Support NeoGAF

[dave is ok]

Maybe it's because I'm not in politics, but when people say, "XYZ donated money to their campaign so don't count on it." is that at all legitimate.

From what I understand people donate to essentially "buy" a listening ear. Many wealthy people donate maximums to both sides for this ability. That doesn't mean the candidate has to listen or even agree with them.

Why would any candidate reject a donation. It seems to me like you could easily say, "Thank you for your donation, I have heard you out, and I am moving a different direction." That happens in business and I'm sure politics as well.

Maybe I'm naive, but I can't imagine that someone donating funds automatically means that they will never go against their interest.

Sure, they're not automatically beholden. But look at Obama for an example, he took a ton of money from Big Pharma (much more than Clinton, even) and he gets into office and passes historic health care legislation that completely ignores drug prices. No mention of them whatsoever. America is paying double or triple what the rest of the world does and Obamacare doesn't bother going after them even after he campaigned on drug importation from Canada among other things.

Now you have companies like Turing or Mylan allowed to do basically whatever the fuck they want, and the only thing stopping them is the bad media coverage and outrage from the internet.

 

[commedieu]

A dose of reality is that mylan lobbied congress 4million dollars as much, heavily and even got president Obama to sign their emergency epipen act for schools. Raised the price, then moved their company to the Netherlands to pay 7% tax. This was 2013. It's 2016 now. This has been an issue for quite some time.

The two also worked together to reduce prices or hiv medication in africa. They aren't just acquaintances trough fundraising. And this illustrates the problem with Hillary Clinton and our political system. They are in the pockets of these people. Then these companies don't even pay their fair share of taxes here.

We still have work to do after she wins this election, because this is one of few "both are the same" as in greed vs the public. This isn't news to Hillary nor was it obama.

 

[benjipwns]

Have any generic version for EpiPen been approved by the FDA?

Dosing, drug/brand name have to be just right or the pharmacy will not fill the prescription. Found this out yesterday when a patient left to get a drug filled.

Adrenaclick is FDA approved. (There are five or six, maybe more approved in various European nations.)

But EpiPen is double classified:

However, even if a generic version of the EpiPen was widely available, patients and pharmacists would still face barriers to switching epi injectors. An EpiPen is classified as both a drug and medical device by the FDA. As a result of this classification, pharmacists in 29 states can't simply switch a generic epi injector for an EpiPen the way they could with medications that do not require a device, such as antibiotics.

The FDA has also rejected pre-filled single-use syringes.

A dose of reality is that mylan lobbied congress 4million dollars as much, heavily and even got president Obama to sign their emergency epipen act for schools. Raised the price, then moved their company to the Netherlands to pay 7% tax. This was 2013. It's 2016 now. This has been an issue for quite some time.

To be fair, some of that was spent on defeating “Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act" or S 214. (A ban on paying generic companies not to create generics.)

 

[Amibguous Cad]

So they're not going to tell the pharmaceutical companies what their prices should be, then fine them or otherwise punish them when when they think that they've raised them too far? Yeah, that's not going to let well-connected corporations evade punishment and hinder their competition AT ALL.

If you're going to start fining people for price gouging, just go all the damn way and start using price controls. It's not like we've had anything close to a free and competitive market in health care for a century.

Great news about reciprocation and legalized imports from EU countries, though.

 

[Malvolio]

As someone that has seen their daily medication price increase over 800% in the last 4 years, She has my full support on this one. Please Hil, protect us from this rampant greed.

 

[Ralemont]

They will determine an unjustified, outlier price increase based on specific criteria including: 1) the trajectory of the price increase; 2) the cost of production; and 3) the relative value to patients,among other factors that give rise to threatening public health.

Not sure what I think of that last part. Seems like it would work against these rules being applied to the cases where it's needed most. For example, I have an asthma inhaler. The relative value of having that inhaler is extremely high, since if I have an attack it will save my life. Yes, this means I'm okay with it rising in price from $20 to $50 the past few years, but in reality what it's "worth" to me is extremely high. Does that mean I should pay that upper maximum of what I'm able? Hopefully, that's when the first two factors will come into play, but like everything I do see some exploitable space in these factors.

 

[Noirulus]

Seems ironic that you would use that. Because, that's exactly how modern america works.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Eventually you have to think every industry that isn't healthcare is going to team up against them. They're sucking way too much money out of the economy and hurting every other industry in the process.

A great leader would form a task force of people from Google, GE, Ford, ExxonMobil, Walmart, Boeing, Amazon, Microsoft, Bank of America, Apple, GM, the tourism industry, etc. to flood Congress with more money than they've ever seen to finally allow the government to do some god dammed price regulation.

If we payed what the rest of the world did everyone would get around an 8% raise, imagine what kind of effect that would have on the economy. Those companies would get back what they paid Congress pretty quickly.

 

[KingV]

I'm not 100% certain that those tools will be enough to fix the pricing issue, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Sure, they're not automatically beholden. But look at Obama for an example, he took a ton of money from Big Pharma (much more than Clinton, even) and he gets into office and passes historic health care legislation that completely ignores drug prices. No mention of them whatsoever. America is paying double or triple what the rest of the world does and Obamacare doesn't bother going after them even after he campaigned on drug importation from Canada among other things.

Now you have companies like Turing or Mylan allowed to do basically whatever the fuck they want, and the only thing stopping them is the bad media coverage and outrage from the internet.

The Obama team looked at what happened to the Clinton healthcare plan in '93 and realized that if they pushed for everything there would be too much opposition and it would be voted down. Obamacare itself only passed by the narrowest of margins when the public option was removed.

 

[Figboy79]

I lost a friend a few months ago because of an allergic reaction and he didn't have his epi-pen (and didn't know the food was going to have nuts in it). Now his daughter has to grow up without her father. He was in his early thirties.

I'm glad to hear that at least someone is trying to change the price hikes. These types of medicines should not cost an arm and a leg. It's ridiculous. I just really hope that she's actually able to initiate change.

 

[Abstrusity]

Increased competition won't be good for the pharmaceutical companies, so I expect stiff opposition from both sides of the aisle on this. Lifting import restrictions would go a very long way to fixing the problem.

 

[Bleepey]

Being able to legally import insulin from overseas would be a godsend for me.

I've actually looked into illegally importing it via friends that live abroad, but I don't feel comfortable asking them to take that risk.

A part of me thought that would be a genius business idea. Find a network of say 20 people who need insulin. Carry the maximum legal amount from London pharmacies. And sell them for say half the price in the US. I won't be making cocaine champagne and stripper money but maybe enough to live somewhat comfortably and travel. Probably a tad bit illegal though.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Sure, they're not automatically beholden. But look at Obama for an example, he took a ton of money from Big Pharma (much more than Clinton, even) and he gets into office and passes historic health care legislation that completely ignores drug prices. No mention of them whatsoever. America is paying double or triple what the rest of the world does and Obamacare doesn't bother going after them even after he campaigned on drug importation from Canada among other things.

Now you have companies like Turing or Mylan allowed to do basically whatever the fuck they want, and the only thing stopping them is the bad media coverage and outrage from the internet.

I don't mean to be reductive, but I feel I have to start simply. Do you know what a President does? Do you understand how laws are passed?

Saying claiming that the AHA ended up the way it did solely because of Obama is pretty damn far from the truth.

 

[LegendofJoe]

A part of me thought that would be a genius business idea. Find a network of say 20 people who need insulin. Carry the maximum legal amount from London pharmacies. And sell them for say half the price in the US. I won't be making cocaine champagne and stripper money but maybe enough to live somewhat comfortably and travel. Probably a tad bit illegal though.

You would need to disguise the origin to avoid suspicion, but I think you'd be safe as long as you only sent enough supplies for 3 months at a time. I've read that the FDA isn't concerned with the people actually buying drugs, it's the sellers they go after. That's why I don't feel comfortable asking someone I know to do it.

 

[dave is ok]

I don't mean to be reductive, but I feel I have to start simply. Do you know what a President does? Do you understand how laws are passed?

Saying claiming that the AHA ended up the way it did solely because of Obama is pretty damn far from the truth.

By that logic every campaign promise broken should receive a pass because it's not like the president writes the laws themselves.

 

[AlphaDump]

By that logic, every legislative campaign promise broken should receive a pass because it's not like the president writes the laws themselves.

So what do you propose as a solution and who do you trust to implement?


Also your facts are wrong about the ACA but I'm sure you know that.

 

[WaffleTaco]

Why isn't President Obama doing something about this right now? It's great the Presidential Elect is saying this, but what is the current administration saying?

 

[Maxim726X]

Increased competition won't be good for the pharmaceutical companies, so I expect stiff opposition from both sides of the aisle on this. Lifting import restrictions would go a very long way to fixing the problem.

It will absolutely benefit some, like companies in the EU.

It will also make some companies unhappy, but there are some that would very much welcome a change like this.

By that logic every campaign promise broken should receive a pass because it's not like the president writes the laws themselves.

Umm... No? They can publicly support something and sign it when it gets to their desk. Unless you're referring to more executive orders, I have no idea what this means.

 

[jack_package_200]

So what do you propose as a solution and who do you trust to implement?


Also your facts are wrong about the ACA but I'm sure you know that.

I would love to hear Dave is Ok's solution as well.

 

[dave is ok]

I don't know if there is a solution while the pharmaceutical lobby is so powerful other than a single payer/universal system where a large entity has bargaining power to reduce costs. The fact is that we have allowed this problem to become so ridiculous to the point where actual intelligent human beings are suggesting that the best way to reduce costs is to re-import drugs we've exported to other countries.

Please share with me how I was wrong about the ACA. Obama, as a Senator and as a Presidential candidate, had always been a strong supporter of importing drugs from Canada and yet the ACA sacrificed every drug price reduction plan to get the pharma lobby onboard with it. The donut hole closing only helped people who are over 65 and on Medicare (and even then, won't see the full benefit for seven years after the passage of the law). The rest of us still have to suffer with these drug costs which are again often double what the rest of the world pays.

 

[AlphaDump]

I don't know if there is a solution while the pharmaceutical lobby is so powerful other than a single payer/universal system where a large entity has bargaining power to reduce costs. The fact is that we have allowed this problem to become so ridiculous to the point where actual intelligent human beings are suggesting that the best way to reduce costs is to re-import drugs we've exported to other countries.

Please share with me how I was wrong about the ACA. Obama, as a Senator and as a Presidential candidate, had always been a strong supporter of importing drugs from Canada and yet the ACA sacrificed every drug price reduction plan to get the pharma lobby onboard with it. The donut hole closing only helped people who are over 65 and on Medicare (and even then, won't see the full benefit for seven years after the passage of the law). The rest of us still have to suffer with these drug costs.

The existence and fight for the ACA says it all. The removal of the public option, among other sacrifices was done in order to get it passed. Conceptually, once it is enacted, you can add on.

So you dont offer a solution but just shit on the only one making an attempt to better it, because money and blah blah establishment blah blah.

Kind of like how she is also "for big banks" yet champions dodd frank, too.

It sounds like you are more pissed about congress, specifically the Republican run house, that you have beef with.

 

[Maxim726X]

The existence and fight for the ACA says it all. The removal of the public option, among other sacrifices was done in order to get it passed. Conceptually, once it is enacted, you can add on.

So you dont offer a solution but just shit on the only one making an attempt to better it, because money and blah blah establishment blah blah.

Kinf of like how she is also "for big banks" yet champions dodd frank, too.

It sounds like you are more pissed about congress, specifically the Republican run house, that you have beef with.

Yep. Even the nickname 'Obamacare' was pushed by Republicans to deflect attention from their interference and put the blame of its shortcomings solely on him.

I don't know what people want Obama to do here. He doesn't have unlimited power.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Imagine that: a set of specific policies articulated in a normal manner. What is she, running a serious Presidential campaign here?!?!

 

[dave is ok]

Yep. Even the nickname 'Obamacare' was pushed by Republicans to deflect attention from their interference and put the blame of its shortcomings solely on him.

I don't know what people want Obama to do here. He doesn't have unlimited power.

Naming something after the person who passed it isn't new or novel. In Massachusetts, where I live, the same basic idea for a health care plan was called Romneycare

 

[benjipwns]

Imagine that: a set of specific policies articulated in a normal manner.

Where were those specific policies articulated?

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Don't count on it. She took more money from pharmaceutical companies than every Republican candidate combined.

Wow really? Didn't know that. I'll still hope she doesn't sell out her constituents though if elected because other countries have demonstrated more intervention is needed to get this sector of the economy under control.

 

[Clefargle]

Clinton suggest needed regulation:

"LIAR, she says she would do this but I don't believe her because she's OWNED by X industry."

Clinton doesn't suggest needed regulation:

"SHILL, she wants to sell our country to the highest bidder, corporate whore doesn't care about anything but the money."

 

[BlastProcessing]

By that logic every campaign promise broken should receive a pass because it's not like the president writes the laws themselves.

Yes! Logically, we need to stop treating the President like a God King. The prevalence of that attitude is one of the major things wrong with our democracy. If you care about money in politics, which is a perfectly fine thing to be concerned with, you need to show up at the midterm elections.

Midterms are where corporate money has the most influence because:

1. Actual legislators have more control over law.

2. Because people are less engaged a larger percentage of the money raised and used comes from corporate sources. During Presidential years there is more small dollar fundraising to balance out money with strings attached.

3. It actually takes a shockingly small about of money to buy favor in a midterm.

So instead of using your time and energy to rail against the failings of the Executive branch, you concerns would be better met focusing on Congress, particularly in the Midterms.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Where were those specific policies articulated?

Right in the fucking OP. Maybe go back and read it, champ.

 

[jack_package_200]

Clinton suggest needed regulation:

"LIAR, she says she would do this but I don't believe her because she's OWNED by X industry."

Clinton doesn't suggest needed regulation:

"SHILL, she wants to sell our country to the highest bidder, corporate whore doesn't care about anything but the money."

Sums it up quite nicely.

 

[Maxim726X]

Naming something after the person who passed it isn't new or novel. In Massachusetts, where I live, the same basic idea for a health care plan was called Romneycare

In the case of the ACA, there's clearly political motivation behind it.

And you didn't answer my question. How does all/most of the blame fall on Obama?

 

[dave is ok]

Clinton suggest needed regulation while taking their money:

"LIAR, she says she would do this but I don't believe her because she's OWNED by X industry."

Clinton doesn't suggest needed regulation while taking their money:

"SHILL, she wants to sell our country to the highest bidder, corporate whore doesn't care about anything but the money."

Fixed.

In the case of the ACA, there's clearly political motivation behind it.

And you didn't answer my question. How does all/most of the blame fall on Obama?

Because that's just the way it works. The president takes a good share of the blame when his big policies fail and a good share of praise when they succeed.

 

[benjipwns]

Right in the fucking OP. Maybe go back and read it, champ.

There's no policies or anything specific in the OP or on her own webpage for the "plan." There's a lot of goals and entreaties though.

 

[Quixzlizx]

It's really discouraging how so many people would rather fail with a "clear conscience" than support a compromise. That attitude isn't really compatible with constitutional democracy.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

You know, I'm okay with the only politicians taking health care reform seriously being put under a microscope. Considering the alternative is fucking nothing, a mountain of scrutiny suits me just fine. If Hillary waffles on this, hold her over the coals. If she gets blocked by Congress or compromises in a few areas to get something past them, place the blame there where it belongs.

Where were those specific policies articulated?

Benji pls

 

[OmegaFax]

This feels like an empty campaign promise. It's great to hear buy I don't think she can waive a magic wand to get the traction needed lower the prices. At least not in the immediate future. The people, mainly the CEO of Epipen and her father, need to be investigated for fraud and ethics issues. Maybe there is a way to protect competitors from unfairly getting kicked back to formula/testing.

 

[tearsintherain]

The epipen situation is a tough one because its not technically the drug thats the problem. The drug is just simple adrenaline, available cheap and with multiple sources - its not a copyrighted designer drug or anything like that.

The issue is the delivery system, the epipen itself is owned by a single company and the design is patented. I'm not really sure how much legal authority the government has on price controls of medical devices.

 

[woolley]

This feels like an empty campaign promise. It's great to hear buy I don't think she can waive a magic wand to get the traction needed lower the prices. At least not in the immediate future. The people, mainly the CEO of Epipen and her father, need to be investigated for fraud and ethics issues. Maybe there is a way to protect competitors from unfairly getting kicked back to formula/testing.

I font think anybody is suggesting a magic wand to fix things. People are suggesting people get out there and vote to get democrats in congress so then we can help pass legislation for these matters.

 

[Maxim726X]

Because that's just the way it works. The president takes a good share of the blame when his big policies fail and a good share of praise when they succeed.

Yeah, but that doesn't actually speak to their share of the responsibility.

It's not my fault that most of the citizens of this country don't understand how a bill is passed, nor is it Obama's.

The epipen situation is a tough one because its not technically the drug thats the problem. The drug is just simple adrenaline, available cheap and with multiple sources - its not a copyrighted designer drug or anything like that.

The issue is the delivery system, the epipen itself is owned by a single company and the design is patented. I'm not really sure how much legal authority the government has on price controls of medical devices.

A whole lot, actually. Opening up multiple medical device makers to the drug would have immediate effects on price.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Clinton suggest needed regulation:

"LIAR, she says she would do this but I don't believe her because she's OWNED by X industry."

Clinton doesn't suggest needed regulation:

"SHILL, she wants to sell our country to the highest bidder, corporate whore doesn't care about anything but the money."

This. Some of her haters here pretty pathetic

 

[theultimo]

The epipen situation is a tough one because its not technically the drug thats the problem. The drug is just simple adrenaline, available cheap and with multiple sources - its not a copyrighted designer drug or anything like that.

The issue is the delivery system, the epipen itself is owned by a single company and the design is patented. I'm not really sure how much legal authority the government has on price controls of medical devices.

A lot actually, this falls under antitrust rulings.

No competition assumes a monopoly.

 

[JustenP88]

Clinton suggest needed regulation:

"LIAR, she says she would do this but I don't believe her because she's OWNED by X industry."

Clinton doesn't suggest needed regulation:

"SHILL, she wants to sell our country to the highest bidder, corporate whore doesn't care about anything but the money."

Money in politics needs to be called out at every turn. Let her prove the detractors wrong. I don't think the likely president-elect really needs gaf to protect her feelings.

 

[B-Dubs]

Money in politics needs to be called out at every turn. Let her prove the detractors wrong. I don't think the likely president-elect really needs gaf to protect her feelings.

Except one of the biggest causes she's fought for over the years is children's healthcare. We have a record of her on issues like this and it's very good. People just ignore it, for reasons.

 

[Maxim726X]

Except one of the biggest causes she's fought for over the years is children's healthcare. We have a record of her on issues like this and it's very good. People just ignore it, for reasons.

Or... You can acknowledge that she doesn't fall 100% into either category.

She does have history in healthcare reform, she also has a history of taking a lot of big Pharma money.

Opinions are allowed to be nuanced.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Clinton suggest needed regulation:

"LIAR, she says she would do this but I don't believe her because she's OWNED by X industry."

Clinton doesn't suggest needed regulation:

"SHILL, she wants to sell our country to the highest bidder, corporate whore doesn't care about anything but the money."

Heads I win, tails you lose.

 

[B-Dubs]

Or... You can acknowledge that she doesn't fall 100% into either category.

She does have history in healthcare reform, she also has a history of taking a lot of big Pharma money.

Opinions are allowed to be nuanced.

Reading over some of the responses in this thread, let's be real, there's very little nuance here. There's a lot of "she took money, we can't trust her," and that ain't nuance.

Nuance would be looking at old actions in conjunction with the taking of money and deciding from there. But we can both see that ain't happening.

 

[benjipwns]

A lot actually, this falls under antitrust rulings.

No competition assumes a monopoly.

Is the government going to file an antitrust suit against itself for not allowing competitors into the market?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Fixed.


Because that's just the way it works. The president takes a good share of the blame when his big policies fail and a good share of praise when they succeed.

You blamed the compromise of the ACA on the president being in big pharma's pocket, rather than the congress that forced the changes being in big pharma's pocket/disagreeing with Universal health care on principle.

Obama has addressed many flaws in the current ACA, and detailed what he would implement to improve it from its current state:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56bcd8d6e4b0c3c550506e19

And yes, he addresses the rising cost of medication in the FY2017 budget.

http://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2017/budget-in-brief/index.html#budget

To blame him for the policy shortcomings, when Dems had to fight tooth and nail to get this version passed, and have to continually fight annual budget tantrums that demand it be defunded, is letting the wrong "team" off the hook. If America wants comprehensive health care reform they have to elect a legislative branch that cares as much as the president does. Otherwise all Hillary/Bernie ideas will remain just that, ideas.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Awesome Hillary! It's time to for a change to the way medicine and healthcare is done in the USA. It's been corrupted by corporate interests for far too long.