IMPEACH
Posted by Christopher at April 18, 2007 03:22 PMUh genius, you can't impeach Senators.
Gotta laugh at 64% of the public wanting "Universal" health care....when only 48% of the public pays income taxes.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 18, 2007 04:11 PMI bet nearly 100% of the public supports getting a Plasma TV for free, too.
The problem with the poll is that it assumes that drug prices would be lower. In fact, there is no guarantee that this would be the case. The sad news is that the government got in the business of providing health care via Medicare. There are limited dollars in that pot, and demand will be increasing in the years to come.
I'm willing to be convinced on a solution. But "more government involvement" probably is the wrong road to go down.
Posted by muckdog at April 18, 2007 06:28 PMA national health care program is long overdue in the US for any number of very good reasons. (Provide care for the tens of millions doing without, relieve a significant burden on businesses that make them non-competitive with their foreign counter-parts, reduce waste in the form of insurance company profits and other unnecessary administrative costs, save individuals thousands of dollars annually in insurance premiums, to name a few.)
But with the political system as corrupted by industry lobby money as it is, how can anyone expect the government to come up with a system that will benefit the American people? These clowns in DC could screw up a one car funeral. Especially in recent years, when party loyalty and religious affiliation take precedent over competence, the faith I have in the government's ability to handle something as complicated as a comprehensive overhaul of the medical service delivery system is near zero.
True, the system is in an actuarial death spiral of increasing premium costs and an ever shrinking pool of premium payors and is sure to crash at some point. But our current politicians and policy making methods are ill equipped to deal with correcting it.
Posted by brisa at April 18, 2007 06:46 PMAlthough it sounds like a good idea, letting Medicare negotiate will probably not save any money and might restrict the choices now available for seniors. The VA does it, and most veterans who have a choice are going to Part-D.
Posted by Catron at April 18, 2007 07:15 PMThe issue is not about negotiating with big Pharma. This issues are:
1. Why should big pharma be allowed to write legislation that subordinates U.S. public interest to big pharma special interest.
2. Why should big pharma get this welfare at the U.S. public expense?
It is not that complicated. Do you buy from a single source supplier without shopping around? Why should the congress force Medicare to accept big pharma prices without competition? It's not complicated people. This is another major republican sellout. If you are stupid enough to buy without shopping around, more power to you. This is a major rip-off.
Posted by smooth at April 18, 2007 08:16 PM"It is not that complicated. Do you buy from a single source supplier without shopping around? Why should the congress force Medicare to accept big pharma prices without competition? It's not complicated people. This is another major republican sellout. If you are stupid enough to buy without shopping around, more power to you. This is a major rip-off."
Patented drugs don't have competition, by definition.
A better question is why seniors deserve prescription drug coverage in the first place.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 18, 2007 09:02 PM"A better question is why seniors deserve prescription drug coverage in the first place."
From that statement, I gather you don't think they do. Why not?
Posted by Judith at April 18, 2007 10:25 PM"Patented drugs don't have competition, by definition."
That is true, but there are thousands of drugs that fall under the generic label, after the patent has run out, yet are still outrageously expensive.
"Prices of generic drugs are rising almost twice as rapidly as prices of brand-name drugs, even as many insurers and the Bush administration are pressing Americans to switch in the name of saving money."
"The trend is expected to continue over the next few years as a number of enormously popular brand-name drugs lose their patent protection and drug makers introduce generic versions at high initial prices."
"The companies are bigger and there are fewer of them. They don't play the same kind of game they did 10 years ago when there were more small firms desperate to gain market share."
"Prices of generic drugs are rising faster for several reasons. First, a large number of patents on popular brand-name drugs expired this year, allowing makers of generics to enter the market. Makers of generic drugs typically charge higher prices when the first generic versions of expensive medicines reach pharmacy shelves."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1227-04.htm
TIP: Costco continues to have some of the lowest drug prices for those interested.
I suggest you do some more reading. If looking at only generic drugs, American competition has forced cheaper prices for generics compared to Canada.
Here's 3 links for you:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=772
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba503/
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_10_25_a_drugs.html
"However, higher generic drug prices are very surprising and indicate that Canadian seniors are paying too much for generic drugs. The lack of a competitive market for pharmaceuticals in Canada is the cause of inflated prices for generic drugs north of the border. As documented and explained in previous research, Canadian government policies have given special advantages to generic companies that have allowed them to establish individual product monopolies on retail pharmacy shelves through exclusive distribution agreements. "
"For example, a study by the consulting firm Palmer D’Angelo found that Canadians pay more than twice as much as Americans for Canada’s 27 top-selling generic drugs. This is consistent with research conducted by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For five of seven generic drugs studied, the FDA found that Canadians pay more than Americans do; in some cases two to three times more. [See the figure.] Considering that half of all drugs sold in the United States are generic, it is surprising how little attention has been paid to them in the reimportation debate. So why do Canadians pay less than we do for brand-name drugs, but more for generics? Since brand-name drugs are principally produced by foreign manufacturers, the Canadian government willingly imposes strict price controls that benefit Canadian consumers. In the generic market, however, Canadian producers dominate. In fact, two companies (Apotex and Novopharm) account for more than half of the total Canadian generic market."
Your statement is absolutely true for 2 reasons.
1. It takes time for other manufacturers to enter the marketplace.
2. When medicines like Prozac went off patent, the manufacturer decided not to compete with cutthroat pricing with the generics. Instead, they hiked the prices even higher, figuring that whomever still sticks with Prozac has some sort of brand loyalty. It's more profitable than slashing margins in competitition.
Want any more evidence? Look at $4 drugs at Walmart.
"From that statement, I gather you don't think they do. Why not?"
Social Security and the old Medicare was more than sufficient. Setting up a new entitlement for a growing group of seniors with a shrinking group of workers paying for it is madness.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 07:07 AMlordtyranus2
The Repugs wrote and passed Part D. They are owned by the drug corporations. Why shoudn't Medicare be allowed to negotiate? The US is not the only country that produces drugs. How do you explain the lower cost of US drugs in Canada? The answer is negotiation.
"The Repugs wrote and passed Part D. They are owned by the drug corporations. Why shoudn't Medicare be allowed to negotiate? The US is not the only country that produces drugs. How do you explain the lower cost of US drugs in Canada? The answer is negotiation."
Depends on how you define "negotiate". What you actually want is price fixing, akin to negotiating at gunpoint.
Drug prices are cheaper in Canada due to the government strongarming the pharmaceutical industry when it comes to patents. As a result, very limited R&D of new drugs is done in Canada.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 09:03 AMlordtyranus2,
Your response to perscription drug competition may work with FOX Proganda listeners and it make no sense. For your response to make sense, there is would only be one patented drug for treating a given illness. Is that true? Hell no that's not true. Your reasoning shows your lack of awareness, limited understanding or you don't talk to many people that can see through your bullshit.
You are full of shit!!!!!!
Posted by smooth at April 19, 2007 10:41 AMI get sick of narrow minded people drawing a totally wrong conclusion and expanding on a lie.
Posted by smooth at April 19, 2007 10:49 AMTypical leftwinger, resorting to ad hominen and personal attacks.
1. There are many illnesses, and substrains of illnesses, that only have 1 given drug. That's part of the reason some of those pills cost hundreds of dollars each.
2. Even for more common drugs not everyone responds to every statin without severe side effects.
http://www.wellmark.com/health_improvement/reports/cholesterol/about_cholesterol.htm
Here is a price comparison of various statins. Out of that list, Lipitor and Zocor are the two most common, and Prevachol has more annual sales than Lescol despite being more than double the price.
How the hell does this fit in with your idea of "competition"?
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 07:21 PMlordtyranus2,
Patented drugs don't have competition, by definition.
This statement is false!
If patented drug didn't have competition why does:
1. Big Pharma spend a fortune advertising to consumers that can't buy their products without perscriptions
2. Big Pharma spend fortunes influencing physicians to prescribe their drugs.
Here is a price comparison of various statins. Out of that list, Lipitor and Zocor are the two most common, and Prevachol has more annual sales than Lescol despite being more than double the price.
How the hell does this fit in with your idea of "competition"?
This statement is so dishonest. Since I review annual reports of major pharma in my portfolio, I know the key drugs and the competition these drugs face. Your statement does not support your conclusion.
Posted by smooth at April 20, 2007 11:24 AM
1. Big Pharma spend a fortune advertising to consumers that can't buy their products without perscriptions
2. Big Pharma spend fortunes influencing physicians to prescribe their drugs.
Clearly you know nothing about the industry....
DTC advertising is used because it promotes demand, including to those who arguably don't need it.
Excess demand = more sales/revenues.
By your ridiculous assertion Microsoft doesn't need to advertise since Windows has an effective monopoly.
And if you did as much reviewing as you claim, you'd realize neither the doctor nor the patient faces the higher price directly in many fixed co-pay schemes, and thus there can be no price competition to the end user.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 20, 2007 06:38 PMWhat percentage of total Medicare Part D prescriptions are patented drugs?
What percentage of patented Medicare Part D prescription drugs are not competitive?
When you answer these questions your argument is exposed as dishonest.
If you read the major big pharma SEC filings (Management ‘s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition) and still believe there is no competition between patented drugs, then I understand why you see the way you do.
"Competition" is a dishonest distraction. The real issue is "interest" and "leverage". Medicare Part D serves the interest of big Pharma at the expense of the United States. "For Profit" Prescription drug insurance carriers - like Medco - have establish business models that generate profits. Compared to the Medicare part D volume, these carriers operate with much lower volume than Medicare Part D. Even with smaller volume, the prescription drug insurers use leverage and management to serve their interest...generating profits. The Medicare Part D business model is a scam for big pharma. Basically, big pharma told the republicans to write the legislation in a way that prevents Medicare from using their leverage to prevent price gouging and prohibit the advantages to the United States for using the enormous leverage the accompanies large volume.
Medicare Part D is a rip off. It rips off the U.S. and the seniors.
Let me tell you a little secret: there was a drug detox project that was promoted with the help of many non-governmental organizations but of course that it was rejected... The very people that are shouting out loud that they will do anything to protect and serve the country, are on the drug lords' payroll.
Posted by Cristian at November 5, 2008 06:39 AM