Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Mooka]

 

 

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight Cory. All about safety. This guy is the dem hopeful for 2020? Even Ted Cruz voted yes on this one. 

 

Our politicians are a joke and its laughable to think any of them care about lowering health care costs in this country. 

 

 

Bernie's Response:

 

“If we can import vegetables and fish and poultry and beef from all corners of the Earth, please don’t tell me that we cannot bring in, from Canada and other major countries, name brand prescription drugs of some of the largest corporations in the world,” he said. “That’s a laughable statement.”

 

[Hersh]

29 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight Cory. All about safety. This guy is the dem hopeful for 2020? Even Ted Cruz voted yes on this one. 

 

Our politicians are a joke and its laughable to think any of them care about lowering health care costs in this country. 

 

 

Bernie's Response:

 

“If we can import vegetables and fish and poultry and beef from all corners of the Earth, please don’t tell me that we cannot bring in, from Canada and other major countries, name brand prescription drugs of some of the largest corporations in the world,” he said. “That’s a laughable statement.”

 

Booker will have the ability with plenty of health care votes coming up to hopefully be on the right side of this issue. I do caution against purity tests on every single vote. It does no good for the country as we've seen with the tea party getting nothing constructive done. 

[TheGoodBits]

Good thread about why high risk pools suck in practice.

 

 

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, Mooka said:

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight Cory. All about safety. This guy is the dem hopeful for 2020? Even Ted Cruz voted yes on this one. 

 

Our politicians are a joke and its laughable to think any of them care about lowering health care costs in this country. 

 

 

Bernie's Response:

 

“If we can import vegetables and fish and poultry and beef from all corners of the Earth, please don’t tell me that we cannot bring in, from Canada and other major countries, name brand prescription drugs of some of the largest corporations in the world,” he said. “That’s a laughable statement.”

 

 

First, let me say in general allowing for importing of drugs from elsewhere because they are cheaper is a stupid idea.  Companies sell drugs to Canada based on a price that it is dictated by the Canadian government.  Then US consumers buy the drug from Canadian pharmacies, which are going to make money off the sale, and then have it shipped here (which is going to make money for FedEX and the like)  Is there a reason why we are trying to support the Canadian pharmacy industry and FedEX (and related companies)?

 

Just pass a law saying you can't sell a drug in the US for more than it is being sold in Canada and cut out the middle man.

 

Second, Booker has a point.  There are drugs that are being made over seas in factories that are then shipped into Canada where those factories have failed US FDA approval.  The US FDA is much more active in reviewing the quality of drugs coming in from over seas than in other countries and in many cases, the government in other countries doesn't make moves until well after the US FDA and in at least some cases (see the link) not until the story has made it into their press.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/30/health_canada_bans_drugs_from_two_indian_factories.html

 

(and that's Canada.  I've got no faith in the quality control of drugs being sent into many other countries.  Non-US regulated drugs that are being sold 2nd hand from India, Vietnam, some of the African, S. and C. American countries, no thanks.)

 

The fact that we might be getting fish, poultry, and beef from other parts of the world (where the USDA that inspects those things is chronically under funded and over worked to actually inspect things at the level they really should be) is not IMO a good argument to extend the same problem to pharmaceutical drugs.

 

I'm not excited about adding onto the list of things that I might be getting bad unknown things from.  I'd like to see us working to get that list shorter.  Not longer.

Edited January 13, 2017 by PeterMP

[LadySkinsFan]

Right now, I am paying $66.60/month for my drugs. I chose a Medicare Part D plan whereby I can mail order a 90 day supply without paying anything else.  Could these drugs be cheaper? I'm guessing so, since what I buy are generics. 

 

But drugs are entirely too expensive, especially since taxpayers fund a lot of the research and development costs.

 

Advertising costs are outrageous since the Congress passed laws allowing Big Pharma to advertise. 

 

And there's too much emphasis in "health care" on pharmaceuticals and not more on the inexpensive treatment of the actual disease and not treating the symptoms.

[Mooka]

We've heard that argument for a long time now Peter. Its always about safety, it is the political equivalent of screaming about the children. I'm fairly confident we can add some protections or find a solution to quality standards considering the majority of our drugs are manufactured in India and China already. Or other ideas, like yours: 

 

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Just pass a law saying you can't sell a drug in the US for less than it is being sold in Canada and cut out the middle man.

 

I believe they already tried that, there was a bill, and a prescription drug cost task force that had this type of language taking the average price of drugs from developed countries. (i'll try and find it and why it didn't pass)

 

The problem, is when the pharmaceutical lobby is so strong that, "Just pass a law" becomes impossible. Much like gun control, they do everything in their power to block anything and everything that even remotely hints to them losing revenue. 

[PeterMP]

46 minutes ago, Mooka said:

We've heard that argument for a long time now Peter. Its always about safety, it is the political equivalent of screaming about the children. I'm fairly confident we can add some protections or find a solution to quality standards considering the majority of our drugs are manufactured in India and China already. Or other ideas, like yours: 

 

 

I believe they already tried that, there was a bill, and a prescription drug cost task force that had this type of language taking the average price of drugs from developed countries. (i'll try and find it and why it didn't pass)

 

The problem, is when the pharmaceutical lobby is so strong that, "Just pass a law" becomes impossible. Much like gun control, they do everything in their power to block anything and everything that even remotely hints to them losing revenue. 

 

I didn't read Bernie's amendment to know if it included some language related to quality control, but realistically, I think it is going to be very difficult for the US to track the quality of every package that contains an individual prescription being shipped from a different country to a US citizen.

 

But as I pointed out, there are good and publicly acknowledged reasons be concerned about the quality and safety of drugs being imported into other countries, including Canada.

 

Bernie's line about importing other things from other countries is just the sort of low intellectual level and not based on reality comment that I'd expect from him.

 

If Bernie's amendment didn't include any language about safety and Booker said he voted against it because of that, Booker has a real point based on recent history.

 

If laws limiting prices of US drugs based on prices in other countries are put up and Booker votes against them, then come back and complain about Booker then.

Edited January 13, 2017 by PeterMP

[BornaSkinsFan83]

 

So I'll be losing my much need health insurance. Yup. I really want to meet Paul Ryan. Among others. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Send SHAME postcards, it's not much, these actions by the Republicans is shameful, they don't have a replacement and won't, Trump's and Ryan's rhetoric.

[The Evil Genius]

[Mooka]

55 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

If Bernie's amendment didn't include any language about safety and Booker said he voted against it because of that, Booker has a real point based on recent history.

 

If laws limiting prices of US drugs based on prices in other countries are put up and Booker votes against them, then come back and complain about Booker then.

 

These were quick budget resolution amendments (160 in total), not individual laws or bills, so there is no specific language here:

 

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO LOWERING 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES FOR AMERICANS BY 
                   IMPORTING DRUGS FROM CANADA AND OTHER 
                   COUNTRIES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to lowering prescription drug prices, including 
     through the importation of safe and affordable prescription 
     drugs by American pharmacists, wholesalers, and individuals 
     with a valid prescription from a provider licensed to 
     practice in the United States, by the amounts provided in 
     such legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2017 through 2021 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2017 through 2026.

 

 

There's nothing in the language of this amendment that implies there won't be any sufficient safety standards put in place, or safety is not a concern, or safety/quality control will be ignored in the future committee. 

 

Voting NAY on this amendment does not match Booker's statement at all, that he unequivocally supports drug imports to lower costs but the plan has to have sufficient safety standards. This vote was not for a specific plan, just a step in allowing a future plan to be brought to the table. 

 

 

 

 

I assume the actual language would be similar to earlier bills:

 

H.R. 3715 (113th): Personal Drug Importation Fairness Act of 2013

 

2. 

Reducing prescription drug costs by allowing certain drugs to be imported or reimported

(a) 

In general

Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), a drug may be imported into the United States, and may be reimported into the United States by a person other than the drug’s manufacturer, if the drug—

(1) 

has the same active ingredients, route of administration, and strength as a prescription drug approved under chapter V of such Act ( 21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.);

(2) 

may be lawfully marketed in, and is imported or reimported from, a qualified country;

(3) 

is dispensed by a licensed pharmacist;

(4) 

is shipped directly to, or is imported by, the ultimate consumer from the qualified country;

(5) 

is shipped or imported in quantities that do not exceed a 90-day supply; and

(6) 

is accompanied by a copy of a valid prescription.

 

[Weganator]

Really curious to see what happens with drug prices. Especially these 'older drug' monopolies that get set up as other companies stop making them (EpiPen, etc).

 

Saw a couple week old article talking about how traditional big pharma is going out against these 'bad actors' in their industry. It's odd because the reason many of these companies backed out of production was to make more cholesterol meds, erection pills, and antidepressants. Generalizing a bit here, but Pfizer and stuff like that leave you to burn because it's not profitable for them to make these drugs, then lobbies government for reform when business set the price to try to do so (I won't deny these increases seem immoral, but I haven't seen their balance sheet)

 

Would be really interested to see how those prices would adjust if major drug companies were encouraged or obligated to get back into making these currently monopolized drugs.

 

Edit: the fact that easily taking market share by countering price gouging hasn't occurred yet is concerning.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Weganator

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

These were quick budget resolution amendments (160 in total), not individual laws or bills, so there is no specific language here:

 

There's nothing in the language of this amendment that implies there won't be any sufficient safety standards put in place, or safety is not a concern, or safety/quality control will be ignored in the future committee. 

 

Voting NAY on this amendment does not match Booker's statement at all, that he unequivocally supports drug imports to lower costs but the plan has to have sufficient safety standards. This vote was not for a specific plan, just a step in allowing a future plan to be brought to the table. 

 

 

The first part you quoted, I honestly don't know what it even meant.

 

The second part, certainly did not seem to include anything that worried about safety and quality.  There was no mention of issues with non-FDA approved factories importing drugs into other countries, which has happened.

 

Bernie's statement that you quoted, certainly suggest a lack of concern about safety and quality.  Almost everybody I know that thinks about food safety and quality would like to see a more robust USDA that was doing more inspections and checks on food safety and quality and wouldn't suggest that implementing similar controls with respect to pharmaceuticals is a good idea.

Edited January 13, 2017 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Weganator said:

Really curious to see what happens with drug prices. Especially these 'older drug' monopolies that get set up as other companies stop making them (EpiPen, etc).

 

Saw a couple week old article talking about how traditional big pharma is going out against these 'bad actors' in their industry. It's odd because the reason many of these companies backed out of production was to make more cholesterol meds, erection pills, and antidepressants. Generalizing a bit here, but Pfizer and stuff like that leave you to burn because it's not profitable for them to make these drugs, then lobbies government for reform when business set the price to try to do so (I won't deny these increases seem immoral, but I haven't seen their balance sheet)

 

Would be really interested to see how those prices would adjust if major drug companies were encouraged or obligated to get back into making these currently monopolized drugs.

 

Edit: the fact that easily taking market share by countering price gouging hasn't occurred yet is concerning.

 

The recent trend in rapid increases of prices in the generic market is concerning.  Not known to many people, even though we pay more for name brand patent protected drugs than countries like Canada, in the past, we have actually paid less for generics, but if our generic prices are going up as compared to other countries (which at least seems to be happening) then our pharmaceutical prices as compared to other countries are really going to go up.

 

Part of the issue is financial agreements between companies.  Pfizer still produces and sells epipens in Canada (and sells them less than Mylan does here), but for some reason decided to somehow contract out the Epipen business in the US to Mylan (at least I believe that Pfizer is actually still generating the Epipen's that Mylan is selling).

 

http://www.biospace.com/News/what-you-dont-know-pfizers-connection-to-mylan-and/430408

 

Martin Shkreli's company had a non-compete clause for the US with the larger company that had owned the production means for his drugs.  They had paid the company to not come into the US and compete with them, which obviously gave them more freedom to raise prices.

 

We need to at least look at these sorts of deals and ask if they really make much sense for the US consumer and consider making them illegal (if the Courts would find such laws Constitutional).  We also need to look at if we can make it easier to get into the generic market without sacrificing quality and safety (and that's even problematic because if a company raises their prices, it isn't hard for them to cut them as another company tries to get into the market, which makes it harder for the new company entering the market to make money and justify the costs to get into the market in the first place).

 

The other thing to consider would be a larger role for compounding pharmacies.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/10/23/imiprimis-ceo-on-compounding-a-low-cost-alternative-to-turings-daraprim-for-toxoplasmosis/#3d640ae94af6

(They've also started to jump into the epipen issue and are promising a cheap version of an epipen.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/30/investing/epipen-alternative-100-dollars/

)

 

Finding problems is easy, finding good solutions is hard.

Edited January 13, 2017 by PeterMP

[Weganator]

@PeterMP the fact that those non compete deals don't violate anti trust at all is baffling. Almost literally creates a drug cartel for life saving medicine.

 

I just rarely see scenarios where artificially removing competition (IE not a better product or service being the cause of competitors leaving) as beneficial to consumers. It's antithetical to the free market concept.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Weganator

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, Weganator said:

@PeterMP the fact that those non compete deals don't violate anti trust at all is baffling. Almost literally creates a drug cartel for life saving medicine.

 

I just rarely see scenarios where artificially removing competition (IE not a better product or service being the cause of competitors leaving) is beneficial to consumers. It's antithetical to the free market concept.

 

I honestly don't know.  I haven't seen a lot of what I would consider legitimate people suggesting that they violate anti-trust laws, but I don't know much about anti-trust laws.  If they are illegal, then we should absolutely start enforcing those laws.

 

And even if they are currently legal, we should be looking closely at them and considering how we could make them illegal.

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[Hersh]

^^^ They have no real answer. I'm so tired of this "oh, we will replace it." This has been the biggest garbage line for the last 6 years and now they look like fools for not actually having anything ready to go. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

17 minutes ago, Hersh said:

^^^ They have no real answer. I'm so tired of this "oh, we will replace it." This has been the biggest garbage line for the last 6 years and now they look like fools for not actually having anything ready to go. 

they are not going to replace it.

[Weganator]

Haven't heard / seen a comprehensive plan yet. Saw Rand Paul talking a bit about some core concepts to reform:

 

1) Legalize low cost insurance policies (hurts preexisting / rarer afflictions)

 

2) Leveraging HSA's for individuals and creating more lax rules for sharing funds intra extended family (anti non familial / ostracized from family). Also the obvious someone needs money to fund it.

 

3) Can't remember the term / acronym for it, but basically a 'risk pool insurance' alternative. I saw a really virtue signalling version of one that was something like this: Christians join for coverage. Each month they pool approved medical expenses and split the cost as their 'premium'. They then had all sorts of stipulations about 'not funding unapproved actions'.

 

#3 seemed interesting in theory but hate that example and how they pulled religion in.

 

I think this helps with some of the problems, but weakens the original implementation in many ways.

[No Excuses]

It's kind of amazing that they aren't being absolutely hammered for not having a plan already. What the **** have they been done doing for the past 7 years when they literally tried to repeal ACA time after time? Wasting tax payer money on pointless posturing?

 

Perhaps a better use of that time would have been developing an alternative set of regulations and policies that address the healthcare issues we face.

 

If even 10% more of our population had slightly more education and common sense, the GOP would never be elected into power in its current form.

[Weganator]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

It's kind of amazing that they aren't being absolutely hammered for not having a plan already. What the **** have they been done doing for the past 7 years when they literally tried to repeal ACA time after time? Wasting tax payer money on pointless posturing?

 

Perhaps a better use of that time would have been developing an alternative set of regulations and policies that address the healthcare issues we face.

 

If even 10% more of our population had slightly more education and common sense, the GOP would never be elected into power in its current form.

I'm starting to think they honestly didnt expect to win either and just prepped for more obstruction.

 

That and the primary complaints from each side about the ACA is that it doesn't go as far as they want (free market vs single payer) make it difficult to find common ground.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Weganator

[Kilmer17]

5 minutes ago, Weganator said:

I'm starting to think they honestly didnt expect to win either and just prepped for more obstruction.

 

That and the primary complaints from each side about the ACA is that it doesn't go as far as they want (free market vs single payer) make it difficult to find common ground.

The GOP could go single payer and really throw the world into a tizzy.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

17 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

If even 10% more of our population had slightly more education and common sense, the GOP would never be elected into power in its current form.

 

Its not the GOP tho.

 

Country is moving back to a time when businesses could do whatever they want.

[twa]

2 hours ago, Weganator said:

@PeterMP the fact that those non compete deals don't violate anti trust at all is baffling. Almost literally creates a drug cartel for life saving medicine.

 

I just rarely see scenarios where artificially removing competition (IE not a better product or service being the cause of competitors leaving) as beneficial to consumers. It's antithetical to the free market concept.

 

Most non-compete deals are simply between two parties after a buyout....anything more than that should run into anti-trust issues.