Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

Rated "least biased" but then it won't make any difference to you, everybody's a leftist.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-balance/

"Overall, we rate The Balance Least Biased based on minimal use of loaded language and balanced reporting of financial news. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing and a clean fact check record".

---

Tax cuts aren't "costs" regardless of source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caf

Or worse they'll lower their costs aka research and development into cures for diseases or maybe even quality ~yeesh~. I know this doesn't fit into some of your narratives, if you were reasonable it would, the US pharmaceutical environment and industry have saved millions of lives from the covid vaccine development alone. Changing anything about it is a dangerous game, and we're doing it when their impact is as plain to see as ever. There's definitely not enough talk about the 95% excise tax buried in this bill.

Funny you mention everyone else's costs would go up as well, that's what Trump wanted to do, peg our costs to other countries'. Those countries are able to negotiate more aggressively as they know we'll bankroll the companies so they don't have to own the consequences of restricting their revenue.

---

This is pretty much spot on.

What I don’t get is why people think Medicare/federal government doesn’t already directly negotiate with drug companies because it has happened for years. One example, a little over a decade ago Medicare asked pharma if they wanted their branded drugs covered. Of course they did, so Medicare made pharma pay a percentage of the patients donut hole. Today, pharma covers 75% of that coverage.

A very simple solution to lowering branded drug cost for Medicare patients would be to allow them to use co-pay cards. Unfortunately, the feds look at this as a bribe to stay on that particular medication. So much for allowing the patient and their doctor making the decisions.

I think people believe the government couldn't negotiate drug pricing for seniors, is because it was in the original bill:

Quote:

---

In 2003, the Bush administration passed Medicare prescription drug benefits, but prohibited the government from negotiating the price of medications for seniors.

---

https://ashpublications.org/ashclini...searchresult=1

I think that has been the case from then until now; but stand to be corrected if I missed where they were allowed to negotiate.

https://justthenews.com/nation/crime...ian-death-rate

Murder rates per capita in Chicago, St. Louis, and Baltimore are now higher than the civilian death rate in Ukraine. Why does the media not report this?

I’m not sure why they think this will survive a court challenge, which is probably already being prepared.

https://news.yahoo.com/minneapolis-t...144509410.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like Weisselberg, like a good consigliere, will be falling on his sword.

I'm guessing his family will be taken care of, as he's not "cooperating."

"Mice die in mouse traps because they don't understand why the cheese is free.

The same thing happens with socialism."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

I think people believe the government couldn't negotiate drug pricing for seniors, is because it was in the original bill:



https://ashpublications.org/ashclini...searchresult=1

I think that has been the case from then until now; but stand to be corrected if I missed where they were allowed to negotiate.

---

Assume you didn’t see my example or are you just messing with me? Is this not a negotiation for the cost of drugs? Again the government and pharma negotiated the out of pocket costs for drugs in return for access to sell their branded drugs. Think this started around 2013ish?

This is the same type of negotiations pharma has been doing with private insurers for decades. Insurers ask for discounts from pharma in return to put their drug on formulary (access).

This negotiation was made in good faith for two reasons. 1) The donut hole was the most expensive part the the patients Medicare PDP (see attached on how the donut hole works) and lowers it by 75%. 2) so the government would not do cost control on drugs overall. Big difference between controlling and negotiating.

If this not an example of negotiating the price of drugs, then I don’t know what else to tell you.

https://www.medicare.gov/drug-covera...e-coverage-gap

I guess this is more my idea of "negotiating."

Quote:

---

In our sample of 399 brand-name and generic prescription drugs, the VA paid an average of 54% less per unit than Medicare, even after taking into account rebates and discounts.

The programs pay for drugs differently. Medicare reimburses the Part D plan sponsors to pay pharmacies, but the VA buys drugs directly from manufacturers. The VA may be able to get lower prices because it can:

Negotiate as a single health system with a unified list of covered drugs

Use discounts defined by law that Medicare doesn't have

---

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-111

Quote:

---

Federal law allows the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices only for veterans and Medicaid beneficiaries. Specifically, the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA)(P.L. 108-173) noninterference provision prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from negotiating Medicare drug prices or establishing a preferred drug list.

---

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0245.htm

Maybe if they had real negotiating, they would lower the Medicare Drug costs by 54% to be the same as the VA?

Big Pharma has 1700 lobbyists, 3 for every member of Congress. They'll find a way to keep screwing us.