Economy U.S Government vs. Big Pharma: Drug industry poised for rare political loss on prices

[VivaRevolution]

Well there's no destruction of labor, because there isn't a set pie of labor. The only limitation to labor is the imagination people have to make products that aim to satisfy people's desires. Now, that's not to say there can be limitations on the growth of labor position available via arbitrary regulatory burdens and compliance costs imposed by government, but that's a separate (but still linked) issue.

I didn't mean to argue there is a destruction of labor, only labor's leverage.

It is why I believe wages have been stagnant for decades. There is no leverage to demand higher wages.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

HAHAHAA. At every turn we're seeing the benefits of electing someone who didn't take money from big lobbyists.

 

[Greoric]

I didn't mean to argue there is a destruction of labor, only labor's leverage.

It is why I believe wages have been stagnant for decades. There is no leverage to demand higher wages.

Yeah I agree with that, though I doubt we would agree to the source of that loss in leverage and wage stagnation.

 

[Rod1]

I didn't mean to argue there is a destruction of labor, only labor's leverage.

It is why I believe wages have been stagnant for decades. There is no leverage to demand higher wages.

Why dont banking clerks go on strike? truckers? food workers?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Why dont banking clerks go on strike? truckers? food workers?

Because it took 40 years to build the grass roots organization that was the labor movement in manufacturing.

With many martyrs killed by corporate gun thugs.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yeah I agree with that, though I doubt we would agree to the source of that loss in leverage and wage stagnation.

A bankster funded market revolution?

 

[Greoric]

A bankster funded market revolution?

A revolution that took place in 1913? Absolutely.

 

[JbModest]

I bought some meds from Northwest Pharmacy in Canada once. The price was 1/30 the price here.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I mean.. does being a Jon Jones fan mean you support DUIs or does it only mean that if you're a white male?

I don't think it would as DUIs aren't a part of Bones' Political/Social/Economic platform. As for Nazism/Fascism for Trump, well let's see, he:

- Ran a campaign on xenophobic nationalism
- Advocated extreme statism
- Advocate of eminent domain
- Trade protectionist
- Wants to curtail the freedom of the press
- Quotes il Duce

Hmmmmm, if the shoe fits I guess

 

[VivaRevolution]

A revolution that took place in 1913? Absolutely.

We will call that the first stage of the revolution, although I think I would go back further to the Railroad barons. Calling 1913 the linchpin of the revolution would be accurate in my opinion.

The final stage of the revolution was done in the shadows, and during the 70's.

 

[IGIT]

It wasn't when NAFTA was passed.

Chicken or egg?

hi VivaRevolution,

i just got home from work.

let's leave aside the fact that NAFTA has resulted in a trade surplus for the US, not a trade deficit.

without NAFTA, how would labor's leverage have increased? what i mean to ask is, how do unemployed workers gain leverage?

NAFTA probably saved the US auto industry.

...autoworkers’ animosity is aiming at the wrong target. There are still more than 800,000 jobs in the American auto sector. And there is a good case to be made that without Nafta, there might not be much left of Detroit at all.

“Without the ability to move lower-wage jobs to Mexico we would have lost the whole industry,” said Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, who has been studying the impact of Nafta on industries and workers since its inception more than two decades ago.

In the final analysis, Nafta might have saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. By offering a low-wage platform, Mexican plants increased the scale of production in North America, allowing domestic and foreign automakers to amortize their large fixed costs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may-have-saved-many-autoworkers-jobs.html

think about the state of the US auto industry as the 80's wound down...it wasn't too good. to be sure, the 80's capped off what had been a long decline for the industry in general (you seem like a reader, you should check out "the Reckoning", by David Halberstam. he writes extensively on this very topic and its a great read).

ultimately, the better compensated manufacturing jobs in Detroit that were protected by unions lost - but not just to Mexico, but to the union averse south, where many auto manufacturers fled, and to automation.

all this blame that gets heaped upon NAFTA is really rather misplaced, you know? NAFTA (whose affect is often overstated) has been a net positive for the US, not a negative.

- IGIT

 

[Greoric]

We will call that the first stage of the revolution, although I think I would go back further to the Railroad barons. Calling 1913 the linchpin of the revolution would be accurate in my opinion.

The final stage of the revolution was done in the shadows, and during the 70's.

In so far as the Bankers are concerned, no?

 

[VivaRevolution]

hi VivaRevolution,

i just got home from work.

let's leave aside the fact that NAFTA has resulted in a trade surplus for the US, not a trade deficit.

without NAFTA, how would labor's leverage have increased? what i mean to ask is, how do unemployed workers gain leverage?

NAFTA probably saved the US auto industry.

...autoworkers’ animosity is aiming at the wrong target. There are still more than 800,000 jobs in the American auto sector. And there is a good case to be made that without Nafta, there might not be much left of Detroit at all.

“Without the ability to move lower-wage jobs to Mexico we would have lost the whole industry,” said Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, who has been studying the impact of Nafta on industries and workers since its inception more than two decades ago.

In the final analysis, Nafta might have saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. By offering a low-wage platform, Mexican plants increased the scale of production in North America, allowing domestic and foreign automakers to amortize their large fixed costs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may-have-saved-many-autoworkers-jobs.html

think about the state of the US auto industry as the 80's wound down...it wasn't too good. to be sure, the 80's capped off what had been a long decline for the industry in general (you seem like a reader, you should check out "the Reckoning", by David Halberstam. he writes extensively on this very topic and its a great read).

ultimately, the better compensated manufacturing jobs in Detroit that were protected by unions lost - but not just to Mexico, but to the union averse south, where many auto manufacturers fled, and to automation.

all this blame that gets heaped upon NAFTA is really rather misplaced, you know? NAFTA (whose affect is often overstated) has been a net positive for the US, not a negative.

- IGIT

I never deny there is a positive side to these trade deals.

My response is that GDP is not standard of living, or wage growth.

I view GDP as a canard, and equivalent to trickle down economics on a global scale. That somehow Sprint buying a telecom in Lithuania effects my life.

What actually effects my life is that my union has to fear going on strike due to the company being able to pick up and go to China.

 

[SammyPops]

Yeah kind of. He's a nationalist though.

He's a NAtional ZIonist too.

All US leaders are zionists

 

[electricfuneral]

joe gets an award for being trill

 

[Arkain2K]

Trump's Drug-Price Stance Puts Pharma on Notice
by Anna Edney and Zachary Tracer
January 12, 2017

​

Hours after Trump upended pharmaceutical stocks Wednesday with a pledge to force drugmakers to bid for government business, the U.S. Senate narrowly rejected a proposal to allow importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. While votes on most amendments to the budget resolution went along party lines Wednesday night and Thursday morning, 12 Republicans supported the drug-import measure, with 13 Democrats opposed.

Bipartisan crossover in the 52-46 vote shows the drug pricing issue might have the power to unite enough members of both parties on legislation. Trump’s remarks may have had the effect of bringing pharma companies to the table in repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, which the president-elect has made a priority.

‘‘It may just be setting a starting point for negotiations and then using that for negotiations later in the ACA,” Walid Gellad, who heads the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview. “You’re not going to get the support of the pharmaceutical industry if you’re talking about reducing their revenue.”

‘Reasonable Prospect’

Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to Trump, said the president-elect wants Democrats to be involved in drug-cost legislation, which she linked to a broader push to repeal the ACA.

“To repeal and replace Obamacare and not have a conversation about drug pricing seems not like a reasonable prospect,” she said Thursday in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

In a statement responding to Trump’s remarks Wednesday, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Chief Executive Officer Stephen Ubl said that purchasers negotiate lower drug prices in a competitive marketplace, and the group looks forward to working with the new administration on improving the marketplace to serve patients’ needs. Representatives of the Washington drug lobby responded to questions on Thursday with the same statement.

Members of both parties have been laying the groundwork for bills that could go after the drug industry, including measures to force drugmakers to report any price increase of more than 10 percent and to stop deals that brand pharmaceutical companies make with their generic counterparts to keep low-cost copies off the market.

The importation measure, proposed by senators Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, and Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, was meant to give Americans access to cheaper drugs, though opponents argue the safety of other countries’ pharmaceuticals can’t be guaranteed. Klobuchar also proposed an amendment backing the government’s ability to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare but a vote wasn’t taken on the measure. Colin Milligan, a spokesman for the senator, didn’t respond for requests to comment.

Negotiation Protection

PhRMA has worked to insulate the industry from bidding on drug prices from government programs. The group pledged $80 billion to help fund Obamacare in 2009 in exchange for protection from drug-price negotiation that Democrats wanted to include in the Affordable Care Act.

Five Republican senators had also proposed an amendment to the budget resolution that would delay a target date for the Senate to consider a bill to repeal Obamacare to March 3 from Jan. 27 but the measure was withdrawn.

Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said they withdrew the amendment “following assurances from Senate leadership that Congress will follow a responsible timeline for replacing the health care law. I am encouraged that the debate has shifted in recent weeks from ‘repeal only’ to ‘repeal and replace’ in a thoughtful and deliberative manner.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...stance-puts-pharma-on-notice-for-aca-overhaul

 

[Arkain2K]

Why Big Pharma should be afraid. Very afraid
Jake Novak | @jakejakeny
Friday, 13 Jan 2017

Bernie Sanders is upset. But after a fascinating vote in the U.S. Senate Wednesday night, it's Big Pharma that should be upset. In fact Big Pharma should be afraid. Because for the second time this week it's becoming obvious its iron wall of protection in Washington is starting to crumble.

On the surface, the drug companies won a battle against Senator Bernie Sanders as his bill to allow pharmaceutical distributors and pharmacists to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and other countries lost by a narrow 52-46 vote. And Sanders is fuming at the 13 Democratic Senators who essentially killed the bill by voting against it.

But first impressions can be deceiving. The bigger news is that 12 Republicans joined the Sanders forces and voted in favor of his bill. Suddenly, the battle lines in the pharma wars are shifting. They didn't shift in time to get this cheaper drug importation bill passed, but that measure was small potatoes anyway. The stakes will be much higher in the coming months, and the anti-pharma armies are getting stronger.

Just look at some of the names of the key GOP Senators with seniority or national renown as conservatives who voted in favor: Ted Cruz, (yes THAT Ted Cruz), Charles Grassley, John Thune, John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Mike Lee. And note well that the newest Republican Senator, John Kennedy from Louisiana, also joined in favor. More on Kennedy, and why his vote was especially telling in a moment.

But first, it's hard to discount the importance of seeing Senators like Cruz and Thune join in on a bill clearly meant to send a message to the drug industry. This is very much the result of more and more bi-partisan opposition to exploding prescription drug prices in individual cases like Mylan's EpiPen last year and the Martin Shkreli-induced 50-fold increase for a life-saving drug called Daraprim in 2015. And while Democrats and Republicans joined in the drug company-bashing and drug company CEO-bashing in response to those incidents during Senate hearings, actually standing up and being counted in a vote meant to warn the entire drug industry is more significant.

Of course, this is not just a result of the EpiPen costs and Martin Shkreli. This new party-line crossing trend has a lot to do with the new sheriff coming to the White House next week. President-elect Donald Trump sent drug sector stocks into a tailspin earlier this week when he made a special point of calling out the drug companies for "getting away with murder" in their pricing power.

The fact that he made that statement the very morning before the Sanders bill vote in the Senate is significant and it's likely it may have influenced a few Republican Senators who had been on the fence. And, getting back to the freshman Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, it was probably not lost on the man who received the most personal campaign support from Trump in 2016 that the incoming president and his most important political benefactor decided to hit Big Pharma so prominently that same day.

This drug pricing war is indeed producing very different battle lines. So let's also look at the names of some of the 13 Democrats who opposed Sanders' plan, because those names are also very telling. Democrats like Corey Booker and Bob Menendez, both from Big Pharma's major U.S. headquarters state of New Jersey, voted "nay." The drug industry's major presence in states like Delaware and Pennsylvania also seems to have played a roll in getting the two Democratic Senators from Delaware and the one Democrat from Pennsylvania to vote no as well. And so did Democrat Patty Murray from Washington, who is one of the biggest recipients of pharma company donations with almost $300,000 for her re-election campaign last year alone.

Despite those Democratic Party defections from the progressive base on this vote, there's not going to be enough campaign money and corporate headquarter arrangements in blue states to overcome the tide that's turning against the drug industry right now. With that 52-46 tally, all the forces against Big Pharma's current pricing power need is four more votes and a little more time to finish what they started Wednesday night. A few more tweets or phone calls from Trump ought to do the trick, especially if his message is backed up by people like Senator Cruz along with Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Well, we all said we wanted more bipartisanship in Washington. Or at least we wanted more issues to be free of the predictable party line dichotomy every time. It turns out what did the trick wasn't so much an issue or an entity to support, but a punching bag. By relying too much on lobbyists and political donations, Big Pharma walked right into that trap. And the incoming president and a surprising number of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are winding up to deliver a big blow.

The fact that he made that statement the very morning before the Sanders bill vote in the Senate is significant and it's likely it may have influenced a few Republican Senators who had been on the fence. And, getting back to the freshman Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, it was probably not lost on the man who received the most personal campaign support from Trump in 2016 that the incoming president and his most important political benefactor decided to hit Big Pharma so prominently that same day.

This drug pricing war is indeed producing very different battle lines. So let's also look at the names of some of the 13 Democrats who opposed Sanders' plan, because those names are also very telling. Democrats like Corey Booker and Bob Menendez, both from Big Pharma's major U.S. headquarters state of New Jersey, voted "nay." The drug industry's major presence in states like Delaware and Pennsylvania also seems to have played a roll in getting the two Democratic Senators from Delaware and the one Democrat from Pennsylvania to vote no as well. And so did Democrat Patty Murray from Washington, who is one of the biggest recipients of pharma company donations with almost $300,000 for her re-election campaign last year alone.

Despite those Democratic Party defections from the progressive base on this vote, there's not going to be enough campaign money and corporate headquarter arrangements in blue states to overcome the tide that's turning against the drug industry right now. With that 52-46 tally, all the forces against Big Pharma's current pricing power need is four more votes and a little more time to finish what they started Wednesday night. A few more tweets or phone calls from Trump ought to do the trick, especially if his message is backed up by people like Senator Cruz along with Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Well, we all said we wanted more bipartisanship in Washington. Or at least we wanted more issues to be free of the predictable party line dichotomy every time. It turns out what did the trick wasn't so much an issue or an entity to support, but a punching bag. By relying too much on lobbyists and political donations, Big Pharma walked right into that trap. And the incoming president and a surprising number of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are winding up to deliver a big blow.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bern...vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html

 

[Pale Man In Black]

 

[Arkain2K]

Cory Booker And A Bunch Of Democrats Prove Trump Right On Big Pharma
13 Democrats did the industry’s bidding last night.
01/12/2017

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) voted against a budget resolution that would have allowed the U.S. to import prescription drugs from countries that pay less for medicine. ​

On Wednesday, Donald Trump said Americans were paying too much for prescription drugs because big pharmaceutical companies have too much power in Washington. “We have to … create new bidding procedures for the drug industry, because they’re getting away with murder,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power.”

The murder spree continued into the final hour of Wednesday night, as 13 Senate Democrats proved Trump right by joining 39 Republicans to vote down a bill designed to lower prescription drug prices.

Pharmaceutical companies have the highest profit margins of any industry, and prescription drug prices are increasing by an average of over 18 percent per year. Well before Trump gave his press conference, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) had crafted a budget resolution designed to rein in medication prices by allowing cheaper, identical versions of prescription drugs to be imported from other countries, including Canada, where medicines are cheaper.

Twelve Republicans voted for the bill ― more than enough to ensure its passage. It failed by a vote of 46 to 52 because 13 Democrats opposed it.

There was a strong correlation between states where the drug industry is concentrated ― such as New Jersey, Washington, Pennsylvania and Delaware ― and Democratic opposition to Wednesday’s vote. A cynic might conclude that industry influence had something to do with the outcome. Not at all, the Democrats told HuffPost. They were only concerned with patient safety.

Seven of the Democrats who voted against the Sanders-Klobuchar plan ― Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Chris Coons of Delaware, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Tom Carper of Delaware, Maria Cantwell of Washington and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota ― all defended their opposition by arguing the bill didn’t address consumer protections for imported drugs. (The others didn’t immediately comment.)

“I support the importation of prescription drugs as a key part of a strategy to help control the skyrocketing cost of medications,” Booker said in a statement provided to HuffPost. “Any plan to allow the importation of prescription medications should also include consumer protections that ensure foreign drugs meet American safety standards. I opposed an amendment put forward last night that didn’t meet this test. The rising cost of medications is a life-and-death issue for millions of Americans, which is why I also voted for amendments last night that bring drug prices down and protect Medicare’s prescription drug benefit. I’m committed to finding solutions that allow for prescription drug importation with adequate safety standards.”

In an odd coincidence, the rationale provided by Booker et al. was strikingly similar to the objections raised by the nation’s chief prescription drug lobby, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (commonly known as PhRMA).

“The importation of unapproved and potentially counterfeit medicines into the United States jeopardizes our secure medicine system and presents a serious risk to public health,” a PhRMA spokesperson told HuffPost in a statement. “Even Canada has said it would be unable to guarantee that U.S. citizens would receive products that are safe, effective and of high quality. Guaranteeing patient safety is crucial, and we must have policies that ensure patients safely have access to the medicines they need.”

PhRMA has issued similar warnings to several state governments that have legalized Canadian drug imports in the past. In 2003, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) reacted to the PhRMA pushback incredulously: “Where are the dead Canadians? Show me the dead Canadians.”

The actual text of the amendment restricts its applicability to “safe and affordable prescription drugs” ― language that should make clear to the committees drafting the more detailed legislation that they shouldn’t be clearing poison. It’s almost as if the lawmakers who voted “no” are using consumer concerns about medication safety to mask what might have been an industry-driven move.

Drug importation alone probably wouldn’t make a big difference in the overall price of American drugs. The U.S. market is so big that other countries won’t have enough drugs to meet the domestic demand. A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that allowing importation would reduce drug spending by about $4 billion a year, roughly 1 percent. And the budget resolution was largely symbolic ― it would not have actually implemented any new policy, only directed committees in Congress to get the ball rolling.

But drug companies have long viewed any shift in drug price policy as the first step on a slippery slope to big changes. Massive profitability for prescription drugs in the U.S. is driven by a series of standards that allow companies to set prices free of market competition or government pressure. If lawmakers stop viewing that principle as inviolable, more significant reforms could follow.

The irony, of course, is that if voting down the amendment was a political decision, it wasn’t a smart one. “This is exactly why Democrats have lost for the last decade,” said RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, which endorsed Sanders during the presidential campaign, noting the 900-odd federal and state seats shed since Obama took office. “But they don’t care, they’re looking for their next jobs.”

For DeMoro, that the amendment would only have instructed committees to look into the issue at some point in the future made the cowardice that much more galling. “That’s what makes them so fundamentally shameless,” she said. “They’re basically letting their masters know they’re in line.”

The seven other Democrats voting against the bill were Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Michael Bennett of Colorado, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Patty Murray of Washington, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ght-on-big-pharma_us_5877edd4e4b0b3c7a7b05c29

 

[Arkain2K]

Or you could regulate labs instead like we do in Mexico where generic brands are cheaper than junk food while still being overseen by government agencies.

I think if foreign drugs (much of which are really American patented pharmaceutical innovations, produced by a third party under license for localized regional consumption) be allowed to be exported to the U.S market, both governments will have to come to an agreement as to who would be held responsible (i.e, sued up the ass) if something go south.

If Mexico is to export those generic brands that are "cheaper than junkfood", whose bank account is going cover the lawsuits from the American consumers if some batches are tainted? Is it the Indian companies that built and owns the drug factories in Mexico? or is it the Mexican government agencies that regulate, overseen, and approve their production quality for export?

That's certainly something that should be addressed when NAFTA is being overhauled.