brown Posted May 12 Posted May 12 17 hours ago, Andy1 said: If he has a great plan to lower prices, then Republicans should make it the law, as Biden did with drug prices in the Inflation Reduction Act. These executive orders have no sticking power. Yeah. Democrats suck at marketing. Bernie Sanders has been campaigning on this ad nauseum once he came on the scene 10 or so years ago.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: There are few independent thinkers on either side of the isle. Rare is the Senator or Representative that breaks rank on votes. Rarer still is bi-partisan collaboration. I suspect if Trump worked with Congressional leadership to legislate lower drug prices few to none Democrats would vote "yes". Because, well you know why. The dictator narrative prohibits the President from being viewed as following the Constitution. Here's the first medicare drug negotiations bill that passed. Check how the parties voted. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicare-drug-price-negotiation-program-negotiated-prices-initial-price-applicability-year-2026 In August 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) into law. The law makes improvements to Medicare by expanding benefits, lowering drug costs, and improving the sustainability of the Medicare program for generations to come. The law provides meaningful financial relief for millions of people with Medicare by improving access to affordable treatments and strengthening Medicare, both now and in the long run. For the first time, the law provides Medicare the ability to directly negotiate the prices of certain high expenditure, single source drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) selected ten drugs covered under Medicare Part D for the first cycle of negotiations for initial price applicability year 2026 and engaged in voluntary negotiations with the drug companies for the selected drugs. Below is the list of negotiated prices, which the statute refers to as Maximum Fair Prices (MFPs), for 10 drugs covered under Medicare Part D that will go into effect beginning January 1, 2026, based on negotiations and agreements reached between CMS and participating drug companies. Edited May 12 by Joe Ferguson forever
Doc Brown Posted May 12 Posted May 12 2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: He's lying but that's fine I guess if he does lower costs.
Recommended Posts