Clinton Proposes $250 Monthly Cap on Prescription Drug Costs

originally posted by: carewemust
For obvious reasons, an artificial cap won't work as long as there's strong demand. But..

On the plus side, Hillary's rants caused one drug maker to lower the price today.
Ref: www.nbcnews.com...

On the negative side, she also caused Biotech stocks to plummet.
Ref: www.bloomberg.com...

I guess this is one way to get yourself a lot of media attention, if you're running for President.

I doubt it was just Hillary's rants that motivated the change, there were plenty of people making hay with this. As for the Biotech stocks, if this was really the cause, once they understand that their profits are protected under her plan, that should correct itself. It's easy to dismiss Hillary's efforts as a campaign tactics, but we still have the same problems that need to be addressed. How do we make hay with this brouhaha and find real long-term solutions... effectively removing it as a campaign issue???

originally posted by: Shiriya
I'm sure without someone keeping an eye on things people will still have to pay. As I've noticed with most things we sure love to place band-aids on problems rather than tearing to the heart of the problem and fixing it. While I can understand what they are thinking of doing on the fly; I think most of us want to know what they are going to do for the long run.

Exactly!!!!! We need long-term solutions, not bandaids!

a reply to: Boadicea

Hmm. If the insurance companies have to pay the lion's share of drug costs, maybe they'll take on Big Pharma for us.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Boadicea

Hmm. If the insurance companies have to pay the lion's share of drug costs, maybe they'll take on Big Pharma for us.

Excellent point!!! You could very well be right about that. It would certainly be in their best interests to do so. I know some say that insurance companies are being targeted for annihilation in order to usher in a single-payer system, but they still have enough $$ and clout to get something done. I only hope that they would look at the big picture -- not just their bottom line -- and fight for a fair and practical solution... not just push the burden onto others.

originally posted by: Boadicea

I don't remember Obama offering everyone a house;

It was a pretty common belief

...

In fact, the founding fathers also believed that as many people as possible should own land... a place to live and work from and provide for their families, and improve living conditions for everyone.

I own land, I work hard...what is the difference? There was a time when there was more land than people, now there is more people than land...also, who is willing to "work" that land? Sometime after the 1900s we changed to a society of wage workers. Good or bad that is what we got to work with. I guess if you want to work 16 hours everyday in your fields to barter what you have grown for other products of what you need then have at it, but it is not a easy life.

we all have a right to treat and heal ourselves with the bounty of nature. Laws should protect that right first and foremost. Patent laws should promote and encourage innovation and distribution, not put a lock on the fruits of the earth that belong to us all equally.

Treat away, grow your own willow bark and chew on it, other than that you need to pay for what others work hard to make. Our medical system is broken...fix the system, don't just limit the cost to have tax money make up the difference in a super inflated cost system.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Our medical system is broken...fix the system, don't just limit the cost to have tax money make up the difference in a super inflated cost system.

Um... yep... that's pretty much what I said in the OP, so I'm glad we agree about that.

I also suggested a few solutions, and invited more... any thoughts about that?

a reply to: Boadicea

I would rather see a voucher system where doctors compete with skill and price like the rest of the world does. I would rather pay 50 bucks out of my pocket for 100% then pay 50 bucks co payment and insurance pays 500 more.

Does anyone know if America has a greater demand for pharmaceuticals than other developed nations? I was home the other afternoon with the TV on. The number of drug advertisements was amazing! These commercials were long and published in a way that made them look like a mini-series, instead of a commercial. The guy reading the script mentioned a long list of horrific side effects, all while the people in the commercials were smiling and having a good time. (I liked the one with Arnold Palmer though.)

If our demand is greater, of course the cost will be greater. That's capitalism for ya.
cwm

a reply to: Boadicea

Of course, if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is signed, all bets are off. Even Canada will be bound by the terms under international law - and the TPP extends patent limits, prevents generics, allows price gouging, yada yada.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: Boadicea

I would rather see a voucher system where doctors compete with skill and price like the rest of the world does. I would rather pay 50 bucks out of my pocket for 100% then pay 50 bucks co payment and insurance pays 500 more.

I like that. I think I've seen something like that before. Similar to school vouchers, where students can go to a charter school or some private schools and the school receives the tax dollars that would have been spent at the public school, and the parent pays the difference (if any). I would think that would go a long way towards keeping simple health issues out of emergency rooms -- which should be reserved for real emergencies.

originally posted by: carewemust

On the negative side, she also caused Biotech stocks to plummet.
Ref: www.bloomberg.com...

And when the price gets low enough, someone with no legally provable link to the Clintons will buy as many stocks as possible.

Then it will be announced that the industry has agreed to fund research into ways to make pharmaceuticals more affordable without need for government intervention and the proposal will be dropped.

That's when the Biotech stocks go back up... and someone makes a fortune.

We've got a cap like that in Sweden, although it is 2200 SEK(about 261 USD) a year instead and after that you only have to pay 10%..

Ha

a reply to: Boadicea

Until someone has an honest discussion about banning Direct-to-Consumer pharmaceutical ads, there won't be an end to the exploitation of drug prices.

originally posted by: carewemust
I was home the other afternoon with the TV on. The number of drug advertisements was amazing! These commercials were long and published in a way that made them look like a mini-series, instead of a commercial. The guy reading the script mentioned a long list of horrific side effects, all while the people in the commercials were smiling and having a good time. (I liked the one with Arnold Palmer though.)

More than a little disturbing, eh? I've been reading that direct marketing costs are the top expense for Big Pharma; they spend far more on marketing than on research and development.

If our demand is greater, of course the cost will be greater. That's capitalism for ya.
cwm

Except it has nothing to do with a free market. Big Pharma gets special perks like extended patent laws, eliminating competition, Prez Bush made it impossible for the VA or Medicare to negotiate lower prices, U.S. consumers cannot buy foreign made drugs (even from Canada), etc. It's not about supply and demand in a free market.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Boadicea

Of course, if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is signed, all bets are off. Even Canada will be bound by the terms under international law - and the TPP extends patent limits, prevents generics, allows price gouging, yada yada.

I did not know that -- thank you! -- but I guess I should have figured.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Until someone has an honest discussion about banning Direct-to-Consumer pharmaceutical ads, there won't be an end to the exploitation of drug prices.

Agreed. I don't know why that was allowed to begin with. Okay. That's not true -- I do know why. But you're right, direct marketing needs to stop. Big Pharma spends far more on marketing than on research and development.... and the vast majority of research and development is now paid by taxpayers via grants and such.

a reply to: Boadicea

It's disgusting. We are one of two countries in the world that allows DtC marketing of pharmaceuticals. If you think about it, drug ads are basically letting themselves be your doctor. "Take our drug because it cures such and such, oh and by the way, there are these side effects... But take our product, it works!"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

It's disgusting. We are one of two countries in the world that allows DtC marketing of pharmaceuticals. If you think about it, drug ads are basically letting themselves be your doctor. "Take our drug because it cures such and such, oh and by the way, there are these side effects... But take our product, it works!"

Very disgusting -- especially when you add in the perks and treats that doctors are getting for prescribing some meds... usually new ones that Big Pharma is introducing, or especially expensive drugs when a much cheaper (and often safer) drug is available. My kids pediatrician actually told me about that. There was a new antibiotic -- Ceclor -- that was crazy expensive. My sis-in-law called it "liquid gold." My doc stuck with amoxicillin and erythromomycin, both much cheaper with fewer adverse side effects. (Of course my son had to be allergic to penicillin! But the)

a reply to: Boadicea

Yea. If you knocked this nonsense off, I bet you wouldn't even NEED this provision that Hillary is proposing for Obamacare.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Yea. If you knocked this nonsense off, I bet you wouldn't even NEED this provision that Hillary is proposing for Obamacare.

I won't bet against you!

For decades we were told we need to get our meds from a doctor is because we aren't smart enough to know what medicines are right for us. That sure worked out well with antibiotics, eh? First we're told that MRSAs came from people not taking their entire course of antibiotics, allowing viruses to mutate... then we're told it's because we demand too many antibiotics, so the viruses mutated. So which is it? Did we take too much or not enough???

Apparently, neither. MRSAs are almost exclusively contracted in hospitals. It wasn't us causing the problem. But the establishment sure was quick to blame the victims. It's become SOP for them, and they cry all the way to the bank.