2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
That's not really the issue in America though. It's the insurance companies paying out the crazy high price that is the problem. My buddy who is a pharmacist said his office paid $150.00 for a bottle of the stuff. The insurance company paid his pharmacy $9,200.00 when he sold it.
At some point someone is going to do something about out of control medical prices in this country. The people who don't want single payer health care better get on the ball and come up with a better solution than "NOTHING! DO NOTHING! IF ANYTHING, MAKE IT WORSE!"
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Drug CEO Will Lower Price of Daraprim After Hike Sparked Outrage
by ANDREA MITCHELL and PHIL HELSEL

Facing Price-Gouging Outcry, CEO Says He'll Lower Cost of Drug 2:28
The pharmaceutical company boss under fire for increasing the price of the drug Daraprim by more than 5,000 percent said Tuesday he will lower the cost of the life-saving medication.

Martin Shkreli did not say what the new price would be, but expected a determination to be made over the next few weeks.

He told NBC News that the decision to lower the price was a reaction to outrage over the increase in the price of the drug from $13.50 to $750 per pill.


"Yes it is absolutely a reaction — there were mistakes made with respect to helping people understand why we took this action, I think that it makes sense to lower the price in response to the anger that was felt by people," Shkreli, 32, said.

Turing Pharmaceuticals of New York bought the drug from Impax Laboratories in August for $55 million and raised the price. Shkreli said Tuesday the price would be lowered to allow the company to break even or make a smaller profit.



Daraprim fights toxoplasmosis. The infection is particularly dangerous for people who have weakened immune systems, like AIDS patients, as well as for pregnant women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The New York Times first reported the price increase on Sunday.

Shkreli, the founder and CEO of Turing, had said the money from the increase would be used to develop better treatment for toxoplasmosis that have fewer side effects. He told NBC News Tuesday that drugs like Daraprim will not exist if small companies cannot get a return on their investment.

"It's very easy to see a large drug price increase and say 'Gosh, those people must be gouging.' But when you find out that the company is not really making any money, what does that mean?" Shkreli said in a phone interview with NBC News Tuesday. "It's very hard stuff to understand."

The Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association objected to the price increase, saying "this cost is unjustifiable for the medically vulnerable patient population in need of this medication."

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was among those who expressed outrage over the price increase. On Tuesday she outlined a plan she said would limit how much patients have to pay out of pocket for medications each month.



"I think in the society we live in today it's easy to want to villainize people, and obviously we're in an election cycle where this is very, very tough topic for people and it's very sensitive. And I understand the outrage," Shkreli said.

Shkreli said on Twitter Tuesday afternoon that he planned to "set the record straight on misconceptions and announce some adjustments to our plan." He planned to make his Twitter account private after that.

Shkreli acknowledged that the cost to produce the drug is low — but he said that doesn't take into account "the quality control, the regulatory costs, and all of the other things that come with having a drug company."

"We'll know in several weeks how profitable the drug is, if it at all," Shkreli said in the NBC News interview. "It may turn out that's it not even profitable at all, even at this price."
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
"It's very easy to see a large drug price increase and say 'Gosh, those people must be gouging.' But when you find out that the company is not really making any money, what does that mean?" Shkreli said in a phone interview with NBC News Tuesday. "It's very hard stuff to understand."
If it wasn't making any money why did you even buy the patent, asshat?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
We have laws in place regulating other monopolies. So far no company has refused to be a monopoly under those circumstances. This guy just did everyone the disservice of making us make a law to prevent this from happening ever again. He's the multimillionaire equivalent of the guy who forced us to make "employees must wash hands sign."
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
In both instances it is the right of the patent holder to decide what they will do. One chose the moral road and the other chose the legal road. Point being each had a right to choose what they do with their property rights. Whether we agree with their choices is moot in the eyes of the law. This same application extends to everyone's property rights. You wouldn't like it for one of your less fortunate neighbors to be able to take you home simply because you were living better than them.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
In both instances it is the right of the patent holder to decide what they will do. One chose the moral road and the other chose the legal road. Point being each had a right to choose what they do with their property rights. Whether we agree with their choices is moot in the eyes of the law. This same application extends to everyone's property rights. You wouldn't like it for one of your less fortunate neighbors to be able to take you home simply because you were living better than them.
So how is this not a monopoly?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
Drugs exist in plenty of other countries and basically nobody has to pay the prices we pay.
If you want to go to the systems these countries use then the costs can go down. Personally I don't want the socialized medicine approach because of the length of time it takes to get the care needed and other horror stories. These programs pay for the medicine through government programs as opposed to insurance companies paying the lions share here. This is the primary purpose and intent to the current health care law. It was supposed to force everyone to get in the system to help the insurance companies to be able to pay for all the medical costs. It isn't working yet because all the targeted groups aren't playing ball.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
I might add that the underlying theory to the health care law was that it was better for private enterprise to manage it rather than government which is done with socialized medicine. Both programs however have the same approach that being everyone is to be enrolled. Pay the insurance company or pay government deending on where you live in this world.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
I might add that the underlying theory to the health care law was that it was better for private enterprise to manage it rather than government which is done with socialized medicine. Both programs however have the same approach that being everyone is to be enrolled. Pay the insurance company or pay government deending on where you live in this world.
The government is already elbow deep in the medical industry, we're spending more taxpayer money on health care than a lot of countries with socialized medicine and the only difference is we see no benefit whatsoever. People aren't going to put up with health care just flat out not being available except to rich people, which is where we're headed. If private industry wants to be part of the medical field going further, they had better step up and find a way to make medical care affordable or people will just vote for more Bernie Sanders types until we're on a single payer system like Canada. That jackass that bought the AIDS drug to try to make a big profit by jacking up the price probably bought Sanders a million votes.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,974
The government is already elbow deep in the medical industry, we're spending more taxpayer money on health care than a lot of countries with socialized medicine and the only difference is we see no benefit whatsoever. People aren't going to put up with health care just flat out not being available except to rich people, which is where we're headed. If private industry wants to be part of the medical field going further, they had better step up and find a way to make medical care affordable or people will just vote for more Bernie Sanders types until we're on a single payer system like Canada. That jackass that bought the AIDS drug to try to make a big profit by jacking up the price probably bought Sanders a million votes.
The funny thing is the drug is used for an extremely rare condition that happens in someone who is immune compromised. This is something that impacted very few people in the United States.

The Bernie Sanders route isn't a solution at all but the walking zombie idiots who want everything for free will think it is.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
The funny thing is the drug is used for an extremely rare condition that happens in someone who is immune compromised. This is something that impacted very few people in the United States.

The Bernie Sanders route isn't a solution at all but the walking zombie idiots who want everything for free will think it is.
I'm not a fan of that route but I see which way the wind is blowing, only in America does using tax money on something drive prices up. With what we pay for education and medicine in this country, the prices should be affordable for at least the middle class. The middle class pays a lot of taxes for those things and middle class people are pretty pissed that they can't afford them any more.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,974
I'm not a fan of that route but I see which way the wind is blowing, only in America does using tax money on something drive prices up. With what we pay for education and medicine in this country, the prices should be affordable for at least the middle class. The middle class pays a lot of taxes for those things and middle class people are pretty pissed that they can't afford them any more.
Medical costs have been a problem in America for decades and there is definitely a push to become more like the European countries when it comes to health care. They do have lower medical costs per GDP then America so people look at that and assume that it is the solution. There are a multitude of problems with that. First of all most of those countries are running serious deficits with their socialized health care programs. Situations that are not sustainable. Obviously we have all heard about the wait lists and the standard of care to get medical procedures. But there would also be a stifling affect to medical research if America went to some type of socialized medicine. The reason is that a lot of companies spend the money they do on drug research because American's will foot the bill for it. What we pay for a medication is completely different then what another country pays for that medication. So while the profit margins may be small in another country the drug industry knows they can make up for it with much larger margins in the United States.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Medical costs have been a problem in America for decades and there is definitely a push to become more like the European countries when it comes to health care. They do have lower medical costs per GDP then America so people look at that and assume that it is the solution. There are a multitude of problems with that. First of all most of those countries are running serious deficits with their socialized health care programs. Situations that are not sustainable. Obviously we have all heard about the wait lists and the standard of care to get medical procedures. But there would also be a stifling affect to medical research if America went to some type of socialized medicine. The reason is that a lot of companies spend the money they do on drug research because American's will foot the bill for it. What we pay for a medication is completely different then what another country pays for that medication. So while the profit margins may be small in another country the drug industry knows they can make up for it with much larger margins in the United States.
At some point people will accept a lower standard of care if the alternative is to get none at all or undergo complete financial ruin for any medical procedure. Also, why does it have to be us paying for all the world to have better access to drugs than us?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom