And most conservatives disapprove. This is an election year calculation to appeal to left-of-center voters, something Democrats like.
I am glad you approve of Trump’s election tactics. But the long term impact of price controls in any industry is obvious: less investment in that industry, less innovation, and fewer new products (ie. advances in medicine).
I cannot determine if you agree that this action should be taken to try and reduce prescription drug prices or if you think he should’ve not tried to do anything about it.
Can you please advise where you stand on this matter?
I thought I was pretty clear. Price controls will reduce future innovation. I am not in favor of human suffering that could be avoided with new medicines that will no longer be created due to price controls that chase away risk taking.
There are other ways to address the cost issue other than price controls. Price controls will lead to fewer jobs in the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S., and will allow China to take the lead in one more industry.
And jobs in the pharmaceutical industry are largely good paying jobs.
“I am not in favor of human suffering that could be avoided with new medicines…”
And yeah, I AGREE with you here, but you ended it with
“… that will no longer be created due to price controls that chase away risk taking.”
???
We’re talking about reducing the costs of CURRENT drugs, which I guess you’re not in favor of trying to accomplish because of the impact you think it will have on R&D for future med’s?
July 27, 2020 at 3:07 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
No, I did not say that.
I am not in favor of price controls. I AM in favor of lowering the cost of current medications in other ways. Such as posting prices. And considering the shortening of patent protection for certain drugs,
July 27, 2020 at 3:57 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Okay … I think I understand your position now.
You are in favor of USA citizens paying less for drugs using actions like posting the cost of the drugs online for consumers to see before making a decision (presuming there are alternative options for comparison, obviously).
You are NOT in favor of USA citizens paying less by buying the same medication from Canada nor by making manufacturers charge Medicare the same rate they charge other countries.
Is that an accurate understanding of your position as to why you don’t agree with how Trump is trying to achieve the result we both think is necessary (reduce the cost of med’s)?
July 27, 2020 at 4:28 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
I’d also like to understand how posting prices for the drug will reduce costs if there is no generic alternative.
So a patient can see their med’s are expensive before buying them, but if they need them and there’s no generic version, they simply have to pay the price they see.
I don’t see how knowing the price of a drug with no alternative will end up causing the price of the drug to go down.
Can you help me understand how that would work?
July 27, 2020 at 5:20 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
I destroyed your support for the simplistic hammer-to-the-head approach of price controls. And so now you try to change the subject be creating a straw man of drugs with no alternative, WHEN I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT: limit the patent duration.
Are YOU in favor of more people suffering in the future from diseases that WON’T see treatments as price controls destroy innovation?
Are YOU in favor of seeing our pharmaceutical industry hollowed out when no one wants to take a risk for the fact that you can’t get your money back by charging what the drug cost to produce?
Are YOU in favor of allowing all decisions on future drug development to be in the hands of the Chinese Communist Dictators?
July 28, 2020 at 8:30 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I already answered your first question. I swear you just don’t listen.
As for #2, I’m not saying they shouldn’t “charg[e] what the drug cost[s] to produce” – I’m saying if it cost them $20 to produce, they charge USA $1,000 for it and charge Canada $50 for the same drug, USA citizens should be able to pay $50 for the drug that cost $20 to produce, not $1,000.
I also don’t think you “destroyed” anything. I asked you a clarifying question about how your solution would work in a real life example, and your reply didn’t answer me at all. You simply said you already explained it (which if you didn’t, hence why I asked for clarification on a real-life scenario, which you still haven’t answered.)
July 28, 2020 at 8:52 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Also, you said “limit the patient duration” was a solution for reducing expensive med’s that don’t have a cheaper generic alternative.
Were you talking about limiting the patient’s ***duration of treatment***? So for example: the doc says you need 1 pill a day for the rest of your life to treat schizophrenia, but you only take 1 pill every OTHER day to keep costs down?
Is that what you meant when you said “limiting patient duration” would cause a reduced cost of the med’s?
If not, can you please explain a little better what you meant by “limit the patient duration” so I can make sure I understand your argument?
July 28, 2020 at 1:17 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Apparently, you have a problem with spelling.
I said PATENT. Not patient.
July 28, 2020 at 1:45 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I’m sorry for misreading, Craig. Okay, let’s talk about patent duration.
How long do you think the patent duration should be? Currently it’s usually 15-17 years.
If it’s less than 5 years: how would that reduce the costs the company charges USA citizens for those 5 years?
Wouldn’t the company charge more than it does now so they could recoup their R&D costs over 5 years rather than 15?
July 28, 2020 at 2:02 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Yes, it would charge more in the short term.
But allowing for generic competition faster, it would still encourage development of new treatments. And by shortening the patent, it would make the NEW drug available sooner at a lower cost.
It depends on the drug. Life saving drugs should be given longer protection – and more incentive for research.
Remember, your price control approach would kill research into new drugs that would eliminate suffering. This is the reason most other countries have a small to non-existent pharmeceutical industry: price controls killed the ability to take risks on new drugs.
July 28, 2020 at 2:07 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Okay – I think I understand this part of your argument now.
You are in favor of USA citizens paying MORE for drugs in the short-term if it means they MAY pay less once the patent is expired.
I definitely don’t agree that the best way to HOPEFULLY reduce drug prices is to first put in a mechanism that ensures companies will raise prices even higher in the short-term.
July 27, 2020 at 1:21 pm
Leslie Maxwell says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
The RX prices do need to be lowered. Thank you President Trump.
It’s all for show. Executive orders are worthless. There must be Congressional legislation to enact real pricing changes. The sheep are being fooled once again.
I don’t disagree one bit, Retire UW, that executive orders are worthless in most instances. However, the text of this executive order said it should be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations, so there is at least no apparent attempt to create new law out of thin air and/or spend money not appropriately authorized by the congress. Time will tell, of course, but many will reflexively cry foul either due to frustration with previous unconstitutional use of executive orders (which can only really occur if the congress stands by and does nothing) or a seething hatred for President Trump.
Who knew this complicated problem was as easy as the govt declaring war on private business? I hope for your sake a large number of people don’t complain that YOUR product is too expensive, while expecting you to keep researching more, only to have the govt order you to drop your price.
I’m confused. Trump repeatedly indicated he would lower Rx prices during his 2016 campaign. If the remedy was as simple executive order, why did he wait 3 1/2 years to take any initiative?
I applaud President Trump for taking these actions
And most conservatives disapprove. This is an election year calculation to appeal to left-of-center voters, something Democrats like.
I am glad you approve of Trump’s election tactics. But the long term impact of price controls in any industry is obvious: less investment in that industry, less innovation, and fewer new products (ie. advances in medicine).
“And most conservatives disapprove.”
Most disapprove … therefore, not all disapprove.
I cannot determine if you agree that this action should be taken to try and reduce prescription drug prices or if you think he should’ve not tried to do anything about it.
Can you please advise where you stand on this matter?
I thought I was pretty clear. Price controls will reduce future innovation. I am not in favor of human suffering that could be avoided with new medicines that will no longer be created due to price controls that chase away risk taking.
There are other ways to address the cost issue other than price controls. Price controls will lead to fewer jobs in the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S., and will allow China to take the lead in one more industry.
And jobs in the pharmaceutical industry are largely good paying jobs.
It’s not clear, Craig. First you said
“I am not in favor of human suffering that could be avoided with new medicines…”
And yeah, I AGREE with you here, but you ended it with
“… that will no longer be created due to price controls that chase away risk taking.”
???
We’re talking about reducing the costs of CURRENT drugs, which I guess you’re not in favor of trying to accomplish because of the impact you think it will have on R&D for future med’s?
No, I did not say that.
I am not in favor of price controls. I AM in favor of lowering the cost of current medications in other ways. Such as posting prices. And considering the shortening of patent protection for certain drugs,
Okay … I think I understand your position now.
You are in favor of USA citizens paying less for drugs using actions like posting the cost of the drugs online for consumers to see before making a decision (presuming there are alternative options for comparison, obviously).
You are NOT in favor of USA citizens paying less by buying the same medication from Canada nor by making manufacturers charge Medicare the same rate they charge other countries.
Is that an accurate understanding of your position as to why you don’t agree with how Trump is trying to achieve the result we both think is necessary (reduce the cost of med’s)?
I’d also like to understand how posting prices for the drug will reduce costs if there is no generic alternative.
So a patient can see their med’s are expensive before buying them, but if they need them and there’s no generic version, they simply have to pay the price they see.
I don’t see how knowing the price of a drug with no alternative will end up causing the price of the drug to go down.
Can you help me understand how that would work?
I destroyed your support for the simplistic hammer-to-the-head approach of price controls. And so now you try to change the subject be creating a straw man of drugs with no alternative, WHEN I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT: limit the patent duration.
Are YOU in favor of more people suffering in the future from diseases that WON’T see treatments as price controls destroy innovation?
Are YOU in favor of seeing our pharmaceutical industry hollowed out when no one wants to take a risk for the fact that you can’t get your money back by charging what the drug cost to produce?
Are YOU in favor of allowing all decisions on future drug development to be in the hands of the Chinese Communist Dictators?
I already answered your first question. I swear you just don’t listen.
As for #2, I’m not saying they shouldn’t “charg[e] what the drug cost[s] to produce” – I’m saying if it cost them $20 to produce, they charge USA $1,000 for it and charge Canada $50 for the same drug, USA citizens should be able to pay $50 for the drug that cost $20 to produce, not $1,000.
I also don’t think you “destroyed” anything. I asked you a clarifying question about how your solution would work in a real life example, and your reply didn’t answer me at all. You simply said you already explained it (which if you didn’t, hence why I asked for clarification on a real-life scenario, which you still haven’t answered.)
Also, you said “limit the patient duration” was a solution for reducing expensive med’s that don’t have a cheaper generic alternative.
Were you talking about limiting the patient’s ***duration of treatment***? So for example: the doc says you need 1 pill a day for the rest of your life to treat schizophrenia, but you only take 1 pill every OTHER day to keep costs down?
Is that what you meant when you said “limiting patient duration” would cause a reduced cost of the med’s?
If not, can you please explain a little better what you meant by “limit the patient duration” so I can make sure I understand your argument?
Apparently, you have a problem with spelling.
I said PATENT. Not patient.
I’m sorry for misreading, Craig. Okay, let’s talk about patent duration.
How long do you think the patent duration should be? Currently it’s usually 15-17 years.
If it’s less than 5 years: how would that reduce the costs the company charges USA citizens for those 5 years?
Wouldn’t the company charge more than it does now so they could recoup their R&D costs over 5 years rather than 15?
Yes, it would charge more in the short term.
But allowing for generic competition faster, it would still encourage development of new treatments. And by shortening the patent, it would make the NEW drug available sooner at a lower cost.
It depends on the drug. Life saving drugs should be given longer protection – and more incentive for research.
Remember, your price control approach would kill research into new drugs that would eliminate suffering. This is the reason most other countries have a small to non-existent pharmeceutical industry: price controls killed the ability to take risks on new drugs.
Okay – I think I understand this part of your argument now.
You are in favor of USA citizens paying MORE for drugs in the short-term if it means they MAY pay less once the patent is expired.
I definitely don’t agree that the best way to HOPEFULLY reduce drug prices is to first put in a mechanism that ensures companies will raise prices even higher in the short-term.
The RX prices do need to be lowered. Thank you President Trump.
It’s all for show. Executive orders are worthless. There must be Congressional legislation to enact real pricing changes. The sheep are being fooled once again.
I don’t disagree one bit, Retire UW, that executive orders are worthless in most instances. However, the text of this executive order said it should be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations, so there is at least no apparent attempt to create new law out of thin air and/or spend money not appropriately authorized by the congress. Time will tell, of course, but many will reflexively cry foul either due to frustration with previous unconstitutional use of executive orders (which can only really occur if the congress stands by and does nothing) or a seething hatred for President Trump.
Who knew this complicated problem was as easy as the govt declaring war on private business? I hope for your sake a large number of people don’t complain that YOUR product is too expensive, while expecting you to keep researching more, only to have the govt order you to drop your price.
I’m confused. Trump repeatedly indicated he would lower Rx prices during his 2016 campaign. If the remedy was as simple executive order, why did he wait 3 1/2 years to take any initiative?
HEALTHHH CARE SPPECIFFICCS.
Politics. This is an election year. SoTrump stole the idea before Biden could campaign on it. Be confused no more.
Tramp. Pen. Paper. Camera. TV.
Biden. Basement. Confusion. Avoiding the media. Even more confusion.