Who here "opposes" this simple Sanders' proposal?

[thereisnospoon]

One of Sanders' proposal is not only sane but doable if only congress was not a bunch of self-centered cowards...The proposal is to compel Medicare to openly negotiate with big pharmaceuticals companies for lower prices based on volume.....

Who would lose if this proposal were to become a reality? Big pharma's CEOs and board members who no longer could upgrade to more modern Lear jets every few years.

Ok...Playing devil's advocate....What makes you think the pharmaceutical co's will want to negotiate?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Kill the Advertising, like all other Nations....

And why not raise the prices slightly on all the other countries that buy their drugs from Pharma at a discount of 10 times less than we buy our drugs from Pharma....?

In other words, why should Americans cover all the R & D costs for the rest of the world who also buys these drugs, through our higher prices and through our taxes that are given for all the R & D?

It should be a shared expense, not ALL on our shoulders for everyone else who buys them.

You really have an issue with informing folks about pharmaceuticals that are available to them? I certainly don't understand that position. People NEED to be proactive about their own health. AND informed. And the 20 mins with your Doc is certainly NOT all you need to know in a year.

It's ridiculous to ban Pharma from advertising products. Unless you live in a country where you're NOT ALLOWED to receive medications that aren't "covered" under your single payer.. They don't WANT informed patients. They want one size fits all and case numbers -- not participants in their own healthcare.

And the reason research and FDA approval costs are re-couped in the US is because those compliance costs are HIGHER here. And the US will not accept the equivalent "compliance, safety testing" results from other countries.

Absolutely I have a problem with Pharma advertising Directly to the patient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is ILLEGAL in ALL other Nations in the world but one, BECAUSE of the harm it ultimately causes.

the Doctors should choose what drugs their patients need, not some dreamy ad directed at the patients....

We've turned in to a PILL POPPING Nation!!!

I may be wrong because I'm only going by personal experience, but the doctor does make the decision on what drugs his or her patient takes.

I remember years ago when I read an article about my condition. I asked my doctor about a particular treatment and if it would help me or not. He replied that magazines have to write things to sell the magazine. If there is something new that comes out in the market that he thinks would benefit me, he will be the first to tell me about it.

Well...... at least that's what a good doctor does. If you are seeing a physician that will give you anything you want because you watched a television commercial, Big Pharm is not who you should get rid of; get rid of that doctor first.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Kill the Advertising, like all other Nations....

And why not raise the prices slightly on all the other countries that buy their drugs from Pharma at a discount of 10 times less than we buy our drugs from Pharma....?

In other words, why should Americans cover all the R & D costs for the rest of the world who also buys these drugs, through our higher prices and through our taxes that are given for all the R & D?

It should be a shared expense, not ALL on our shoulders for everyone else who buys them.

How would you force companies or countries to do that?

I wouldn't force countries to do that...but PHARMA could do that.....and not give as big a discount as they do, to ALL OTHER NATIONS for their purchases so that they do not have to charge us so much to make up the difference..... Right now, we Americans are paying for ALL of these other countries discounts through the extremely high prices we have to pay while giving the discounts to all other Nations....

if Pharma negotiated slightly higher prices with these other Nations, then our prices could come down in price....

What can the other Nations do? Not buy any?

We pay the highest price because of our government. It's our government that requires these tens of millions of dollars in paperwork, testing and legal protection. Other countries don't have all this red tape so of course they pay less.

If a drug is manufactured in another country and undergoes their standards, they are still not good enough for the US and they have to still invest those tens of millions of dollars before our government will allow it to be sold here.

I wouldn't ease on that testing ONE IOTA, they already kill hundreds if not thousands with their drugs rushed to the market too quickly....haven't you seen the hundreds of TV Ads over the years for class action law suits for the people they have permanently harmed? Don't be a fool and start barking the PHARMA Industries talking points. They spend more on advertising than that paperwork, as you call it.

And what the medicare part D did was make it against the law to buy Drugs from Canada that were THESE COMPANy's DRUGS, that they shipped and sold to Canada for 70% or so less than they sell them to Americans for, that have ALREADY gone through the trials and testing in the USA....

before part D, our State used to bus our seniors over in to Canada to buy those American tested drugs from Canada who purchased them from PHARMA in America and had them shipped to them fom the USA....

and our citizens still bought them from them for 50% less in Canada than these same pharma companies were charging these seniors in the USA.... and that was bull crud!!!

And what about your post 110? Where you sent me to read.... YOU AGREED with me on our drugs cost more BECAUSE these other nations got a huge discount, like Walmart did on your insulin...thus insulin going up for the rest of the Nation...

Soooooo, if these other Nations got less of a bulk discount, then we in America would not have to fund the profits with our extremely high prices here, that pharma lost on the discounted Nation's drugs.

Well if you want that kind of system, then what you are doing is allowing the federal government to buy your prescriptions and sell them to you.

On one hand, you say that you don't want to ease requirements for testing new drugs, but on the other hand, you want lower prices. You can't have both.

If you want all this unnecessary paperwork, feeding bureaucracies, compensation for those who are negatively affected by a drug, then you have to pay the price for it.

Here is a CNN article that you may want to read, but allow me to highlight some of what was written:

According to PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade group, high prices are a reflection of the research and development costs it takes to bring a drug to market. PhRMA cites that on average, it takes more than 10 years and $2.6 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. They also point out that for every successful drug, there are handfuls of drugs that never make it to market.."

Pharmaceuticals cheaper abroad because of regulation - CNN.com

Okay, so if it is true that it takes an investment of over 2.5 billion dollars for a drug to reach market, do you know how many pills you have to sell just to break even yet alone make a profit? And what about the billions of dollars you spent for drugs that never got FDA approval? How are you supposed to recoup that money? Simple: increase the price of your drugs that made it to market.

 

[thereisnospoon]

One of Sanders' proposal is not only sane but doable if only congress was not a bunch of self-centered cowards...The proposal is to compel Medicare to openly negotiate with big pharmaceuticals companies for lower prices based on volume.....

Who would lose if this proposal were to become a reality? Big pharma's CEOs and board members who no longer could upgrade to more modern Lear jets every few years.

I don't think that is what people oppose about Sanders. Actually, there are several things concerning Healthcare that would save money and should have already been addressed by Congress.

And guess who stands in the way?.....First two guesses free.

 

[Rustic]

One of Sanders' proposal is not only sane but doable if only congress was not a bunch of self-centered cowards...The proposal is to compel Medicare to openly negotiate with big pharmaceuticals companies for lower prices based on volume.....

Who would lose if this proposal were to become a reality? Big pharma's CEOs and board members who no longer could upgrade to more modern Lear jets every few years.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The system can't be fixed while insurance companies are an integral part of the system.

Yes.
Ask this question of yourself.
If I am the none paying the freight, why would I allow myself to be excluded from negotiating the prices I pay?

 

[thereisnospoon]

No one can but they can point at the word Socialism and go "Eww Yucky"

no doubt that Sanders is quite socialistic-------ok ---fine with me----but as far as how is programs will be FINANCED_------he seems to have NO IDEA and certainly no viable
plan

Funny, it seems to be all spelled out on his website.

Oh sorry ----- that thing is called a "link".

None of which can be accomplished without massive tax increases and new taxes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No one can but they can point at the word Socialism and go "Eww Yucky"

no doubt that Sanders is quite socialistic-------ok ---fine with me----but as far as how is programs will be FINANCED_------he seems to have NO IDEA and certainly no viable
plan

Okay, now that you've regurgitated the talking points, how about you address the OP? What's wrong with lowering drug prices?

The question is how to fund any program that lowers prices. Because the costs keep rising.
When price is controlled by artificial manipulation, the result is always rationing of supply.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Would not Sanders simply nationalize all drug development and production?

Think about how well government does stuff while you're standing in line at the post office next.

People still stand in line at the post office?

yes.....You should see the PO in my town.....Always 20 deep.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is a proposal which will pay for itself.

HA! Newsflash....Nothing government does pays for itself. Government does not save money. It simply spends it elsewhere.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Read this.

Of course. There is no incentive for a government program to find ways to reduce the cost of providing the service.
In fact, the desire is to increase spending. The purpose of this is to protect the jobs of the people paid to administer the program.
Woe is us who wish to see federal employment reduced

 

[oreo]

One of Sanders' proposal is not only sane but doable if only congress was not a bunch of self-centered cowards...The proposal is to compel Medicare to openly negotiate with big pharmaceuticals companies for lower prices based on volume.....

Who would lose if this proposal were to become a reality? Big pharma's CEOs and board members who no longer could upgrade to more modern Lear jets every few years.

Prescription drug costs have been debated for decades. One of the reasons Americans pay higher than other countries--is that "we" get to pay for research and development. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats want lower Prescription drugs--why would ANY politician regardless of which side of the isle they're on not want that.

The problem with Bernie Sander's is he is a dyed in the wool SOCIALIST. He's not even a Democrat. He recently changed his party status to Democrat in order to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democrat party.

The next problem is Bernie Sanders is NOT electable. He's not only out there campaigning on lower prescription costs as all of them are, he's also campaigning on free college tuition. This country is center, it always has been, it always will be. This country will not elect far left or far right candidates. Sanders is so far left he might as well be on Mars.

Bernie Sanders would get creamed in a National Election. Just move the blue over New Hampshire and Vermont and color the rest of the country RED. A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Donald Trump.

Reagan V Mondale--1984

 

[Pogo]

No one can but they can point at the word Socialism and go "Eww Yucky"

no doubt that Sanders is quite socialistic-------ok ---fine with me----but as far as how is programs will be FINANCED_------he seems to have NO IDEA and certainly no viable
plan

Funny, it seems to be all spelled out on his website.

Oh sorry ----- that thing is called a "link".

None of which can be accomplished without massive tax increases and new taxes.

Red herring. The poster claimed that the candidate had, and I quote, "NO IDEA how his programs would be financed" ---- so I linked her to the webpage that spells out exactly how those programs would be financed.

Therefore she's wrong, and I win. Again.

 

[Arianrhod]

Kill the Advertising, like all other Nations....

And why not raise the prices slightly on all the other countries that buy their drugs from Pharma at a discount of 10 times less than we buy our drugs from Pharma....?

In other words, why should Americans cover all the R & D costs for the rest of the world who also buys these drugs, through our higher prices and through our taxes that are given for all the R & D?

It should be a shared expense, not ALL on our shoulders for everyone else who buys them.

You really have an issue with informing folks about pharmaceuticals that are available to them? I certainly don't understand that position. People NEED to be proactive about their own health. AND informed. And the 20 mins with your Doc is certainly NOT all you need to know in a year.

It's ridiculous to ban Pharma from advertising products. Unless you live in a country where you're NOT ALLOWED to receive medications that aren't "covered" under your single payer.. They don't WANT informed patients. They want one size fits all and case numbers -- not participants in their own healthcare.

And the reason research and FDA approval costs are re-couped in the US is because those compliance costs are HIGHER here. And the US will not accept the equivalent "compliance, safety testing" results from other countries.

With the availability of information online, the only consumers targeted by those "ask your doctor if X is right for you" TV ads are seniors and men with ED, and the last thing doctors need is these folks showing up in their offices every week looking for the magical cure to the Disease of the Week.

If pharma companies wanted to do something useful, they could run PSAs warning consumers not to jump onto every shyster website promising "Cure Diabetes in 90 Days Without Diet or Exercise!" or "Apple Cider Vinegar will restore your energy, lower your blood pressure, and give you the stamina of a 30-year-old! You won't need anything else!" or, more insidious, the plethora of blog sites preaching the unsupported anecdotal "evidence" that vaccines cause autism.

Truth is, Big Pharma makes its money on Viagra and NSAIDs, not on cutting-edge drugs. It tends to sell off its "orphan" molecules to small biotech companies where the real breakthroughs are being made.

 

[flacaltenn]

One of Sanders' proposal is not only sane but doable if only congress was not a bunch of self-centered cowards...The proposal is to compel Medicare to openly negotiate with big pharmaceuticals companies for lower prices based on volume.....

Who would lose if this proposal were to become a reality? Big pharma's CEOs and board members who no longer could upgrade to more modern Lear jets every few years.

Ok...Playing devil's advocate....What makes you think the pharmaceutical co's will want to negotiate?

They might not. Until Bernie sics the IRS, OSHA, DOJ, DOlabor, Immigration, SEC, FDA, and maybe even a drone strike on them. That's why demagogues like Sanders (or Trump for that matter) shouldn't have those armies of the damned at their command..

 

[flacaltenn]

No one can but they can point at the word Socialism and go "Eww Yucky"

no doubt that Sanders is quite socialistic-------ok ---fine with me----but as far as how is programs will be FINANCED_------he seems to have NO IDEA and certainly no viable
plan

Funny, it seems to be all spelled out on his website.

Oh sorry ----- that thing is called a "link".

None of which can be accomplished without massive tax increases and new taxes.

Red herring. The poster claimed that the candidate had, and I quote, "NO IDEA how his programs would be financed" ---- so I linked her to the webpage that spells out exactly how those programs would be financed.

Therefore she's wrong, and I win. Again.

You don't come CLOSE to winning with that tripe... And I quote

The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan.

Last year, the average working family paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies. Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.

That's the largest load of BullCrap ever to be laid on the campaign trail..

He repeated that $500/yr answer to a 20 something father of 4 in some "town hall" farce.

As I said pages ago -- You could not provide Medicare or EVEN WELL CARE for that guy and 3 cats with that kind of premium.. It leaves NOTHING at the end of the year for the $15,000 broken finger that WILL turn up sooner or later..

Quite pissing about "winning" and actually THINK..

 

[irosie91]

One of Sanders' proposal is not only sane but doable if only congress was not a bunch of self-centered cowards...The proposal is to compel Medicare to openly negotiate with big pharmaceuticals companies for lower prices based on volume.....

Who would lose if this proposal were to become a reality? Big pharma's CEOs and board members who no longer could upgrade to more modern Lear jets every few years.

Ok...Playing devil's advocate....What makes you think the pharmaceutical co's will want to negotiate?

They might not. Until Bernie sics the IRS, OSHA, DOJ, DOlabor, Immigration, SEC, FDA, and maybe even a drone strike on them. That's why demagogues like Sanders (or Trump for that matter) shouldn't have those armies of the damned at their command..

FaCal be at ease. Sanders has his head in the clouds------Trump---for all
his CHEST-TRUMPING and spit and vinegar-------is ---in the end---a realist

 

[irosie91]

Kill the Advertising, like all other Nations....

And why not raise the prices slightly on all the other countries that buy their drugs from Pharma at a discount of 10 times less than we buy our drugs from Pharma....?

In other words, why should Americans cover all the R & D costs for the rest of the world who also buys these drugs, through our higher prices and through our taxes that are given for all the R & D?

It should be a shared expense, not ALL on our shoulders for everyone else who buys them.

You really have an issue with informing folks about pharmaceuticals that are available to them? I certainly don't understand that position. People NEED to be proactive about their own health. AND informed. And the 20 mins with your Doc is certainly NOT all you need to know in a year.

It's ridiculous to ban Pharma from advertising products. Unless you live in a country where you're NOT ALLOWED to receive medications that aren't "covered" under your single payer.. They don't WANT informed patients. They want one size fits all and case numbers -- not participants in their own healthcare.

And the reason research and FDA approval costs are re-couped in the US is because those compliance costs are HIGHER here. And the US will not accept the equivalent "compliance, safety testing" results from other countries.

With the availability of information online, the only consumers targeted by those "ask your doctor if X is right for you" TV ads are seniors and men with ED, and the last thing doctors need is these folks showing up in their offices every week looking for the magical cure to the Disease of the Week.

If pharma companies wanted to do something useful, they could run PSAs warning consumers not to jump onto every shyster website promising "Cure Diabetes in 90 Days Without Diet or Exercise!" or "Apple Cider Vinegar will restore your energy, lower your blood pressure, and give you the stamina of a 30-year-old! You won't need anything else!" or, more insidious, the plethora of blog sites preaching the unsupported anecdotal "evidence" that vaccines cause autism.

Truth is, Big Pharma makes its money on Viagra and NSAIDs, not on cutting-edge drugs. It tends to sell off its "orphan" molecules to small biotech companies where the real breakthroughs are being made.

arian----you got a specialty?--------ever write a script for Viagra?

nsaids is good ------IBUPROFEN-----only---no need for those SPINOFFS

 

[irosie91]

One of Sanders' proposal is not only sane but doable if only congress was not a bunch of self-centered cowards...The proposal is to compel Medicare to openly negotiate with big pharmaceuticals companies for lower prices based on volume.....

Who would lose if this proposal were to become a reality? Big pharma's CEOs and board members who no longer could upgrade to more modern Lear jets every few years.

Prescription drug costs have been debated for decades. One of the reasons Americans pay higher than other countries--is that "we" get to pay for research and development. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats want lower Prescription drugs--why would ANY politician regardless of which side of the isle they're on not want that.

The problem with Bernie Sander's is he is a dyed in the wool SOCIALIST. He's not even a Democrat. He recently changed his party status to Democrat in order to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democrat party.

The next problem is Bernie Sanders is NOT electable. He's not only out there campaigning on lower prescription costs as all of them are, he's also campaigning on free college tuition. This country is center, it always has been, it always will be. This country will not elect far left or far right candidates. Sanders is so far left he might as well be on Mars.

Bernie Sanders would get creamed in a National Election. Just move the blue over New Hampshire and Vermont and color the rest of the country RED. A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Donald Trump.

Reagan V Mondale--1984

sorry Bernie----sometimes I get the impression that your brain was fried on LSD---
in the 60s-----------

 

[Pogo]

No one can but they can point at the word Socialism and go "Eww Yucky"

no doubt that Sanders is quite socialistic-------ok ---fine with me----but as far as how is programs will be FINANCED_------he seems to have NO IDEA and certainly no viable
plan

Funny, it seems to be all spelled out on his website.

Oh sorry ----- that thing is called a "link".

None of which can be accomplished without massive tax increases and new taxes.

Red herring. The poster claimed that the candidate had, and I quote, "NO IDEA how his programs would be financed" ---- so I linked her to the webpage that spells out exactly how those programs would be financed.

Therefore she's wrong, and I win. Again.

You don't come CLOSE to winning with that tripe... And I quote

The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan.

Last year, the average working family paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies. Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.

That's the largest load of BullCrap ever to be laid on the campaign trail..

He repeated that $500/yr answer to a 20 something father of 4 in some "town hall" farce.

As I said pages ago -- You could not provide Medicare or EVEN WELL CARE for that guy and 3 cats with that kind of premium.. It leaves NOTHING at the end of the year for the $15,000 broken finger that WILL turn up sooner or later..

Quite pissing about "winning" and actually THINK..

Literacy is a lost art.

Once again for those in the third row ----
(step 1) the poster maintained that the candidate had "no idea" how to fund his program....
(step 2) I then pointed her to the page that explicitly spells out that idea. Which page cannot exist if he has, as claimed "no idea".

And yet --- the page does indeed exist. I proved it.

Therefore she's wrong. What's actually IN it is irrelevant.

Reading is fun-duh-mental.