Clinton Proposes $250 Monthly Cap on Prescription Drug Costs

Clinton Proposes $250 Monthly Cap on Prescription Drug Costs

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday will propose a $250 monthly cap on prescription drugs for patients with chronic or serious medical conditions in a drive against what she calls “excessive profiteering” by pharmaceutical companies.

Sounds good, but the devil's in the details:

Under Clinton’s plan the monthly cap would limit what insurance companies could ask patients to pay for drugs.

So, technically, it won't stop Big Pharma from "excessive profiteering;" it just makes the insurance companies pay the lion's share.

At a campaign stop in Iowa, Clinton will outline a plan to encourage the development and use of generic drugs and also would end drug companies’ ability to write off consumer-directed advertising as a business expense.

What??? We don't need to "encourage the development and use of generic drugs," we need to change the laws that don't allow for generic -- read: cheaper -- drugs. Specifically, the sweetheart pharmaceutical patent laws, incorporation laws limiting criminal and civil liability, as well as those that put the best interests of the corporation before the best interests of the patient, end direct advertising to the public, end the revolving door between the FDA and Big Pharma, and the Big Pharma Big Bucks that buy our politicians lock, stock and barrel.

We do need to "encourage the development and use of" natural healing remedies (especially cannabis and cannabinoids),whole-food vitamins and supplements, and above all, encourage and empower people to take better care of themselves, both maintaining health and treating one's self and family for injuries and illness. Educate people -- starting with our students -- about nutrition and first aid, growing their own produce and preparing their own meals. Conventional medicine, especially for emergencies and serious disease, serves a valuable need. But we are -- or should be -- more resourceful and self-sufficient than to hand over so much power and control to so few.

I'm sure others have more ideas -- please share! WE are going to have to find our own solutions; then implement the ones we can do ourselves and demand the one's we can't do ourselves from those who should.

a reply to: Boadicea

What??? We don't need to "encourage the development and use of generic drugs," we need to change the laws that don't allow for generic -- read: cheaper -- drugs.

Why let a good crisis go to waste. Politicians never fix things they just find ways to capitalise on it and keep you from looking at the real issue.

Kind of like building a fence on the border.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Boadicea

Why let a good crisis go to waste. Politicians never fix things they just find ways to capitalise on it and keep you from looking at the real issue.

Kind of like building a fence on the border.

Yup! That's the standard operating procedure for these folks. I just expect it now... and look for it. This sleight-of-hand was especially obvious. Either I'm getting better at this or she's losing her touch!

This sounds like a good proposal to me. Of course the insurance companies will be paying for the outrageous costs still. Someone has to pay for them - but it would be better if there were limits on what the drug companies could charge for their drugs.

..... and create another wave of mass premium increases.

good way to "redistribute".

You know what happened the last time Clinton instituted a price cap on a drug?

She was instrumental in putting a price cap on the flu vaccine. As a result, most of the companies that made the vaccine stopped making it. It is a fiddly and space consuming process that involves whole chicken eggs, so it takes a certain amount of doing to make it, and it can only be done so cheaply.

As a result, there were flu vaccine shortages starting that following year, and it wasn't like the flu vaccine was all that expensive to begin with ... but Clinton felt it was too much to expect people to have to pay. So after that, there were regular shortages in the supply because only two companies continued to make it.

Free Drugs for Everyone...Problem Solved

originally posted by: darkbake
This sounds like a good proposal to me. Of course the insurance companies will be paying for the outrageous costs still.

Which means us -- either via taxes or premiums or co-pays.

Someone has to pay for them - but it would be better if there were limits on what the drug companies could charge for their drugs.

I think more reasonable patent laws, allowing more competition, wider distribution and access, etc., could fix the pricing problem.

a reply to: ketsuko

She was instrumental in putting a price cap on the flu vaccine. As a result, most of the companies that made the vaccine stopped making it.

I am not a fan of the flu vaccine anyway, but I get your point... Not only can politicians fix one problem (real or imagined) by creating another one, but there are practical considerations to consider on the part of the manufacturers. But I'm sure you also see how much room for abuse there is, thanks in large part to the laws that allow and enable these abuses.

So what do you see as the biggest problems and best solutions that serve everyone's best interests?

People will pay less for their drugs.
Their insurance rates will sky-rocket.
The pharma gang is going to get their cut.

Who would even vote for this corpse?

Stay away from the meds Killary!

I hate humans....



Especially that one.


Pandering for the old person vote, baby boomers have to give their last huzzah, and a majority vote to make their "fixed income" lives a bit easier to put this thing in power would be pretty funny to watch.


Buy some popcorn and some ammo, we're in for a show.

here in Sweden we have a cap of aprox 250 usd a year. after that you will get it for free.

For obvious reasons, an artificial cap won't work as long as there's strong demand. But..

On the plus side, Hillary's rants caused one drug maker to lower the price today.
Ref: www.nbcnews.com...

On the negative side, she also caused Biotech stocks to plummet.
Ref: www.bloomberg.com...

I guess this is one way to get yourself a lot of media attention, if you're running for President.

I'm sure without someone keeping an eye on things people will still have to pay. As I've noticed with most things we sure love to place band-aids on problems rather than tearing to the heart of the problem and fixing it. While I can understand what they are thinking of doing on the fly; I think most of us want to know what they are going to do for the long run.

originally posted by: Boadicea

Sounds good, but the devil's in the details:

Well Obama offered everyone a house and we saw what that did, so I guess $250 drug cap and $15 minimum wage will be the democrats next "It is everyone's right to own a house"

We don't need caps on anything

What we need is a single payer system

a reply to: lordcomac

Pandering for the old person vote, baby boomers have to give their last huzzah, and a majority vote to make their "fixed income" lives a bit easier to put this thing in power would be pretty funny to watch.

You bring up a good point indirectly in that the Boomers, as a voting demographic, probably make up the largest consumer of prescription meds. She just scored some points with those worried about not being able to afford their meds...

ETA: But what do you think could be/should be done about "excessive profiteering" by Big Pharma?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Boadicea

Sounds good, but the devil's in the details:

Well Obama offered everyone a house and we saw what that did, so I guess $250 drug cap and $15 minimum wage will be the democrats next "It is everyone's right to own a house"

I don't remember Obama offering everyone a house; I do remember Bill Clinton saying something to that effect... but his end goal was to gut the financial protections of Glass-Steagall, which was done, and it was the de-regulation of the markets, removing all risk from lenders, and creating an arena in which it was more profitable to foreclose (with little to no oversight that the foreclosure was legitimate) that crashed the markets. Nothing has changed, and Fraudclosure II is well on its way. The thing is, Bill was right in that everyone does deserve a home. In fact, the founding fathers also believed that as many people as possible should own land... a place to live and work from and provide for their families, and improve living conditions for everyone. They never envisioned, and did not plan, a nation owned to such a great extent by an investor class, especially foreign investors, nor the federal government owning so much land. So this provides a great example of how property rights have been gutted by political games.

So what do we do about medicines? Although they could not have envisioned the future of pharmaceuticals, they never would have envisioned something as simple and necessary as medicines being controlled in such a way, especially medicines found in nature... we all have a right to treat and heal ourselves with the bounty of nature. Laws should protect that right first and foremost. Patent laws should promote and encourage innovation and distribution, not put a lock on the fruits of the earth that belong to us all equally.

originally posted by: muse7
We don't need caps on anything

What we need is a single payer system

I have no problem with a universal health care system, in which anyone can get the medical care they need any time, supported by taxes. Just consolidating the many medical programs -- from Medicare to the VA -- would save a fortune in management costs, which could be folded right back into the healthcare programs. But that should never be the only source for healthcare. Private interests must be allowed to operate and compete as well, much like in France and Australia.

But we have price gouging already with government programs (thanks to Bush, who made it impossible for the government to negotiate drug prices), so the patent laws would still need to be changed, or such price gouging will continue.