• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sanders proposes "Fair Drug Price" Act to combat Pharma monopolies

danm999

Member
So taxpayers subsidise the development of a vaccine but then aren't allowed to buy it at a reasonable price because the exclusive patent has been sold to a foreign company.

That's not a culture of entrepreneurship that's a culture of parasites.
 

DarkKyo

Member
You can't be serious right now...

I'm genuinely curious why it's okay for Clinton supporters to cast sexist dispersions about Sanders supporters but no one dare show disinterest in Clinton here or else they are labeled a sexist.

I'm not sure why this berniebros bullshit has to appear in any thread involving Sanders or Clinton. The fact that it's still a term being brought up a year after the primaries are over is just sad.
 
Great bill. Too bad it's doa in that Senate.

Side note usual suspects y'all need to stop whipping yourselves into a frenzy of your own mental creation and then using it to act like y'all are being persecuted
 

The Wart

Member
Any credible analysis of drug development costs concludes that they are insufficient to explain their cost on the US market. This source mentions that much of the research occurs at academic institutions. Here's another source. And another, though this one only peripherally addresses costs vs. R&D. (Not suggesting these are the most conclusive, in fact I dimly recall one showing that pharma R&D budgets are comparable to general industry, these are just the ones that came up in a minute and a half of Google searches.)

In multiple ways, analysis of the data indicates that the operation of health care in the US is simply wrong. This is not a matter of debate in which rational people can disagree. The removal of private entities from health care demonstrably serves the public interest. It can't be contested. It's supported by a variety of data and can only be opposed for reasons of greed or philosophically invalid ideology. That nationalization of health care is even slightly controversial illustrates how little correct reasoning matters in this political climate.

Interesting, I was unaware of such analyses. However, there is a pretty damn huge gap between "US healthcare is inefficient and gives large corporations too much control over pricing" and "nationalization of all health care is the only rational choice".
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Collective social benefits (welfare or otherwise) are not "socialism"!

Marx did not invent welfare, military forces, or other public subsidies.

social democracy is usually conflated with socialism, but government social interference for equilibrium is not controversial literally anywhere else on the planet is my point

Coming from a person not entirely in favor of Sanders' universal policies he toted in his campaign; this is a sensible, Centrist measure. I dig it.

Oh wait, Trump dick-riders gonna mess this up too. Fuck...

You should be infavor of universal policies that are not half measures and chump change even if you hold those smaller victories with pride.

Regardless of the feasibility of achieving the most important major battles in the current congress, its important to keep that as a basis of all viewpoints and negotiations

Centrism in policy isn't in of itself a viable "position", it is only there to offer pieacemeal solutions in increments so that we eventually get the full pie, or that was how it has been sold. Obamacare in of itself is never going to be the end all solution, its just a stop gap on the road to a better solution that eventually will have to be single payer among other things.

Do any major nations besides USA not negotiate prices like this?

No, that's the insanity of it.

The insurance and pharmaceutical lobby own the US goverment and have for a long while.

*sigh*

The only examples in this thread are from Berniebros complaining about it.

I'd rather this thread not go off the rails because of clinton sanders fanboy bullshit. I know there is a civil war between progressives and neoliberals on the 'left' at large, but let's stick to actual policy and leave out the personal attacks and mass generalizations
 

dofry

That's "Dr." dofry to you.
Now list me the people that get paid by big pharma. Then compare that to the eventual vote later on.
 
Hey, i'm not the one spouting off definitions I don't have any idea what they mean.
As evidenced by equating "nationalization of" and "dominant public involvement in".

Unfortunately, you didn't take my advice. I must say, it's amusing to be accused of "spouting off"; that certainly isn't something I hear often.

Any attempt at rational discourse must presuppose the parties operate in good faith. That is clearly not the case here. So, I'll simply point out a couple of things and leave you to ... whatever it is that you're doing.

First, I most assuredly did not equate nationalization and public involvement. I merely indicated that people made uncomfortable by thoughts of nationalization as an extreme solution could be helped to see the inevitability of the argument by considering the extension of public involvement instead. In short, they could consider the direction of necessary change rather than an outcome.

Second, the remnants of private interest (77% gov't-funded/23% private in Germany according to your link) in some functional systems does not demonstrate the value of that participation. Functional is different from optimal. And, if we're to descend into warring wikipedia links, this indicates that, according to at least one metric, Germany is barely mediocre.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Collective social benefits (welfare or otherwise) are not "socialism"!

Marx did not invent welfare, military forces, or other public subsidies.

Marx also didn't invent socialism. Most schools of socialism recognise collective social benefits as an integral part of socialism.
 
We desperately need reform on this topic, don't know enough on the insides and outs but I think it would be fair to say most of what is in the bill is reasonable given the current price gouging.

It's so true though.

The only people shitting this thread up with obsession with Sanders are people who are mentally obsessed with Sanders and perpetually live in early 2016.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
What I don't understand about the "drug companies need to recoup their costs" argument is that doesn't every other country in the fucking world negotiate prices? Do these drug companies make ALL of their profit on the backs of the US?
 

Anarion07

Member
What I don't understand about the "drug companies need to recoup their costs" argument is that doesn't every other country in the fucking world negotiate prices? Do these drug companies make ALL of their profit on the backs of the US?

Most other countries in the world where pharma-giants enforce their patent rights have a working healthcare system. Medication is still expensive.

I'm all for patents and recouping cost, since bringing a single medicament from bench to market costs around 800 million dollars, so charge as much as you think is needed for your stuff.

But with government-backed research?
Such a regulation should definitely be in place.
 
So taxpayers subsidise the development of a vaccine but then aren't allowed to buy it at a reasonable price because the exclusive patent has been sold to a foreign company.

That's not a culture of entrepreneurship that's a culture of parasites.

US government-granted monopolies in this area don't achieve their purported objectives. It's a total sham set-up for rent-seekers. Plus, it enables despicable actors to raise their prices well above the market price. The lengths some folks go in order to make a buck off people who are at their most vulnerable is sad. They're inflating their bank accounts at the expense of folks in need who are desperate to live. Disgusting stuff.
 

Neith

Banned
There are so many problems with prescription drugs in America it's just become insane. Two of my cousins are pharmacists too. SO many drug stores everywhere you look.
 
It's insane how a $1 bag of saline solution becomes $500 by the time they stick an IV into your arm. The whole thing is fucked up.
 

Anarion07

Member
It's insane how a $1 bag of saline solution becomes $500 by the time they stick an IV into your arm. The whole thing is fucked up.

That's not pharmas fault though.
Saline bags are of course a little more expensive than 1$ due to quality control etc., but the high cost in the end results from lots of other factors like the working time (which is not a lot), other components used, insurance stuff and so on.. That's the clinics "fault".
 

Tawpgun

Member
Ugh the whole medical field needs a revamp in the US. Insurance isn't even the main problem. We inflate prices of medicine, procedures, and devices to absurd amounts.
 
Whether it's tax payer funded or not, the pharmaceutical companies need to make sufficient profit to make it worth developing (And cover the risk of it never working). As long as this bill does that then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with it, though if the bill does do that then there will still be some drugs that are ludicrously expensive.
 

jtb

Banned
2016 was last year.

Bernie lost. Hillary lost. Stop reliving your glory years.

This is a good idea, though, as several have pointed out, drugs for diseases like Zika are rarely the issue when it comes to recouping prohibitively expensive R&D costs. I don't really know what the solution is in situations like those because, at the end of the day, someone has to foot the bill for the research.
 
Oh cool, the "Berniebro" narrative is in here too.

Even if this bill passes, I doubt drug prices will go as low as in most other countries. I've gotten brand name medicine here in Japan for less than the price of generic in the US.
 

Dingens

Member
woah.... ease up on the communist kool-aid Bernie!
Who'd wanna support something inherently un-american like this?

I feel deeply sorry for what you guys have to pay for meds over there, and wanted to use this chance to thank you for picking up the tap for me and others living outside the US.
 

Acyl

Member
This should be passed. For Sanofi, they probably argue that the funding doesn't cover anywhere near the cost of the drug (manufacturing, marketing, etc). Despite that, the price should be negotiable to create a price that covers Sanofi's end and margin without being ridiculously overpriced. Who knows, maybe the final price with Bernie's bill would end up the same but at least it would be more transparent.
 

Camwi

Member
giphy.gif

The face of evil. Reminds me of Mrs. Paddock from The X-Files.

 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Collective social benefits are not exclusive to or invented by socialists. Period.

No, they're not. But they are frequently something advocated by socialists, and this bill was introduced by Senator Sanders, who self-describes as a socialist and identifies his ideology with socialism.
 
Are you upset that a senator who was a presidential candidate that lost is still trying to help the american people?

I don't think it's fine that Berniebros come on here in every thread complaining about how he should have been President.

It's the OT equivalent of Switch port begging.
 
I don't think it's fine that Berniebros come on here in every thread complaining about how he should have been President.

It's the OT equivalent of Switch port begging.
And I'm sure most of them don't think it's fine that people keep pushing the "bro" angle that was pitched as part of a campaign strategy. The primaries are over, there's no need to do that crap.
Or are the tons of women that supported Bernie in the primary considered Berniebros too or nah
 

Calabi

Member
Why should they not be allowed a degree of advertising? In many cases they spent the money on the R&D, Clinical Trials, etc.

Ironically, the only way it may pass the 1st amendment might be a blanket ban on drug advertising.

But, I think a bigger issue is the "Drug Rep" problem you mention.

This is getting a bit off topic though.



Please read up on how other countries do healthcare.
You seem to only think a nationalized system works, but many countries have successfully done it in other ways.



This sure is productive!
Great job!

Because generally the efficacy of a drug is based on evidence, peer reviewed, well substantiated evidence. Beyond that what is the purpose of advertising it, either the drug works and has few side effects or it doesnt. An effective drug should speak for itself, especially when it involves things like the Zika virus.
 
Top Bottom