The Republican' solution to lower drug costs

[Secretariat]

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/04/18/big-pharma-wins-in-senate-consumers-lose

Big Pharma Wins in Senate. Consumers Lose.
by Mike Hall, Apr 18, 2007

Republican Senate leaders today blocked a bill that would have allowed Medicare to negotiate with the drug giants for lower prices. In doing so, they came down on the side of big pharmaceutical companies that make billions in profits on which America’s seniors rely–and against consumers who depend upon the Medicare program for affordable medication.

The 55-42 vote fell five votes short of the 60 needed to shut off Senate floor debate and move the bill to a vote on passage. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted to end debate, but switched his vote to maintain the right to bring the bill up again.

[Show Me the Wire]

Were there some dems that stood with the Rs'. I don't think the Republicans control the senate.

Yes, it is shameful the senators of both parties. are not looking out for the seniors.

[GameTheory]

Sec,

But surely there is another side of the story? What reason would anyone oppose this? Ever think of presenting a balanced view, just once? Is it possible that this bill would actually end up hurting seniors?

http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070418/OPINION/104180033/1006/NEWS01

http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab5.cfm?newsid=18229593&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=565197&rfi=6

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/OPINION/704160318/-1/ZONES04

[JustRalph]

This is starting to make sense. Sec works for the AFL-CIO

I see this exact same article was posted on the Democraticunderground about an hour before Sec posted it here. The source is the AFL-CIO

Things are starting to make a little more sense............

[Tom]

http://blog.......That's where I stopped reading. It was a red flag that that a coffee klatch was about to occurr, and I don't need any cafine this time of night.

Sec....blog = OPINION! GOSSIP. :lol:

[46zilzal]

You would not believe the number or doctors and pharmacies that line the Southern borders of Canada that are there specifically to fill prescriptions written here for large numers of meds that save seniors on fixed incomes. They come up here by the bus load on "vacations" in order to specifically do this. I personally send a relative in Oregon a muscle relaxant that here is over the counter and costs me $46.00 (Cdn) and he has to pay, as a prescribed medication, $130.00.

It is a big rip off.

[Secretariat]

Were there some dems that stood with the Rs'. I don't think the Republicans control the senate.

Yes, it is shameful the senators of both parties. are not looking out for the seniors.

No, but they can invoke cloture which requires 60 votes out of 100 as in this case. And the one senator from the Dakotas has not fuly recovered yet to vote. I suppose I find it revealing that Repubs always seem to vote for bills that benefit big phameceutical companies or big oil companies over the benefit of working americans and aging seniors. Nothing new here, their general modus operandi. Almsot every major industrailized nation negotiates for lower prices than Americans can get. One more nail in the coffin for the GOP in 08 with this kind of crap on their records.

[delayjf]

46,

I agree, the drug companies should raise their prices across the board to Mexico, Canada, etc and let everyone share the cost of R&D.

[Tom]

Nice reply! ;)

[GameTheory]

I suppose I find it revealing that Repubs always seem to vote for bills that benefit big phameceutical companies or big oil companies over the benefit of working americans and aging seniors.What if it is not to seniors benefit? It could also be that the Democrats just like to score points with things that sound good but are actually harmful to the people they supposedly help -- they've got a LONG record of that...

[chickenhead]

It's cheapest if you grow your own.

[GaryG]

It's cheapest if you grow your own.Several years ago I heard that ganja was the biggest cash crop in CA. Is this true or is it just in NoCal where all them damned old hippies are still hiding in the woods?

[wonatthewire1]

I've got a boatload of money in the Vanguard Health Care fund

:jump:


When I was in HS, my father complained about gas prices (that was 30 years ago) and I told him to buy some shares of an oil company stock and he'd get dividends and maybe appreciation if they went up. It was the only time he ever bought a stock in his life (never before and never since) - Exxon (it was Standard Oil at the time) & Royal Dutch Shell. Let's say he cashed in $$$

[Secretariat]

I've got a boatload of money in the Vanguard Health Care fund

:jump:


When I was in HS, my father complained about gas prices (that was 30 years ago) and I told him to buy some shares of an oil company stock and he'd get dividends and maybe appreciation if they went up. It was the only time he ever bought a stock in his life (never before and never since) - Exxon (it was Standard Oil at the time) & Royal Dutch Shell. Let's say he cashed in $$$

Thanks for underscoring my point.

[Tom]

How about you addressing the other side of the issue as GT pointed out?
Do you agree, disagree, why, you know, discussion as opposed to cut and paste. Or do facts just get in the way?

[GameTheory]

How about you addressing the other side of the issue as GT pointed out?
Do you agree, disagree, why, you know, discussion as opposed to cut and paste. Or do facts just get in the way?Yeah Sec, why don't you actually engage in an issue sometime? You just post something and say, "Repubs vote to put money in the pockets of big drug companies" as if there are no actual real arguments against the bill.

Are you afraid to post the arguments? If you are so much in the right, it ought to be pretty easy to tell us why they are wrong, correct? Maybe you actually know nothing whatsoever about the bill and just cut-and-paste anything negative sounding about Republicans?

What is your actual objective in posting these things in the first place? What do you want to happen? Am I supposed to read that, and then start thinking bad things about Republicans? Maybe I would if you actually posted a reasoned argument to support your position. When you use Michael Moore-like tactics and distort everything I can only conclude that you are afraid of the real facts because they wouldn't support your position after all.

Effect? You make the Republicans look good. Are you actually a Republican operative with a degree in reverse psychology? Are you attempting to support the right-wing cause by being so dishonest and idiotic in your condemnation of them that they look good in comparison? If so, bravo, you're doing a helluva job...

[Tom]

"There is no debate over republicans siding with big business."
---Sec, repeatedly, every day, 2000-2007!

Sec seems to think there is no debate over anything.:lol:

[delayjf]

Several years ago I heard that ganja was the biggest cash crop in CA

GaryG

You might not have heard, but in the past month the Cops have busted 9 houses in Orange CO, CA that were turned into greenhouses used exclusively to grow pot. There were literally filled with nothing but pot plants and ultra violent lights. Each house contained about 9 million dollars worth of pot. About 4 months back, they discovered an uninhabited hill top in Mission Viejo that was nothing but pot as well.

You very will may be right.

[wonatthewire1]

Guys, don't worry, we all know Sec doesn't know anything beyond copy and paste.

Now - if the guy was bright, he'd see that there was a correlation between economic growth (no matter where it comes from) and the overall general well-being of the populace. He sits on the "poor people" not realizing that they too benefit. From discovery, from competition, and from the overall health of the economy. He's screaming for higher taxes & more for the poor; yet doesn't understand that without economic expansion, there won't be many places to help those in need out...it is interesting since it seems as though he is a missionary that he has so much time to peruse the mainstream press.

It is not too late for him - he could learn to invest and save a boat load himself...thereby perhaps eschewing the need for government handouts when he is older and less able to care for himself. Ask my Dad, he turned down his Social Security money as he doesn't need it - perhaps someone less fortunate will be able to benefit.

[Secretariat]

Now - if the guy was bright, he'd see that there was a correlation between economic growth (no matter where it comes from) and the overall general well-being of the populace. He sits on the "poor people" not realizing that they too benefit.

Is this why the median wage has been stagnant over the last eight years, poverty figures have increased and adjusting for inflation heath care costs have gone through the roof. The inabiliity to negotiate for a lower price for prescription drugs doesn't benefit seniors as it increases the cost of the drug. When one adds the increase in Medicare premiums for Seniors with higher drug costs (btw..that liberal bastion AARP advocates negotiating for lower prices to reduce costs for seniors). The only people benefitting from "higher" drug costs are shareholders and fat cats fo those pharmecuetical companies. They're making profits out of people's illnesses and lobbying Congress hard to keep Congress from even negotiating on prices.


From discovery, from competition, and from the overall health of the economy. He's screaming for higher taxes & more for the poor; yet doesn't understand that without economic expansion, there won't be many places to help those in need out...it is interesting since it seems as though he is a missionary that he has so much time to peruse the mainstream press.

This is a trickle down theory. Give more wealth and tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and companies and the poor will benefit. Unfortunately, that is not supported by the median wage over the last eight years now the increase in poverty and foreclosures. Unfortunately, what you fai lto realize is when drug prices are higher because of the inability to of government to negotiate for lower drig prices, it is in effect a use tax on American's seniors. They know it. Ask them about it. When the median wage cannot keep up with inflation as well as the minimum wage not keeping up with inflation this is in essence a rich tax, as the money these people would have been making to keep up with inflation instead goes into the coffers of the companies they work for. Meanwhile the costs of these people whose wage is not keeping up with inflation are NOT going down ,and in the case of heath care are rising well above inflation hitting people triply hard.

It is not too late for him - he could learn to invest and save a boat load himself...thereby perhaps eschewing the need for government handouts when he is older and less able to care for himself. Ask my Dad, he turned down his Social Security money as he doesn't need it - perhaps someone less fortunate will be able to benefit.

Investing has nothing to do with people who have no money to invest. More wealth allows more money to invest. The lower middle class worker or those dealing with the median wage are striuggling to pay the bills and have much less avaiable captial to invest. But this isn't the issue. The issue is health care for individuals is secondary to you than is profits for shareholders of health care companies. I beleive health care of all things in this country is a national priority, and buying politicans to insure people can't afford drugs so that the pharmacuetical companies can show a higher quarterly profit at the cost of individuals health is IMO unethical. A person's life and health should never be sacrificed so that shareholder's can make more money. We disagree on this. We'll have to agree to disagree. I beleive companies should make a reasonable profit, and it is unfair for Americans and not other countries to reap the benefits of lower drug costs. There is no reason that a Candian or Britain should pay lower than an American for the same exact drug. But that is precisely what is happening because they negotiate as a government for lower prices while our is bought off.