Jump to content

b_m_b_m_b_m

Members
  • Content Count

    9,720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Posts posted by b_m_b_m_b_m


  1. 14 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

    I'm still surprised that the case wasn't taken up by the court, and even more surprised that the law was upheld. This seems a lot like the CA crisis pregnancy center law that was struck down in June of 2018. Basically, the decision was that the state couldn't compel speech that people might not believe in. This seems like the same thing, so I don't see why that precedent wouldn't apply here.

    stare decisis never applies when in the pursuit of conservative policy goals


  2. 1 hour ago, osxmatt said:

    I think much of the anger in the Republican Party over the past 25 years is due to the globalization of information. It's become increasingly clear over that time that America isn't exceptional, or a "shining city on the hill."

     

    In fact, it's just the opposite.

    Also the realization that white supremacy can't coexist in a democracy with a white minority


  3. 13 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

     

     

    I believe it only takes four justices to grant cert on a case for SCOTUS to review it.

     

    Meaning the liberals backed away from this even though they could have done it without Roberts. Which may signal that even a case like this with terrible optics for the right has the liberals scared this new court is going to take any abortion case and use it as a vehicle to gut, or outright overrule Roe. That's the only reason I can imagine the 4 liberals let this abomination stand.

    Yeah I was just thinking here, they couldn't get four


  4. Quote

    Any problems with the outcome will fall squarely on Pelosi. From the convoluted legislative framework developed outside of Congress to the fixation on the CBO score above practically everything, to the designing of a policy Donald Trump could sign onto and the unwillingness to alter the strategy once Trump came out in opposition, Pelosi must answer for everything critics see in the end result: a weak, gameable first offer that doesn’t represent the kind of bold policy necessary if political considerations are secondary.

    “You have this lopsided system with really high list prices,” says Brook Baker of HealthGAP. “Pelosi said we can get a deal with Trump, we won’t do anything radical. What’s the prospect of Trump going along, zero at this point. Now you have to put good ideas on the table rather than tinkering at the margins.”

    Some aspects of the prescription drug bill are kinda bad

     

    Better than the status quo but 

    Quote

    For example, Daraprim, the drug that “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli purchased the rights to and raised from $13.50 to $750 per pill, would almost certainly not have the market impact necessary to be eligible for negotiation. Therefore, one of the most-used examples of high drug prices would not be lowered in the Lower Drug Costs Now Act.

     

    Drug companies would have the ability to game the negotiation system as well. If they delayed introduction of blockbuster drugs in the countries in the international index, there would be no reference point for negotiations. Newly introduced drugs that take time to reach the volume to make them eligible for negotiation would get to keep all those profits. There would be incentives to set a high introductory price, to capture all the gains until negotiations proceeded. “It doesn’t get at the heart of the problem,” Baker says.

     

    Plus, the minimum 25 drugs per year, which increases to 35 by year ten, still falls well short of the pace of new drugs coming on the market, let alone how many negotiations other countries execute. This year, Germany has negotiated prices on 62 drugs, according to information from the German government.

     

    The bill does not even strike the non-interference clause that is the reason Medicare cannot negotiate over prescription drug prices in the first place. The bill just creates an exception to the non-interference clause, making it literally illegal to negotiate on price for drugs outside the exception. This may seem like a minor point. But if you’re trying to rebuild the interplay between the government and drug companies, maintaining a legal ban on negotiation seems foolhardy. A more ambitious HHS would have more flexibility if the non-interference clause were stricken.

    And

    Quote

    The leadership resisted keeping the amendment in the final bill, even after passage. The reason why is one of those around-the-bend, up-is-down consequences of a broken legislative apparatus in Washington. Pelosi’s staff has been obsessed with getting a good score on the legislation from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). They accomplished that, with just the negotiation provisions saving the government $345 billion over a ten-year period. The more money that the bill saves, the more that can be plowed into improvements in Medicare, another priority of the bill.

     

    However, if the rebates were extended to group plans, drug companies would have incentives to lower costs. That means less money in rebates going to Medicare, and less for Medicare to spend on other matters. So, insanely, Wendell Primus would rather keep drug costs higher outside of Medicare, so Medicare can get more rebates and use the money. The bill is called the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, but this provision, if the Jayapal amendment is removed, would incentivize higher drug costs.

     


  5. 40 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

    Until the "normal" capitalists understand why people are pissed, populism isn't going away. Years of being told how things just are and why something greedy is OK and why wealth hoarding is freedom has driven me away from the American center-left lane and right into eat the rich.

    Why can't you just be happy with your $8000 average family healthcare deductible, on top of your $10,000 average in family health insurance premiums, and God knows out of pocket maximums when you likely can't afford a $500 emergency

×
×
  • Create New...