Nasty Beloni Unveils 95% Tax On Prescription Meds

[The Purge]

It's a follow up bill on Trumps plan.

The plan in part borrows from some of Trump's drug pricing agenda, particularly on tying the cost of medicines to cheaper prices often paid in other developed countries. Some of the administration's ideas, however, have been met with skepticism from GOP lawmakers, who are closely aligned with drugmakers.

Trump even seems to still support it.

President Donald Trump hasn't taken a position on the plan, but he offered encouraging remarks on Twitter Thursday evening.

"I like Sen. [Chuck] Grassley’s drug pricing bill very much, and it’s great to see Speaker Pelosi’s bill today. Let’s get it done in a bipartisan way!" he wrote.

Pelosi's new drug plan pressures Trump on campaign pledge

Idiots still haven't got the fact that Trump holds out the carrot in front of you, getting you all wet, than when push comes to shove pulls the carrot away...HE IS THE MASTER AND STABLE GENIUS of this approach to you Anti-Americans!

So he lies?

It is called baiting and he dies it almost to keep you scum confused and irritated!....just look at you!...ROTFLMFAO

 

[Crepitus]

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines,
making sure the Dems don't get elected.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday released a much-anticipated plan detailing House Democrats’ ideas to change the way people get prescription drugs. At the heart of the plan is a retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines. The only way out of paying this tax is if the drug becomes subject to strict government price controls and price caps. The House is expected to vote on the plan this fall.

This “Pelosi Medicine Tax” could apply to the 250 most popular prescription drugs in the country and must apply to at least 25 of them. The tax is not on profits from the sale of the drug, but on the gross receipts from the sale. For example, if a medicine is sold for $100, a tax of $95 is owed, regardless of the cost of selling the drug.

The tax would apply to anyone who needs a prescription drug, and that’s just about everyone — seniors, veterans, women, you name it. The Pelosi Medicine Tax is not limited to just Medicare; it would apply to all sales of an affected drug, everywhere in the healthcare system.

Needless to say, such a tax would cripple access to life-saving prescription medicines and would very quickly mean government rationing and waiting lists. A tax of this size is next of kin to a Venezuelan-style socialist takeover of the bulk of the prescription drug industry. By having to turn all their money over to the government, the pharmaceutical companies would become captive corporations of the government itself — a kind of post office that dispenses pills instead of parcels.

Awaiting the President of all American's tweet on this now.

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines

It's not a tax on consumers, it's a tax on corporations. What it really is is a way to force big pharma to the table.

"The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65 percent of the previous year’s sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refuses to offer the government’s price, to a maximum of 95 percent. "

Pelosi’s Drug Plan Would Let U.S. Negotiate Prices of 250 Medications

Agreed. Willow's posts are on point, however, that with the tax, pharma may not make as many new drugs, and lifespans may decrease. Her willingness to trust a market that has failed, however, makes her solutions … failures.

I think the question is how can govt protect US consumers and still make sure Americans have access to new drugs. And had Trump not worried about the EU trade balance and addressed this issue, we'd be better off.

We subsidize the shit outta pharmacological research. The claim they lose money if they can't sell drugs at ridiculous prices is a lie.

 

[Dana7360]

Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs



By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.

From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

No it's not. Our government does things like that all the time.

Reagan did it with drunk driving. In the 80s he signed a bill that said if a state doesn't raise their legal drinking age to 21 they won't get any money for their highways.

So as not to lose that money for roads in their state, all states raised their drinking age to 21.

This is the same thing. The company is very free to not lower their prices but they will face a consequence for it. Up to 95% of the sales will go to the government in taxes.

They will lower their prices, everyone will benefit.

Leave it to a far right radical extremist to be against anything that is good for and helps the people of our nation instead of making already filthy rich people even more richer.

I hope the bill passes. Most Americans will too.

Bullshit!

I miss posted, the states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21 didn't lose all their federal funds for roads. They lost 10%. States lost millions. Eventually all states raised their drinking age.

You might want to read the following article:

Four Times the Government Held Highway Funding Hostage

Most famously, the Highway Trust Fund was used in 1984 to get states to comply with the new national drinking age of 21. States that did not comply with the Reagan administration's drinking-age law would see 10 percent of their federal highway funds — in some states, several million dollars — cut. All of the states eventually complied, and the U.S. continues to have the highest drinking age in the world.

It wasn't done on just drinking either. It's been done with speed limits, helmet laws and texting while driving.

You might want to learn about a subject before you post such ridiculous posts as yours above. That way you won't give me or anyone else the chance to let you make such a fool of yourself to all of cyberspace.

 

[22lcidw]

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines,
making sure the Dems don't get elected.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday released a much-anticipated plan detailing House Democrats’ ideas to change the way people get prescription drugs. At the heart of the plan is a retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines. The only way out of paying this tax is if the drug becomes subject to strict government price controls and price caps. The House is expected to vote on the plan this fall.

This “Pelosi Medicine Tax” could apply to the 250 most popular prescription drugs in the country and must apply to at least 25 of them. The tax is not on profits from the sale of the drug, but on the gross receipts from the sale. For example, if a medicine is sold for $100, a tax of $95 is owed, regardless of the cost of selling the drug.

The tax would apply to anyone who needs a prescription drug, and that’s just about everyone — seniors, veterans, women, you name it. The Pelosi Medicine Tax is not limited to just Medicare; it would apply to all sales of an affected drug, everywhere in the healthcare system.

Needless to say, such a tax would cripple access to life-saving prescription medicines and would very quickly mean government rationing and waiting lists. A tax of this size is next of kin to a Venezuelan-style socialist takeover of the bulk of the prescription drug industry. By having to turn all their money over to the government, the pharmaceutical companies would become captive corporations of the government itself — a kind of post office that dispenses pills instead of parcels.

Awaiting the President of all American's tweet on this now.

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines

It's not a tax on consumers, it's a tax on corporations. What it really is is a way to force big pharma to the table.

"The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65 percent of the previous year’s sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refuses to offer the government’s price, to a maximum of 95 percent. "

Pelosi’s Drug Plan Would Let U.S. Negotiate Prices of 250 Medications

Agreed. Willow's posts are on point, however, that with the tax, pharma may not make as many new drugs, and lifespans may decrease. Her willingness to trust a market that has failed, however, makes her solutions … failures.

I think the question is how can govt protect US consumers and still make sure Americans have access to new drugs. And had Trump not worried about the EU trade balance and addressed this issue, we'd be better off.

We subsidize the shit outta pharmacological research. The claim they lose money if they can't sell drugs at ridiculous prices is a lie.

That may be true. But I remember Obamacare promises.

 

[WillowTree]

From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

No it's not. Our government does things like that all the time.

Reagan did it with drunk driving. In the 80s he signed a bill that said if a state doesn't raise their legal drinking age to 21 they won't get any money for their highways.

So as not to lose that money for roads in their state, all states raised their drinking age to 21.

This is the same thing. The company is very free to not lower their prices but they will face a consequence for it. Up to 95% of the sales will go to the government in taxes.

They will lower their prices, everyone will benefit.

Leave it to a far right radical extremist to be against anything that is good for and helps the people of our nation instead of making already filthy rich people even more richer.

I hope the bill passes. Most Americans will too.

Bullshit!

I miss posted, the states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21 didn't lose all their federal funds for roads. They lost 10%. States lost millions. Eventually all states raised their drinking age.

You might want to read the following article:

Four Times the Government Held Highway Funding Hostage

Most famously, the Highway Trust Fund was used in 1984 to get states to comply with the new national drinking age of 21. States that did not comply with the Reagan administration's drinking-age law would see 10 percent of their federal highway funds — in some states, several million dollars — cut. All of the states eventually complied, and the U.S. continues to have the highest drinking age in the world.

It wasn't done on just drinking either. It's been done with speed limits, helmet laws and texting while driving.

You might want to learn about a subject before you post such ridiculous posts as yours above. That way you won't give me or anyone else the chance to let you make such a fool of yourself to all of cyberspace.

So you are a socialist. I believe you. We got it.

 

[WillowTree]

Patients will be the losers under Pelosi's plan to control drug prices - STAT




First bad idea: one price for the U.S., E.U., and Japan
Pelosi would peg U.S. drug prices to those paid by Japan and several European single-payer health care systems whose restrictive policies offer fewer innovative medicines to their citizens. This is similar to what President Trump has proposed before. But this well-intentioned price control would most likely push U.S. prices up, not down. Here’s why.

Related:
Our 9 biggest questions about Nancy Pelosi’s drug pricing bill
The pharmaceutical industry runs on profit margins of 10% to 20%, meaning there’s not much room to cut revenues before biotech becomes a giant nonprofit. The only logical response by companies would be to raise international prices to match those in the U.S., not to lower U.S. drug prices to match international ones. If other countries then cut back on their use of branded drugs, American companies will have to make up their losses by increasing prices.

Pelosi’s plan blocks price increases on existing drugs. To remain profitable, companies would have to launch new drugs at even higher prices than they would have otherwise, anticipating they wouldn’t be able to sell them in Europe and Japan and therefore would need to generate all their returns from U.S. sales. So over the longer term, the U.S. would shoulder even more of the cost of innovation than it does now.

 

[Dana7360]

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

No it's not. Our government does things like that all the time.

Reagan did it with drunk driving. In the 80s he signed a bill that said if a state doesn't raise their legal drinking age to 21 they won't get any money for their highways.

So as not to lose that money for roads in their state, all states raised their drinking age to 21.

This is the same thing. The company is very free to not lower their prices but they will face a consequence for it. Up to 95% of the sales will go to the government in taxes.

They will lower their prices, everyone will benefit.

Leave it to a far right radical extremist to be against anything that is good for and helps the people of our nation instead of making already filthy rich people even more richer.

I hope the bill passes. Most Americans will too.

Bullshit!

I miss posted, the states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21 didn't lose all their federal funds for roads. They lost 10%. States lost millions. Eventually all states raised their drinking age.

You might want to read the following article:

Four Times the Government Held Highway Funding Hostage

Most famously, the Highway Trust Fund was used in 1984 to get states to comply with the new national drinking age of 21. States that did not comply with the Reagan administration's drinking-age law would see 10 percent of their federal highway funds — in some states, several million dollars — cut. All of the states eventually complied, and the U.S. continues to have the highest drinking age in the world.

It wasn't done on just drinking either. It's been done with speed limits, helmet laws and texting while driving.

You might want to learn about a subject before you post such ridiculous posts as yours above. That way you won't give me or anyone else the chance to let you make such a fool of yourself to all of cyberspace.

So you are a socialist. I believe you. We got it.

What does the economic policy of socialism have to do with anything in this thread?

So you're saying it's socialist to give business the choice to modify their prices or face a penalty is socialism and that if a state doesn't modify their drinking age they lose 10% of their roads federal funding is socialism? Reagan and his republican senate were all socialists?

You really need to stop making such a fool of yourself.

No company will end up paying that penalty. They will lower the prices of their drugs. Everyone will benefit.

If you want to pay high prices for your medications just let the drug companies know. I'm sure they will be happy to find a way to accommodate you so you can continue to pay ridiculous high prices.

 

[bendog]

Honestly all this socialist or communist bullshit doesn't add anything. Trump and Grassley-Widen have similar approaches, and Pelosi explicitly said her proposal was just to get discussion going. Grassley-Widen just affects medicare and a limited number of drugs. Grassley appreciates Pelosi's efforts because he's now touting his bill to the "pro market" gopers as "the moderate plan."

And it may be a better approach to go slow. I thought Obamacare's biggest flaw (until that good "non activist Judge Roberts re-wrote it) was it went too big too fast. There are many new generation drugs - like Humeria - that work better than generics, but some people, even most people, get relief with the generics, but not as much relief and with possible unpleasant side effects. How much money is that trade off work … with all the newer drugs? How much would the Pelosi plan cost? How do we raise revenue? Could we levy the cost to other countries that don't enforce our patent law? Could we just tax the hell out of Pharma's oversea profits, or would that have bad consequences?

But basically, all the players want to cap "some of the " consumer costs for drugs per year.

 

[Papageorgio]

It’s coersion.

No it's not. Our government does things like that all the time.

Reagan did it with drunk driving. In the 80s he signed a bill that said if a state doesn't raise their legal drinking age to 21 they won't get any money for their highways.

So as not to lose that money for roads in their state, all states raised their drinking age to 21.

This is the same thing. The company is very free to not lower their prices but they will face a consequence for it. Up to 95% of the sales will go to the government in taxes.

They will lower their prices, everyone will benefit.

Leave it to a far right radical extremist to be against anything that is good for and helps the people of our nation instead of making already filthy rich people even more richer.

I hope the bill passes. Most Americans will too.

Bullshit!

I miss posted, the states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21 didn't lose all their federal funds for roads. They lost 10%. States lost millions. Eventually all states raised their drinking age.

You might want to read the following article:

Four Times the Government Held Highway Funding Hostage

Most famously, the Highway Trust Fund was used in 1984 to get states to comply with the new national drinking age of 21. States that did not comply with the Reagan administration's drinking-age law would see 10 percent of their federal highway funds — in some states, several million dollars — cut. All of the states eventually complied, and the U.S. continues to have the highest drinking age in the world.

It wasn't done on just drinking either. It's been done with speed limits, helmet laws and texting while driving.

You might want to learn about a subject before you post such ridiculous posts as yours above. That way you won't give me or anyone else the chance to let you make such a fool of yourself to all of cyberspace.

So you are a socialist. I believe you. We got it.

What does the economic policy of socialism have to do with anything in this thread?

So you're saying it's socialist to give business the choice to modify their prices or face a penalty is socialism and that if a state doesn't modify their drinking age they lose 10% of their roads federal funding is socialism? Reagan and his republican senate were all socialists?

You really need to stop making such a fool of yourself.

No company will end up paying that penalty. They will lower the prices of their drugs. Everyone will benefit.

If you want to pay high prices for your medications just let the drug companies know. I'm sure they will be happy to find a way to accommodate you so you can continue to pay ridiculous high prices.

With Reagan, it was the federal government forcing state governments to fall in line with their drinking age. The government used that tactic to force states to lower their speed limits to 55 mph many years ago.

This is different because it is the government forcing a private industry to set it's pricing.

We are not sure of the repercussions, so to me we need to slow it down and figure out what the effects would be.

If it is a new drug, the pharmaceutical companies make take the 95% and pass it to the consumer which could make some hard to get and life saving drugs astronomical to the consumer. Most pharmaceuticals operate of a 10%-15% profit range, which is reasonable.

Be careful what you ask for because Big Pharma is either going to make a profit or shut down. That is the way business works.

 

[Andylusion]

Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs



By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.

From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

She is taking a page from tramp's playbook, which he continuously uses.

"If you don't lower prices... I'll raise prices!"

How is this anything, but unlimited stupidity.

 

[bendog]

Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs



By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.

From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

She is taking a page from tramp's playbook, which he continuously uses.

"If you don't lower prices... I'll raise prices!"

How is this anything, but unlimited stupidity.

Think again. Would any pharma company let prices make sales impossible for their products. And it's not Pelosi. It's Trump, Grassley, Wyden ….. and now Pelosi. But as Papageorgio posted, there would be repercussions from just cutting the price Pharma gets for drugs still under patent.

 

[Andylusion]

From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

She is taking a page from tramp's playbook, which he continuously uses.

"If you don't lower prices... I'll raise prices!"

How is this anything, but unlimited stupidity.

Think again. Would any pharma company let prices make sales impossible for their products. And it's not Pelosi. It's Trump, Grassley, Wyden ….. and now Pelosi. But as Papageorgio posted, there would be repercussions from just cutting the price Pharma gets for drugs still under patent.

Well no they wouldn't. Which is exactly why the politicians in government would love this idea. Because those companies are going to spend billions to wine and dine politicians until they can get the exemptions from the Pelosi bill.

The companies will make big money.
The politicians will make big money.
The tax payers and medication users will be screwed.



Reality strikes again.

 

[Crepitus]

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines,
making sure the Dems don't get elected.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday released a much-anticipated plan detailing House Democrats’ ideas to change the way people get prescription drugs. At the heart of the plan is a retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines. The only way out of paying this tax is if the drug becomes subject to strict government price controls and price caps. The House is expected to vote on the plan this fall.

This “Pelosi Medicine Tax” could apply to the 250 most popular prescription drugs in the country and must apply to at least 25 of them. The tax is not on profits from the sale of the drug, but on the gross receipts from the sale. For example, if a medicine is sold for $100, a tax of $95 is owed, regardless of the cost of selling the drug.

The tax would apply to anyone who needs a prescription drug, and that’s just about everyone — seniors, veterans, women, you name it. The Pelosi Medicine Tax is not limited to just Medicare; it would apply to all sales of an affected drug, everywhere in the healthcare system.

Needless to say, such a tax would cripple access to life-saving prescription medicines and would very quickly mean government rationing and waiting lists. A tax of this size is next of kin to a Venezuelan-style socialist takeover of the bulk of the prescription drug industry. By having to turn all their money over to the government, the pharmaceutical companies would become captive corporations of the government itself — a kind of post office that dispenses pills instead of parcels.

Awaiting the President of all American's tweet on this now.

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines

It's not a tax on consumers, it's a tax on corporations. What it really is is a way to force big pharma to the table.

"The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65 percent of the previous year’s sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refuses to offer the government’s price, to a maximum of 95 percent. "

Pelosi’s Drug Plan Would Let U.S. Negotiate Prices of 250 Medications

Agreed. Willow's posts are on point, however, that with the tax, pharma may not make as many new drugs, and lifespans may decrease. Her willingness to trust a market that has failed, however, makes her solutions … failures.

I think the question is how can govt protect US consumers and still make sure Americans have access to new drugs. And had Trump not worried about the EU trade balance and addressed this issue, we'd be better off.

We subsidize the shit outta pharmacological research. The claim they lose money if they can't sell drugs at ridiculous prices is a lie.

That may be true. But I remember Obamacare promises.

Every time you guys deflect back to Obama or Clinton I know I've won.

 

[WillowTree]

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines,
making sure the Dems don't get elected.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday released a much-anticipated plan detailing House Democrats’ ideas to change the way people get prescription drugs. At the heart of the plan is a retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines. The only way out of paying this tax is if the drug becomes subject to strict government price controls and price caps. The House is expected to vote on the plan this fall.

This “Pelosi Medicine Tax” could apply to the 250 most popular prescription drugs in the country and must apply to at least 25 of them. The tax is not on profits from the sale of the drug, but on the gross receipts from the sale. For example, if a medicine is sold for $100, a tax of $95 is owed, regardless of the cost of selling the drug.

The tax would apply to anyone who needs a prescription drug, and that’s just about everyone — seniors, veterans, women, you name it. The Pelosi Medicine Tax is not limited to just Medicare; it would apply to all sales of an affected drug, everywhere in the healthcare system.

Needless to say, such a tax would cripple access to life-saving prescription medicines and would very quickly mean government rationing and waiting lists. A tax of this size is next of kin to a Venezuelan-style socialist takeover of the bulk of the prescription drug industry. By having to turn all their money over to the government, the pharmaceutical companies would become captive corporations of the government itself — a kind of post office that dispenses pills instead of parcels.

Awaiting the President of all American's tweet on this now.

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines

It's not a tax on consumers, it's a tax on corporations. What it really is is a way to force big pharma to the table.

"The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65 percent of the previous year’s sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refuses to offer the government’s price, to a maximum of 95 percent. "

Pelosi’s Drug Plan Would Let U.S. Negotiate Prices of 250 Medications

Agreed. Willow's posts are on point, however, that with the tax, pharma may not make as many new drugs, and lifespans may decrease. Her willingness to trust a market that has failed, however, makes her solutions … failures.

I think the question is how can govt protect US consumers and still make sure Americans have access to new drugs. And had Trump not worried about the EU trade balance and addressed this issue, we'd be better off.

We subsidize the shit outta pharmacological research. The claim they lose money if they can't sell drugs at ridiculous prices is a lie.

That may be true. But I remember Obamacare promises.

Every time you guys deflect back to Obama or Clinton I know I've won.

I bet you pat yourself on the ass every time you think you've won.

 

[Crepitus]

It's not a tax on consumers, it's a tax on corporations. What it really is is a way to force big pharma to the table.

"The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65 percent of the previous year’s sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refuses to offer the government’s price, to a maximum of 95 percent. "

Pelosi’s Drug Plan Would Let U.S. Negotiate Prices of 250 Medications

Agreed. Willow's posts are on point, however, that with the tax, pharma may not make as many new drugs, and lifespans may decrease. Her willingness to trust a market that has failed, however, makes her solutions … failures.

I think the question is how can govt protect US consumers and still make sure Americans have access to new drugs. And had Trump not worried about the EU trade balance and addressed this issue, we'd be better off.

We subsidize the shit outta pharmacological research. The claim they lose money if they can't sell drugs at ridiculous prices is a lie.

That may be true. But I remember Obamacare promises.

Every time you guys deflect back to Obama or Clinton I know I've won.

I bet you pat yourself on the ass every time you think you've won.

No need, the conservative wailing is thanks enough.

 

[WillowTree]

Agreed. Willow's posts are on point, however, that with the tax, pharma may not make as many new drugs, and lifespans may decrease. Her willingness to trust a market that has failed, however, makes her solutions … failures.

I think the question is how can govt protect US consumers and still make sure Americans have access to new drugs. And had Trump not worried about the EU trade balance and addressed this issue, we'd be better off.

We subsidize the shit outta pharmacological research. The claim they lose money if they can't sell drugs at ridiculous prices is a lie.

That may be true. But I remember Obamacare promises.

Every time you guys deflect back to Obama or Clinton I know I've won.

I bet you pat yourself on the ass every time you think you've won.

No need, the conservative wailing is thanks enough.

Yep! You are patting your own ass!

 

[Crepitus]

We subsidize the shit outta pharmacological research. The claim they lose money if they can't sell drugs at ridiculous prices is a lie.

That may be true. But I remember Obamacare promises.

Every time you guys deflect back to Obama or Clinton I know I've won.

I bet you pat yourself on the ass every time you think you've won.

No need, the conservative wailing is thanks enough.

Yep! You are patting your own ass!

Jealous?

 

[pknopp]

It's a follow up bill on Trumps plan.

The plan in part borrows from some of Trump's drug pricing agenda, particularly on tying the cost of medicines to cheaper prices often paid in other developed countries. Some of the administration's ideas, however, have been met with skepticism from GOP lawmakers, who are closely aligned with drugmakers.

Trump even seems to still support it.

President Donald Trump hasn't taken a position on the plan, but he offered encouraging remarks on Twitter Thursday evening.

"I like Sen. [Chuck] Grassley’s drug pricing bill very much, and it’s great to see Speaker Pelosi’s bill today. Let’s get it done in a bipartisan way!" he wrote.

Pelosi's new drug plan pressures Trump on campaign pledge

Idiots still haven't got the fact that Trump holds out the carrot in front of you, getting you all wet, than when push comes to shove pulls the carrot away...HE IS THE MASTER AND STABLE GENIUS of this approach to you Anti-Americans!

So he lies?

It is called baiting and he dies it almost to keep you scum confused and irritated!....just look at you!...ROTFLMFAO

No, it's called lying.

 

[pknopp]

It's not a tax on consumers, it's a tax on corporations. What it really is is a way to force big pharma to the table.

"The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65 percent of the previous year’s sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refuses to offer the government’s price, to a maximum of 95 percent. "

Pelosi’s Drug Plan Would Let U.S. Negotiate Prices of 250 Medications

Agreed. Willow's posts are on point, however, that with the tax, pharma may not make as many new drugs, and lifespans may decrease. Her willingness to trust a market that has failed, however, makes her solutions … failures.

I think the question is how can govt protect US consumers and still make sure Americans have access to new drugs. And had Trump not worried about the EU trade balance and addressed this issue, we'd be better off.

We subsidize the shit outta pharmacological research. The claim they lose money if they can't sell drugs at ridiculous prices is a lie.

That may be true. But I remember Obamacare promises.

Every time you guys deflect back to Obama or Clinton I know I've won.

I bet you pat yourself on the ass every time you think you've won.

Past failures do not excuse current failures nor is it a reason to do nothing.

 

[Andylusion]

Honestly all this socialist or communist bullshit doesn't add anything. Trump and Grassley-Widen have similar approaches, and Pelosi explicitly said her proposal was just to get discussion going. Grassley-Widen just affects medicare and a limited number of drugs. Grassley appreciates Pelosi's efforts because he's now touting his bill to the "pro market" gopers as "the moderate plan."

And it may be a better approach to go slow. I thought Obamacare's biggest flaw (until that good "non activist Judge Roberts re-wrote it) was it went too big too fast. There are many new generation drugs - like Humeria - that work better than generics, but some people, even most people, get relief with the generics, but not as much relief and with possible unpleasant side effects. How much money is that trade off work … with all the newer drugs? How much would the Pelosi plan cost? How do we raise revenue? Could we levy the cost to other countries that don't enforce our patent law? Could we just tax the hell out of Pharma's oversea profits, or would that have bad consequences?

But basically, all the players want to cap "some of the " consumer costs for drugs per year.

If Trump has the same methodology, then I'm against that too.

A bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of whose idea it is. I don't care if the person with the bad idea is Mitt Romney, or Obama, or Hillary, or Trump.

Bad is bad.

As far as medications specifically, my answer has always been to eliminate intellectual property right laws. IP laws, were originally socialist in nature.
If you didn't know, the origins of Intellectual property rights, go back to when the British crown, wanted to have their state run companies, have exclusive rights to markets. The first one, from my understanding was on salt. Only one company in the empire could sell salt. That is ridiculous.
The belief system that you can "own thought", is ridiculous.

The idea that 1 person, in a world of almost 8 Billion people, had a single thought, and now I 'own' that thought, and no one else is allowed to think my thought.... that is insane.

The free market capitalism system, is a system of coming up with the best product, not coming up with the best government enforcement monopoly.

I would say, you got 5 years tops, and then after that, no more patents. Let the free market reign.

Now of course this means companies will drastically reduce their investment in new drugs, and my answer to that is to drastically reduce the way overly expensive cost to get drug approval.

Right now the cost to get a drug through the approval process, costs an upwards of $2.5 BILLION dollars.

Which by the way, goes back to what I said before. If you think they are going to cut the prices of medications, when it cost them $2.5 Billion dollars to get that medication to market, you are crazy.

Let me ask you... if you spent $2.5 Million dollars on a business, and the government stepped in and said you had to cut your prices until you are barely making $50,000 a year... would you do it? No, you would simply go find something else to do with your time and money.

You are not going to spend a fortune to end up middle class. You would just keep the $2.5 Million, and live like a king. Of course that means no one gets your products and services, because you leave the business.

That's the point.

So back to my other solution. The solution is not to regulate business more. We need to DE-regulate the pharma industry. We need to cut regulations, so that it doesn't cost $2.5 Billion dollars to bring a drug to market.

You do that, and the cost of medications will fall. If you regulate more, which is what you have been advocating, you are going to drive UP the price of medications even higher.