Nasty Beloni Unveils 95% Tax On Prescription Meds

[WillowTree]

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Doesn't matter to me as long as there are no share payouts.

I am against the corporate welfare as it creates an unlevel playing field and if a business can't stay afloat without government support it needs to go. I'm not against a business making a modest profit on a product. 10%-15% is fine.

Communist.

 

[Papageorgio]

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Doesn't matter to me as long as there are no share payouts.

I am against the corporate welfare as it creates an unlevel playing field and if a business can't stay afloat without government support it needs to go. I'm not against a business making a modest profit on a product. 10%-15% is fine.

Communist.

How is not wanting government or govenment money in the private sector bad?

 

[WillowTree]

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Doesn't matter to me as long as there are no share payouts.

I am against the corporate welfare as it creates an unlevel playing field and if a business can't stay afloat without government support it needs to go. I'm not against a business making a modest profit on a product. 10%-15% is fine.

Communist.

How is not wanting government or govenment money in the private sector bad?

Who then will fund your schools?

 

[WillowTree]

Were you okay when Obama put the college loans in the hands of the gov? How is that working out fir ya?

 

[Papageorgio]

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Doesn't matter to me as long as there are no share payouts.

I am against the corporate welfare as it creates an unlevel playing field and if a business can't stay afloat without government support it needs to go. I'm not against a business making a modest profit on a product. 10%-15% is fine.

Communist.

How is not wanting government or government money in the private sector bad?

Who then will fund your schools?

Schools are publicly run not privately run. Private schools charge the people that are going to private school.

 

[Papageorgio]

Were you okay when Obama put the college loans in the hands of the gov? How is that working out fir ya?

Not sure who you are addressing, however the government needs to stay out of the loan business. If you need to get a loan to go to school, then go get a loan from a bank or another lender, not the government.

 

[g5000]

Trump won't support a plan that imposes a 95% tax on prescription drugs. His policy is bringing drug prices down.

And that is Pelosi's policy as well.

What you didn't tell everyone on your OP, fuckwit, is that the 95 percent tax only applies to pharma companies who price gouge.

If a drug company tries to charge consumers more than 120% of the cost of manufacturing the drug, they will be hit with the tax penalty.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/----/ We learned price controls only harm America. Go back and read about Gerry Ford's Whip Inflation Now. (Hint to libtards. Gerald Ford was a president.)

 

[g5000]

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.

/----/ We learned price controls only harm America. Go back and read about Gerry Ford's Whip Inflation Now. (Hint to libtards. Gerald Ford was a president.)

Uh, dumbshit? It wasn't Ford who inflicted price controls. It was Nixon.

Ford's WIN program was the exact opposite, stressing voluntary measures rather than government price controls.

You're welcome.

 

[g5000]

Remembering Nixon's Wage and Price Controls

 

[The Purge]

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

Idiots still haven't got the fact that Trump holds out the carrot in front of you, getting you all wet, than when push comes to shove pulls the carrot away...HE IS THE MASTER AND STABLE GENIUS of this approach to you Anti-Americans!

 

[g5000]

Trump's drug price controls could cost lives

 

[pknopp]

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Just think the government takeover of all the big pharmaceuticals. Isn’t that socialism? What could possibly go wrong?

The government wasn't involved in the creation of the drug in question? You support this type of corporate welfare?

All future generations can kiss their asses goodbye, there will be no more research and development. They will probably move to a less hostile country.

Why is that?

 

[pknopp]

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Doesn't matter to me as long as there are no share payouts.

I am against the corporate welfare as it creates an unlevel playing field and if a business can't stay afloat without government support it needs to go. I'm not against a business making a modest profit on a product. 10%-15% is fine.

It has to be larger and larger for "investors" every year.

 

[bendog]

Remembering Nixon's Wage and Price Controls

It's sort of a comparison of opposites, or contrast if you will. Wage and price controls failed because we had no control over the price of foreign goods, and Nixon actually caused hyperinflation by devaluing the dollar.

In this case, the Gop's call for respect of markets and non-interference fails because there is no "global" market for pharmacueticals because every developed country is a distinct market, and the actual cost of making a drug is a pittance compared to the price in the US, where we are the only country to enforce manufacturers' patents.

 

[pknopp]

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.

/----/ We learned price controls only harm America. Go back and read about Gerry Ford's Whip Inflation Now. (Hint to libtards. Gerald Ford was a president.)

Oddly it's working in nearly every other country. I guess you are saying we really aren't all that great.

 

[pknopp]

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

Idiots still haven't got the fact that Trump holds out the carrot in front of you, getting you all wet, than when push comes to shove pulls the carrot away...HE IS THE MASTER AND STABLE GENIUS of this approach to you Anti-Americans!

So he lies?

 

[Crepitus]

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

It's not a tax on consumers, it's a tax on corporations. What it really is is a way to force big pharma to the table.

"The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65 percent of the previous year’s sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refuses to offer the government’s price, to a maximum of 95 percent. "

Pelosi’s Drug Plan Would Let U.S. Negotiate Prices of 250 Medications

 

[Papageorgio]

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Doesn't matter to me as long as there are no share payouts.

I am against the corporate welfare as it creates an unlevel playing field and if a business can't stay afloat without government support it needs to go. I'm not against a business making a modest profit on a product. 10%-15% is fine.

It has to be larger and larger for "investors" every year.

No it doesn't, they would like it larger and larger but it doesn't have to be.

 

[bendog]

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

It's not a tax on consumers, it's a tax on corporations. What it really is is a way to force big pharma to the table.

"The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65 percent of the previous year’s sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refuses to offer the government’s price, to a maximum of 95 percent. "

Pelosi’s Drug Plan Would Let U.S. Negotiate Prices of 250 Medications

Agreed. Willow's posts are on point, however, that with the tax, pharma may not make as many new drugs, and lifespans may decrease. Her willingness to trust a market that has failed, however, makes her solutions … failures.

I think the question is how can govt protect US consumers and still make sure Americans have access to new drugs. And had Trump not worried about the EU trade balance and addressed this issue, we'd be better off.