NY Times: Obama Colluded with Drug Companies to Keep Prices High

page: 3
69
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Yet another reason why big companies in the U.S. need to be de-regulated from big government interests. It reminds me of when during a debate Ron Paul said that after the housing bubble we should have let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the auto industry fail, instead of bailing them out. He was absolutely right. It would of caused them to go into bankruptcy and this artificial answer of giving them inflated money wouldn't have prolonged more problems for us down the road, thereby creating another bust in our not so distant future. Who here thinks its a good idea to let your government decide wether or not to give money to a large mortgage company that is failing? They aren't smart enough to do that! They don't even read the bills that they pass!
Ron Paul wants to get the government out of the market so that the market can determine prices based on consumer demand and become truly competitive again. If healthcare were allowed to be privatized, it would be more affordable. It is going to get to the point in this country, where only the rich are going to be able to afford healthcare if the government keeps sticking their hands in it and getting their share of the profits, or 'distributing the wealth'.




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


This is called negotiating. Obama faced his bill not passing unless lobbyist sided with him. What do you propose he have done? What would be your solution?

The problem isn't Obama, it's BIG PHARMA! It's BIG anything! Don't forget that!



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Allenb83
 


I remember people telling me one time "Im glad they bailed out the auto industry- a lot of people needed them to survive".

I was just flabbergasted.

If they let those guys fail like they should have, then more competitive buisnesses could have came in and re-established a new industry that would not be on the taxpayers dime, AND would have created LOTS of BRAND NEW JOBS. Esp. for those people who had been let off. They could have just switched companies. Probably better pay too since you are not dealing with a failing company.



Edit to add- Sorry this post wasnt on topic- Just a response to a question posed.

On topic- Hospitals in Vegas are in trouble. Laying off all kinds of workers. Majority of them are asking for pensions instead of being kept on. New systems are being implemented. All hell is breaking lose because these Hospitals HAVE to take so many uninsured patients. Thing is, all that money falls on the hospital. Govt Law and they can not do anything about it. Talking Millions of dollars per Hospital because of uninsured patients. Most of whom, are illegal immigrants.
I remember that one hospital had to fly a patient out of the country because it cost them less money that way then to keep them there. It was costing them to the amount of 10,000 a day. Not on the taxpayers dime, but on a private companies dime.
When this happens. People get fired.
Now you are waiting longer to see a doctor.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Allenb83
reply to post by burntheships
 


Yet another reason why big companies in the U.S. need to be de-regulated from big government interests. It reminds me of when during a debate Ron Paul said that after the housing bubble we should have let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the auto industry fail, instead of bailing them out. He was absolutely right. It would of caused them to go into bankruptcy and this artificial answer of giving them inflated money wouldn't have prolonged more problems for us down the road, thereby creating another bust in our not so distant future. Who here thinks its a good idea to let your government decide wether or not to give money to a large mortgage company that is failing? They aren't smart enough to do that! They don't even read the bills that they pass!
Ron Paul wants to get the government out of the market so that the market can determine prices based on consumer demand and become truly competitive again. If healthcare were allowed to be privatized, it would be more affordable. It is going to get to the point in this country, where only the rich are going to be able to afford healthcare if the government keeps sticking their hands in it and getting their share of the profits, or 'distributing the wealth'.


My God! You're delusional. Government to a certain degree still listens to the people. BIG PHARMA is BIG BUSINESS and it does not listen at all. Insurance companies fall under the same umbrella, Their business is PROFIT. There is nothing to stop competing BIG PHARMA and BIG INSURANCE from colluding and price fixing. That's where government comes in.

Seriously don't be naive!

There is a demand for affordable healthcare, and government is the extension of the people's desires that it gets there.
edit on 10-6-2012 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Could this account for the drug shortage also?
ie; Create a problem, then offer a solution?

EXACTLY what I was thinking! It sure looks like it could be!


Originally posted by beezzer
This is career ending.

A lot of things Obama has done or has been into should have been 'career ending'.
His 20 years at Rev. Wrights cult in Chicago should have ended Obama's career
before it even started. Unfortunately .. the MSM does't report what it should.

I'm amazed that the left wing NY Times, who has been in Obamas back pocket,
actually came out with the information. Musta' been a falling out between the NY Times
and 'Mr Transparency' somewhere behind the scenes.

edit on 6/10/2012 by FlyersFan because: typo



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

There are those die-hard Obama-bots who believe that He walks on watter. Oblivious apparently to any of the double dealings, lies, or failed promises he used to get elected. Since Obama has taken office, there has been a shroud of darkness on just about everything he has done, secret closed door meetings, pushing through laws under executive order, pretty much against any logical thinking American and despite them. Still the Obama-bots hold fast to their illusion that has been prepared for them, .... hook, line and sinker. I can scarcely believe that any of the American public that has been lied to or cheated, still holds fast to this mouth-boogie, and that coming from the White House. Obama HAS to GO....... and it's hopefully looking like the public is waking up and starting to examine and hold accountable this fast talking crooked administration........ all of them, Congress too. If America follows the path set by this administration, it is doomed, and we shall never see American values or our standard of living again. We shall descend into poverty and millions will both perish and loose all that they have worked a lifetime for.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
Once again the Hope and Change President Obama who had promised to negotiate on
C-Span, is instead found to have cut a closed-door deal with a powerful lobby, Big Pharma..

What ever happened to this?

"I want to put an end to the game playing.”



A new trove of emails shows President Barack Obama’s White House agreed to help drug companies block a proposal to bring down medicine prices so they would back Obama’s healthcare plan.
www.newsmax.com...


The emails show that Big Pharma cut a deal with the White House, they sought
confirmation that President Obama would stop a proposal intended to bring down medicine prices.


On June 3, 2009, one of the lobbyists e-mailed Nancy-Ann DeParle, the president’s health care adviser.
Ms. DeParle reassured the lobbyist. Although Mr. Obama was overseas, she wrote, she and other top officials had “made decision, based on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation” on a different proposal. ...


And so it happened...

Just like that, Mr. Obama’s staff signaled a willingness to put aside support for the
reimportation of prescription medicines at lower prices and by doing so solidified a compact
with an industry the president had vilified on the campaign trail. Central to Mr. Obama’s drive to
remake the nation’s health care system was an unlikely collaboration with the pharmaceutical
industry that forced unappealing trade-offs. www.nytimes.com...


Well President Obama, in your own words:

“That’s an example of the same old game playing in Washington.
You know, I don’t want to learn how to play the game better.



www.youtube.com...
edit on 9-6-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Everything I read on ATS threads are concerns Ron Paul wants to adress.I can't see why when most Americans agree with his issues.Not many agree with him?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Don't worry, the rest of em are laughing it up at the Rand Paul turncoat event.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Obama is a fraud in every sense of the word.

He has been created for a purpose. The quicker he is out of office, the better.

Can't give him enough



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


This actually is not new. I posted a thread about this in 2009.

Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

But it is good that you reposted this. Americans should know that Obama is not the "saviour" they thought he was... In fact he is not only corrupt but so far has been the WORSE President in U.S. history who has done some of the worse things to turn this once great nation into a Socialist/Fascist state...



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Obama's Admin forced Purdue Pharma to reformulate Oxycontin, the nations only working pain med for cancer patients and those with severe nerve damage/spine injuries.

The new Oxycontin formula hit the US market in the 4th Quarter of 2010.

Supposedly the Fed's said "4 million Americans were illegally getting Oxycontin" as the reason to re-formulate it. Why not find out how 4 million were "illegally" getting it?

Then they said kids were chopping up the pills and snorting them....and that's why they had to re-formulate it so the narcotics 'encased in wax' so they can't snort it.

The new Oxycontin is now much, much weaker. Was there Clinical Testing on the new Oxycontin to prove it worked or was safe? No? Why did Obama forced Purdue to re-formulate it?


To kill off people with cancer/ and those in extreme pain with eventual organ failure due to the extreme pain?

There was something fishy with Obama and the Oxycontin scandal. Now there's no working pain med in America for those with cancer/extreme pain. Wonder why?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
That's pretty much what happens when you privatize anything where the company's in the private sector steal our money via the government rather than us being able to buy it directly. That is how capitalism is supposed to work in order to control costs. When they are getting money from the government, they can charge anything they want and we have to pay for it.
...


... It has NOTHING to do with "privitizing companies"... it has EVERYTHING to do with allowing certain corporations to have a monopoly over certain industries... This is NOT what happens in true Capitalism/free market, this is what happens under socialist mandates.

The Federal Trades Commission Act, signed into law by PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT President Woodrow Wilson in 1914, "was (supposedly) authorized to issue “cease and desist” orders to large corporations to curb unfair trade practices", but in fact it just gave more power to certain large corporations (ie Rockefeller Corporation, ExxonMobile, Fannie Mae, JP Morgan Chase, etc) and allowed them to become monopolies in the industries those large corporations specialize in...

Instead this commission has restricted starting small businesses in favor for the larger corporations...



edit on 10-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by jacobe001
That's pretty much what happens when you privatize anything where the company's in the private sector steal our money via the government rather than us being able to buy it directly. That is how capitalism is supposed to work in order to control costs. When they are getting money from the government, they can charge anything they want and we have to pay for it.
...


... It has NOTHING to do with "privitizing companies"... it has EVERYTHING to do with allowing certain corporations to have a monopoly over certain industries... This is NOT what happens in true Capitalism/free market, this is what happens under socialist mandates.


Lay off the Ayn Rand comic books.

It sure did happen in "true Capitalism/free market", e.g. USA from 1875-1910, because the rampant abuse of monopoly power from powerful companies then is exactly what brought about "anti-trust" (anti-monopoly/price fixing) legislation. ("trusts" were the legal structure used then to circumvent state regulations, now obsolete)


The Federal Trades Commission Act, signed into law by PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT President Woodrow Wilson in 1914, "was (supposedly) authorized to issue “cease and desist” orders to large corporations to curb unfair trade practices", but in fact it just gave more power to certain large corporations (ie Rockefeller Corporation, ExxonMobile, Fannie Mae, JP Morgan Chase, etc) and allowed them to become monopolies in the industries those large corporations specialize in...


No it didn't. Evidence? Fannie Mae didn't exist in 1914, and the Standard Oil monopoly was successfully broken up and the resulting companies did compete. The predecessors to JP Morgan were not monopolies, and JP Morgan was allowed to combine with Chase only after a late 1990's deregulation which repealed the 1930's Glass-Steagall act, which itself had divided commercial from investment banking.

Government regulation is unsophisticated, but very effective in this matter.

And you can sure buy any health care you want directly without the government paying. Guess how much it costs? (Actually it is hard to find out, but the answer is always "an enormous amount". I support government action to require firm, honored, public price lists.)


edit on 10-6-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-6-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-6-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 



Actually, the Oxy epidemic is/was pretty bad. You had moms and kids thinking because the morphine was in pill form, it was less harmful then taking morphine in the heroin form.
Now heroin addiction is on the rise,because once your hooked on morphine your hooked ,regardless of what form you take.

To launch Oxy, when it as first released,Phama Sales guys were GIVING IT AWAY in Southern Ohio and Virginia to cancer ridden coal miners,not realizing that the children of the sick figured out you could crush up the pills and snort them and stay high for hours.

The epidemic of this situation escalated and by then it as too late. The drug was everywhere. Cheap, long lasting morphine. By prescription.

To be honest, they had to do something. Now we have a new generation of morphine errr heroin addicts running around from the suburbs to the cities to go cop.

It had to stop.

Great thread by the way. Nice read.





posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Just so you have your facts straight: The provision being discussed here is the original Medicare D developed by the GOP Bush Administration. Medicare Part D forbids the federal government from negotiating prices with the drug companies. Its estimated that over the next 10 years, the rule will generate approximately $500 billion for the industry with no tangible benefit for taxpayers or the economy as a whole. This was a GOP proposal and Obama is holding it over Big Pharmas heads to get support for his overall healthcare plan. Politics as usual.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


I hear you barking big dog - but do you truly believe we're better off with Mitt? I'm not convinced.

We're in a quandary this election.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrsoul2009
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


I hear you barking big dog - but do you truly believe we're better off with Mitt? I'm not convinced.

We're in a quandary this election.


Agreed.

Is it being racist to say it's the same horse different color?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrsoul2009
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Just so you have your facts straight: The provision being discussed here is the original Medicare D developed by the GOP Bush Administration. Medicare Part D forbids the federal government from negotiating prices with the drug companies. Its estimated that over the next 10 years, the rule will generate approximately $500 billion for the industry with no tangible benefit for taxpayers or the economy as a whole. This was a GOP proposal and Obama is holding it over Big Pharmas heads to get support for his overall healthcare plan. Politics as usual.


Ah. So we get the bills of socialized medicine, without the cost benefits of socialized medicine.

And so, why do the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare (which is a pro-insurance-company regulation scheme) and not actual socialized medicine, i.e. Medicare and VA?

If socialized medicine is so bad, why do they want to inflict it on the elderly and veterans?
edit on 10-6-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
, why do the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare (which is a pro-insurance-company regulation scheme) and not actual socialized medicine, i.e. Medicare and VA?

If socialized medicine is so bad, why do they want to inflict it on the elderly and veterans?


When medicare was passed in the mid 60's, the Republicans made the same argument then. Now, they cling to it ie a sacred cow.

Ironically (or not), the current 'obamacare' is basically an carbon copy of the Republican alternative to 'HillaryCare" in the 90's, which they claimed was a 'free market alternative' and was pushed by then Pres Candidate Bob Dole.

www.kaiserhealthnews.org...

The Democrats' 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill

www.tnr.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


the problem with obama haters is they actually think its one side(dem) vs the other(gop), when in reality its both sides vs the american people.

until the citizens on both sides of the political parties realize that we are all the same, and the politicians are all the same we will never get anywhere.

go ahead and vote for romney because you hate obama and the democrats . it will not do anything for the future of america.

its entertaining how people are being played by the game .





new topics
top topics
 
69
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join