Bernie Sanders on prescription drug price gouging

a reply to: Grimpachi

Congress can remove any exemptions to 15 USC laws in a new York minute without Presidential approval.

And that's a fact - again NO new law is needed.

Anyone proposing new law is offering a sop to their base.

a reply to: Phoenix

You assume these laws apply to the drug industry. Fact is they don't.


Sorry to tell you, but the laws do not work the way you want them to.

Again as I have told you several times Bernie wants to do away with some regulations. Read that slowly and let it set in.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Worse is to find said pill is available in Mexico for a paltry $10 a pill.

Snake venom is good example, something like $50,000 in US emergency room, same exact thing in Mexico less than $1000.

This is what should be prosecuted just to make an example for the rest of the medical industry.

No different than the Hedge Fund guy who raised a generic 4000%

a reply to: Phoenix

Worse is to find said pill is available in Mexico for a paltry $10 a pill.

Exactly why our FDA is a damn joke. They stifle research and ban medication because they're paid to do so by big pharma.


Edit: Can I get a star for no other reason than to be rid of the "666" ?!

a reply to: Grimpachi

I u n d er s t a n d y o u r p o I n t, said slowly as I can.............

On existing law congress can modify by resolution, any exemptions, said slowly e x e m p t I o n s can be removed.

No new law is needed.

It's pandering to say otherwise.

a reply to: EternalSolace

The FDA isn't funded by Pharma.


The GOP wants to change that though. They want to let Pharma companies pay the FDA to expedite approvals for medications.

If that happened your statement could have validity.

a reply to: Grimpachi

This should help support my point.

Is The FDA Being Compromised By Pharma Payments?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Could you post a link to the NIH medical innovation funding and the US taxpayer research? I've tried to search for it but haven't found anything concrete yet. Or just tell what search phrase/engine you used. Thanks.

a reply to: Phoenix

So you want "congress" to work together to undo what they did which would lose many of them support from pharma companies.

Reality check.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Hey we agree on something

It's the politicians that are paid by pharma that control FDA funding.

a reply to: Gumerk

This is one link. Not the one I originally had.

NIH Budget

a reply to: Grimpachi

That's great, thanks bud

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Phoenix

So you want "congress" to work together to undo what they did which would lose many of them support from pharma companies.

Reality check.

No I want the voters to vote them out so they can kick the can down the road.

Sanders as a supposed independent (wink wink) could have presented bills to do just that though and gotten away with it, the question is did he?

Naw are you kidding he went always with the herd unless and until he devised that no harm would befall him on fringe positions that mostly were not mass media interest.

By now you know what I call that.

a reply to: Phoenix

Sanders as a supposed independent (wink wink) could have presented bills to do just that though and gotten away with it, the question is did he?

You are now asking questions that have already been answered in this thread in the form of links, but you didn't care to read them.

a reply to: Grimpachi

We'll not everyone should have to spend time on a link for a question that has an obvious answer that a poster will not put into writing of their own words.

Sanders did not and never has put a bill forth to modify exemptions from existing USC 15 law for medical industry.

He did however knowingly vote into law a bill making to overall situation benefit pharma and the medical industry further.

There that ought to save others much time.

Hey whatcha think about Sanders little "tweaking" proposal vs Trumps Universal Care which would allow Trump to Trump the industry.

Consider that for a moment, we're it done he'd indeed hold ALL the leverage.

I think "tweaking" is just more of the same as it only treats a symptom but not the problem.

If Trump screws it up there would only be one guy to blame rather than 635 members of congress. I can get down with that.

a reply to: Phoenix

You have unlocked achievement.

Goalposts Moved

Congrats.

That isn't the first time in this thread either.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Grimpachi

This should help support my point.

Is The FDA Being Compromised By Pharma Payments?

I admit I was wrong.

When I posted this

The FDA isn't funded by Pharma.


The GOP wants to change that though. They want to let Pharma companies pay the FDA to expedite approvals for medications.

If that happened your statement could have validity.

I was a bit behind on the times and didn't realize that GOP managed to get that passed.

So your statement is valid.

It wasn't always like that.

From your article.

“The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulations, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

a reply to: Grimpachi

I did say "success was an expectation in my world"

Goalposts necessarily move when links are used for an opinion rather than backup to debate.

Just trying to get answers, juxtapose Sanders to his competition, point out some hypocracy on his part etc.

All I get is "read the links"

I placed second in ATS debates soon after I joined and I can assure you I did not rely on "read the link" to get that far.

My point in this thread is obvious, Sanders, hearing the outcry on Hedge raising generic pricing trotted out a new/old plan on pharma as a sop to the socialist base in hopes of gaining some polling points.

That's reactive pandering IMHO

You trotted out Vids showing he always wanted social pharma.

I said solution was not new law, existing would do just fine yo slap these folks down.

Do I have gist so far?

To further the discussion which you refer to a "moving goal posts" a comparison needs to made between putting a bandaid on a bleeding wound (Sanders) and curing the patients disease (Trump)

Moving goal post so be it, what's use of this thread otherwise - to commend Sanders in all his learned wisdom?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Whoa, that makes it far worse, both politicians and FDA are compromised by pharma which is empowered by Obamacare to rape the consumer.

That's really sick.

a reply to: Phoenix

My point in this thread is obvious, Sanders, hearing the outcry on Hedge raising generic pricing trotted out a new/old plan on pharma as a sop to the socialist base in hopes of gaining some polling points.

That's reactive pandering IMHO

new/old plan? You are not making sense.

He has been fighting pharma for a long time. That doesn't qualify as reactive.

You trotted out Vids showing he always wanted social pharma.

Nope. I haven't posted any vids.

Look you are wasting my time. You don't wan't to read links you ignore what I have written and you are not making sense.


I get it you love Trump and that is fine. It is just unfortunate that you are arguing against Bernie yet your arguments aren't based on reality.

Peace out