It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders on prescription drug price gouging

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Sorry.

It's fine I have a better understanding of why you are not addressing the issue or others links now.


Go GOP Trump 2016.

I even support you supporting him. How great is that?




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
If we must regulate how much big pharma charges for a drug, then we must regulate how much Mcdonalds charges for a big mac and how much Kroger charges for a pound of meat.


It's only fair.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Likewise I sincerely hope Sanders stands up for the Dem party - it'll be very good.

I did see links I just don't buy what's being sold.

Did he vote against Obamacare? Nope.

That one act negated anything said before and since because Obamacare was corporate welfare to the max especially big pharma.

Show me where Sanders took a position against that and I'll change thinking a bit, till then not buying it as it appears pandering to, well, you guys.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix




I did see links I just don't buy what's being sold.


It's to bad you didn't read or comprehend them.



Did he vote against Obamacare? Nope.


Egads, do you mean Dems voted for Dem plans I am absolutely shocked. Pffft.



I will not try to get you on Bernie's side, I can't even get you to read articles to know what your talking about.

So you are for Trump, price gouging, less freedom, and against deregulation. Cool have fun with that.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Why stop there? Let's regulate your property, your labor, resources, children, food, beverage, travel and thought.

Sorta like socialism at its best iteration.

Some on this thread keep trying to say I'm for regulation which is an Orwellian thing to me - I just want law upheld as it stands.

Kinda reminds me of a 2A thread where unicorns and butterflies abound and all is solved with a new law, forgetting the thousands existing but not upheld, used or broken.

But if we have that new law or regulation all is going to be nirvana.

Ya!



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

If the FDA would only unleash the power of small chemist who are willing to make these drugs at almost nil costs, this whole thing would be a non issue. This is one of the times that capitalism fails.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I am for laws applied to a rapecious industry, applied resulting in an 80% cut in end consumer cost.

If you have a problem with that stance then I cannot begin to understand that position.

Sanders whole modus operandi has a cold day in hell chance of ever doing that by tax,spend and regulate policies.

Voting Dem when a declared Indy for a corporate welfare bill IS a huge no go for me - sold out, what was quid pro quo is what you should ask of your presumed candidate.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

No entity, company, pharmacist, country, or singular person should be able to profit from a life saving pharmaceutical or procedure.

Yes, that makes my posts in this thread hypocritical. But I accept that. There are some things in life that should just be a human right.


edit on 9/30/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix



He is advocating things in the video that will cost Americans less and give us more choices(freedom).


Because you don't like him then you honestly wouldn't know that because that would require you to read and listen. OK that's fine.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Drug costs go up because of government regulations, not in spite of them.

If a price cap is put on drugs, they will be produced less or not at all.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

Bernie is pro-government.

Ergo, Bernie's plan will make the problem worse.


That would be false. Drug prices go up because the healthcare industry is its own mini monopoly, a company with a patent on a drug is free to raise the price on that drug to any price they want.

We saw it a couple of weeks ago with a 70 year old antibiotic...used to cost 1 dollar per pill and a CEO raised the price of it to over 700 dollars per pill.


The price went up because FDA regulations had allowed the ownership down to one source. It was too expensive for another company to jump in and start producing another generic to undersell. Hate the game, not the player.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: EternalSolace

No entity, company, pharmacist, country, or singular person should be able to profit from a life saving pharmaceutical or procedure.

Yes, that makes my posts in this thread hypocritical. But I accept that. There are some things in life that should just be a human right.



Attitudes like that will stop medical innovation dead. If there is no profit, there is no motivation. Warm fuzzy feelings do not feed the belly.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which means there's something wrong with human nature... now doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: EternalSolace

No entity, company, pharmacist, country, or singular person should be able to profit from a life saving pharmaceutical or procedure.

Yes, that makes my posts in this thread hypocritical. But I accept that. There are some things in life that should just be a human right.



Attitudes like that will stop medical innovation dead. If there is no profit, there is no motivation. Warm fuzzy feelings do not feed the belly.



Who do you think reaps the profits from medical innovations?

Do you think its the scientists and innovators? If you think that you would be very very wrong.

So the people designing and innovating obviously aren't in it for the big bucks.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

In your opinion, why hasn't Sander's or anyone else in government who points out the price gouging of the pharmaceutical industry started with enforcing laws that were already in place?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which means there's something wrong with human nature... now doesn't it?



No, it means people want to feed their kids.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gumerk
a reply to: Phoenix

In your opinion, why hasn't Sander's or anyone else in government who points out the price gouging of the pharmaceutical industry started with enforcing laws that were already in place?



Simple, it is because there are no laws stopping them. In fact there are laws written to allow them to do it.


Phoenix thinks a law already applies to stop them, but Phoenix is wrong about that.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: EternalSolace

No entity, company, pharmacist, country, or singular person should be able to profit from a life saving pharmaceutical or procedure.

Yes, that makes my posts in this thread hypocritical. But I accept that. There are some things in life that should just be a human right.



Attitudes like that will stop medical innovation dead. If there is no profit, there is no motivation. Warm fuzzy feelings do not feed the belly.



Who do you think reaps the profits from medical innovations?

Do you think its the scientists and innovators? If you think that you would be very very wrong.

So the people designing and innovating obviously aren't in it for the big bucks.


Kudos for assuming I don't know these things. I work in a medical company that invests heavily in R&D. I see the innane levels of regulations and beancounting on a daily basis.

It's the people willing to invest the money needed to overcome regulatory hurdles that benefit from medical innovations. They reward the people who come up with the innovations, quite well. One of the PhD's just retired at 40 because he had enough money and he was sick of all the red tape.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Oh he got to retire that is great. What about the other billions in profit how much did he get?


I looked up medical innovation funding and the US taxpayer already pays through grants over half of the money for the innovation so the medical industry can reap the profits.

The NIH grants over 30 billion dollars a year for R&D.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

In utopia or heaven yes, many many examples of massive failures in this world when incentives are removed.

What we have is similar to fast food giants colluding with politicians to pass "free burgers for all bill" which was done.

However in the fine print was no cap on what the monopolistic consortium could charge by price fixing and collusion. Not only could they charge higher price but they can also vet your resources and charge an even higher rate.

That's simplistic but accurate description for today's healthcare.

Not all of that came with Obamacare but Obamacare codified the crimes.

The absolute simple solution is to make all aspects of this industry beholden to USC 15 laws - no exceptions, no new laws needed.

Etimates if this were done is 80% drop in cost.

One would need no insurance other than catastropic/accident coverage.

That's the rub, big pharma/medical/insurance would lose billions some of which pays politicians to keep status quo or worse.

Government would lose a mechanism to manipulate and control voters making them entrenched opposition to the people.

I don't see Sanders changing this in any structural way since he's one of those who voted it further into law.

As much as I'm against free hamburgers, Trump came out last Sunday for universal care however I also believe if he does so he'll not pay the exorbitant rates being charged now.

Basically he'll Trump the burger consortium and tell them how it's going to be done from the bully pulpit.

If that's the only path to ending the rape so be it.

Sanders "tweaking" ain't gonna do it.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

What good does it do for a family to feed their kid when said kid is dying of a curable disease that's curable for a measly $1,000 per pill?!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join