Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As far as drug co$tS & many other i$$ues, it is pretty obvious that Americans are being played by both the DemonRats & the RepubliCunts
In part this is true. It is important to note that it was Booker's positions on the drug companies that sunk his candidacy even before it started though. Booker proves both sides of the argument. There are (D)'s every bit as bad as the (R)'s but the electorate is not supporting Booker.
We had price controls once. Didn't go so well.It's a follow up bill on Trumps plan.
The plan in part borrows from some of Trump's drug pricing agenda, particularly on tying the cost of medicines to cheaper prices often paid in other developed countries. Some of the administration's ideas, however, have been met with skepticism from GOP lawmakers, who are closely aligned with drugmakers.
Trump even seems to still support it.
President Donald Trump hasn't taken a position on the plan, but he offered encouraging remarks on Twitter Thursday evening.
"I like Sen. [Chuck] Grassley’s drug pricing bill very much, and it’s great to see Speaker Pelosi’s bill today. Let’s get it done in a bipartisan way!" he wrote.
Pelosi's new drug plan pressures Trump on campaign pledge
The republicans do not want price controls. They are just fine with prices continuing to rise.
Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs
By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.
As far as drug co$tS & many other i$$ues, it is pretty obvious that Americans are being played by both the DemonRats & the RepubliCunts
In part this is true. It is important to note that it was Booker's positions on the drug companies that sunk his candidacy even before it started though. Booker proves both sides of the argument. There are (D)'s every bit as bad as the (R)'s but the electorate is not supporting Booker.
well, it's just funny knowing that many Americans believe they are some how gonna get a better deal on any issue from the DemonRats, or the RepubloiCunts, when in reality both major parties are fucking over everyone except the top 1%
Politics in America is nothing more than a racket. It's a ONE PARTY system designed to look like a two party system.
This is how dims raise money, with taxes.
Agreed.This is how dims raise money, with taxes.
I thought they just stole it?
By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.
Retroactive. What does retroactive tell your ass?Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs
By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.
From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?
Whenever dickheads in government propose a tax you should ALWAYS ask what those assholes plan to do with OUR money.
Retroactive. What does retroactive tell your ass?Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs
By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.
From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?
Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines,
making sure the Dems don't get elected.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday released a much-anticipated plan detailing House Democrats’ ideas to change the way people get prescription drugs. At the heart of the plan is a retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines. The only way out of paying this tax is if the drug becomes subject to strict government price controls and price caps. The House is expected to vote on the plan this fall.
This “Pelosi Medicine Tax” could apply to the 250 most popular prescription drugs in the country and must apply to at least 25 of them. The tax is not on profits from the sale of the drug, but on the gross receipts from the sale. For example, if a medicine is sold for $100, a tax of $95 is owed, regardless of the cost of selling the drug.
The tax would apply to anyone who needs a prescription drug, and that’s just about everyone — seniors, veterans, women, you name it. The Pelosi Medicine Tax is not limited to just Medicare; it would apply to all sales of an affected drug, everywhere in the healthcare system.
Needless to say, such a tax would cripple access to life-saving prescription medicines and would very quickly mean government rationing and waiting lists. A tax of this size is next of kin to a Venezuelan-style socialist takeover of the bulk of the prescription drug industry. By having to turn all their money over to the government, the pharmaceutical companies would become captive corporations of the government itself — a kind of post office that dispenses pills instead of parcels.
Awaiting the President of all American's tweet on this now.
Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines
I wonder if anyone understands that prices in other countries are less because their governments purchase the drugs at the full price and then retail them for a loss to the population?
In essence, drugs in other countries are not less expensive. They are subsidized.
For the record, price controls never work.
Price Controls - Econlib
We massively subsidize drug companies and have high, unaffordable costs.
— A new report shows taxpayers often foot the bill to help develop new drugs, but it's private companies that reap the lion's share of profits.
In one case, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — and it was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The medical community called it a promising new drug in the fight against ovarian and breast cancer.
Since then, Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide, according the the General Accounting Office report released today.
Taxpayers End Up Funding Drug Companies
To note, I supported my position, you did not.
I wonder if anyone understands that prices in other countries are less because their governments purchase the drugs at the full price and then retail them for a loss to the population?
In essence, drugs in other countries are not less expensive. They are subsidized.
For the record, price controls never work.
Price Controls - Econlib
We massively subsidize drug companies and have high, unaffordable costs.
— A new report shows taxpayers often foot the bill to help develop new drugs, but it's private companies that reap the lion's share of profits.
In one case, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — and it was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The medical community called it a promising new drug in the fight against ovarian and breast cancer.
Since then, Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide, according the the General Accounting Office report released today.
Taxpayers End Up Funding Drug Companies
To note, I supported my position, you did not.
So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?
Nonsense.Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines, making sure the Dems don't get elected.
