Republican PAC launches ad against smaller government drug spending.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Like clockwork, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. But not these idiots. Always wrong, always on cue. It's almost as if their brain is broken.

Apparently the dumb ass retard thinks "both sides" want the government to negotiate drug prices because he's managed to find a trump policy that claims just that DESPITE, he himself, acknowledging that trump probably won't do jack shit. As if trump hasn't been on every side of every policy discussion so it's not like what the trump admin says means a damn thing.

You would think this guy would have backed down after not finding a single piece of republican legislation that backed up his claim but no, he had to double down and make an even bigger fool of himself. I can't wait till he does it again.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Gee, I wonder if we should take a known lying sack of shit on it being a political ploy.

I like how you also ignore that it was Turmp on his own pushing that shit, and that it was going against what the rest of the Republican party (as in the actual politicians) had been shouting. But yes, clearly the Republican party has totally super been onboard about this the whole time. Eat shit you lying sack of fermented horsepiss.

But hey, you keep being a complete massive moronic shitsucking dumbfuck, you're clearly too mentally fucked for that to ever change.

I already stated above that I didn't expect Trump to actually do anything about it toolbag. I specifically said that - so why are you making quotations about price increases while under Trump? I guess you're simply too stupid to argue valid points.

I never stated that any one party was in favor of reform - quite the opposite in fact - I said both parties are guilty of this shit. Or do you want to come to the valiant defense of your front runner Booker and his amazing history of defending and propping up big pharma?

Go fuck yourself with your feel good feelings of acting like your party is holier than thou - when they are in the same bed as the righties in regards to big pharma.
 

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
9,452
12,988
146
How can I provide "legislation passed by republicans" that backup my claim that "both parties support such legislation" when legislation hasn't been passed? That is probably one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read.

Hey. Smart guy. Legislation needn't be passed in order for it to be documented. Like the numerous links he gave you. But keep up the deflection, it's not like you can look any more stupid at this point.


But anyhow here you go...Nice try toolbag - good-job making yourself look stupid - errr, I guess in your case, normal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ecf3b178206_story.html?utm_term=.25bfa410d728

So Trump 'proposed' it. Has he made any movements on that? Any progress? Where's the legislation?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
I already stated above that I didn't expect Trump to actually do anything about it toolbag. I specifically said that - so why are you making quotations about price increases while under Trump? I guess you're simply too stupid to argue valid points.

I never stated that any one party was in favor of reform - quite the opposite in fact - I said both parties are guilty of this shit. Or do you want to come to the valiant defense of your front runner Booker and his amazing history of defending and propping up big pharma?

Go fuck yourself with your feel good feelings of acting like your party is holier than thou - when they are in the same bed as the righties in regards to big pharma.

Oh shit! And you keep coming back for more!!!

So when it's pointed out to you that "both sides" aren't the same and links to actual legislation is provided that refute your claims AND your inability to provide a single piece of legislation provided by Republicans, you decide to triple down?!

Wow! You might just be the retarded asshole you claim others are, you know projecting.
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Oh shit! And you keep coming back for more!!!

So when it's pointed out to you that "both sides" aren't the same and links to actual legislation is provided that refute your claims AND your inability to provide a single piece of legislation provided by Republicans, you decide to triple down?!

Wow! You might just be the retarded asshole you claim others are, you know projecting.

You still can't quit with your circle-jerk partisanship can you?

Quote all the stupid legislation you want - First and foremost - legislation means nothing if it isn't actually passed into law. It's "feel good" legislation at that point - especially if it passed knowingly that it won't actually be signed into law.

Second - as I said previously, Medicare's ability to negotiate drug prices DOES. NOT. MEAN. SHIT. Understand? Comprende? Oh I'm sorry, you're too stupid to understand simple economics, my bad. It literally is a DROP IN THE BUCKET as far as our problems with big pharma, yet you continue to toot a horn with a hoola hoop as if it's some kind of astounding accomplishment. Try actually backing things up with facts. I know, I know, it's tough. But give it a try ol' chap.

Rarely have we seen a health policy issue on which there is so much apparent consensus that is backed by so little research. Although it seems intuitive that allowing Medicare to negotiate will produce savings, under both Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted repealing the ban would result in only minimal savings. One important reason is that Part D actually already has a negotiating mechanism: Medicare piggybacks on private plans’ incentives to reduce prices. Prescription drug plans participating in Part D bid to contract with Medicare and compete for enrollees. In order to offer competitive prices, the plans negotiate directly with drug companies – even though Medicare itself cannot.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160919.056632/full/

What has your prestigious piece of shit party done - besides bullshit "legislation" to negotiate medicare prices (which as I said above does nothing to address the elephant in the room), along with have plenty of lefty candidates giving a handy to big Pharma? Go on - do tell toolbag. Your partisanship is so fucking ridiculous it's just a revelation as to how bad it's gotten in this country. You still think lefties are by your side when they will toss you in the Big Pharma fire in an instant.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
One perennial proposal to reduce health care costs has been to have the federal government negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Various types of negotiation proposals have emerged over the years, from both Democrats and Republicans (but more often Democrats) and covering various portions of the health care sector, ranging from federal purchases to Medicare to the entire nation’s pharmaceutical use.

Anyone familiar with federal and state governments’ track record in saving money through negotiations should immediately be skeptical of this sort of proposal. Cost over-runs in military procurement are legendary, and higher prices for government-negotiated prices for infrastructure projects go back at least two centuries, to the contract for the Erie Canal in the early 1800s.

In the case of pharmaceuticals, the record is no better, and quite possibly worse. In 1990, Congress pass a law requiring Medicaid programs to get the best prices for prescription drugs offered to any private payer, or 15 percent off list price, whichever was lower – and estimated that the federal and state governments would save $3.3 billion over five years by getting the best discounts any private payers had been getting. Faced with the options of giving deep discounts to the then-largest single buyer of prescription drives, or offending smaller entities payers by revoking their discounts, drug companies responded by reducing discounts overall. The Medicaid savings never really materialized, and private payer discounts dropped to – guess what, about 15 percent off list price.

More recent proposals relate to Medicare Part D plans. In Medicare Part D, private non-profit and for-profit health insurance companies bid to provide prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries, and separately negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies (along with providing other prescription-related services). The incentive for Part D plan sponsors to negotiate lower prices comes from the fact that they can then reduce their premiums to Medicare beneficiaries and thus attract more customers.

The competition between Part D plan sponsors produced spectacular savings. By 2012, total Part D costs were actually 57 percent belowthe original forecast. Because the taxpayer subsidy depends on the bids submitted by plan sponsors, this competition benefits not only Medicare beneficiaries, but taxpayers in general.

One would think that this success would lead to proposals to replicate the features of Part D in other government programs. Instead, there are calls to change Part D, substituting a federal government’s negotiation of a single price structure for plan’s individual competitive negotiations. In other words, the government should “save money” by buying prescription drugs the way they buy aircraft carriers.

Indeed, a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences, after acknowledging that previous federal attempts to reduce drug prices have had the opposite effect, nevertheless recommends that the federal government “directly negotiate” prices for all federal health care programs that pay for medications, plus any state or local government programs that choose to use the federal price list.

Proponents neglect the possibility – which based on past experience, is a very likely outcome – that federal negotiations could increase drug prices rather than reduce them. They also neglect the possibility that by insisting on prices that are too low, the government might make certain drugs simply unavailable.

As I explain in more detail in this report, the government is in the position to make a “take-it-or-leave-it” offer to drug manufacturers which, if rejected, could lead to the drug becoming unavailable to every patient in a government health care program. This sets the stage for political conflict, in which patients and drug companies lobby for higher prices to ensure that drugs remain available, while other patients dependent on the same health care dollars for non-drug purposes lobby for lower prices, and taxpayers are left with the bill.

In addition, drug development is expensive. Suppose the federal government manages to force prices down to a level just necessary to keep drugs available, but not high enough to allow for much profit. Drug companies are sure to take that into account when deciding to invest huge amounts of money in developing new drugs and shepherding them through the FDA approval process. And, investors are even more sure to take that into account when deciding whether to fund drug companies – either small startups or longstanding giants.

Artificially depressing prices is a sure way to depress future research and the stream of new treatments. That will, of course “save money” in the future – imagine having no new, patented drugs to pay for! – but at the cost of human lives.

We need to acknowledge that saving lives is more important than saving money – and if history is any guide, federal regulation of drug prices will not even save money.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...overnment-negotiate-drug-prices/#4f7df7341bb9
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,167
1,638
126
Trump said he would fight to lower drug prices.


They should be lower any moment now! just wait and see!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
The quadruple down!

So now apparently this dumb ass thinks that proof Republicans care about letting the government negotiate drug prices is a statement by the trump admin supported by zero action but when its shown that Democrats actually passed legislation, in the bodies of Congress it had a majority in, it doesn't mean shit despite the fact that Republicans have never passed or attempted to pass any legislation in the house or senate when they controlled either.

People like s0me0nesmind1 is why I have very little faith in the electorate doing anything smart. The guy is given the facts and reality and he simply digs his heals in.

You can't fix stupid and s0me0nesmind1 is one stupid ass mother fucker!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
How can I provide "legislation passed by republicans" that backup my claim that "both parties support such legislation" when legislation hasn't been passed? That is probably one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read.

But anyhow here you go - Take it from the WaPo that the republican party is supportive - actually going further than just simply "allowing" medicare to negotiate:



Nice try toolbag - good-job making yourself look stupid - errr, I guess in your case, normal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ecf3b178206_story.html?utm_term=.25bfa410d728

You didn't read your own link very well.

In this case, the proposal suggested that Medicare run a five-year experiment from 2020 to 2025, with half the country paying controlled prices and half paying the usual amount to see which saves more money without undermining access to drugs. It also would apply only to a fraction of Medicare drugs: cancer chemotherapies, anti-inflammatory drugs and others administered by physicians in hospitals or their offices. The majority of all drugs would be unaffected.

It's not much of a proposal at all. More like a pump fake. So far, nobody other than Azar & Trump have shown any support, either.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
I already stated above that I didn't expect Trump to actually do anything about it toolbag. I specifically said that - so why are you making quotations about price increases while under Trump? I guess you're simply too stupid to argue valid points.

I never stated that any one party was in favor of reform - quite the opposite in fact - I said both parties are guilty of this shit. Or do you want to come to the valiant defense of your front runner Booker and his amazing history of defending and propping up big pharma?

Go fuck yourself with your feel good feelings of acting like your party is holier than thou - when they are in the same bed as the righties in regards to big pharma.
Bothsides, bothsides, bothsides. Used a lot BS to say this. You aren't fooling anybody. None of you bothsiders have ever come up with a cogent argument. Shit don't fucking feed the trolls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
Hahaha! I just heard a couple of dumb-dumbs from CPAC demand commitment from justice to release ALL Muellers findings....all whose phone records, what recordings, don’t redact anything.
They think Trump is 100% innocent and want all the data to prove how innocent he is of this witch hunt.
 
Last edited:

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
Hahaha! I just heard a couple of dumb-dumbs from CPAC demand commitment from justice to release ALL Muellers findings....all whose phone records, what recordings, don’t redact anything.
They think Trump is 100% innocent and want all the data to prove how innocent he is of this witch hunt.

Lol, I can see the Dems now. "Umm yeah, we think he's innocent also"
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
I
Lol, I can see the Dems now. "Umm yeah, we think he's innocent also"
posted in wrong thread however I think that is epic.
Be great seeing some CPAC dumb-dumb standing next to the President saying “order the justice department to release all of Muellers findings”
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,545
1,305
146
Bothsides, bothsides, bothsides. Used a lot BS to say this. You aren't fooling anybody. None of you bothsiders have ever come up with a cogent argument. Shit don't fucking feed the trolls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't feed them, I usually try to shit on them with witty sarcasm.