Should the Federal (U.S.) Government be allowed to negotiate prescription drug prices?

Question

The chief argument against this, or so I've heard, is that such legislation is merely a surrogate for universal healthcare legislation. The big argument in favor of it, of course, is that the U.S. is subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world, including well-to-do European and oil-rich nations. Thank you in advance for not expanding the scope of your answer into a discussion of universal healthcare itself.

Answer 1

I think that the drug companies and the government should get together and create a sysytem similiar to Canadas where prices are regulated for those in need and on public assistance. This would allow free market but help the elderly and those in need.

Answer 2

The problem with this idea is that if it were enacted, we'd see a dramatic slowdown in drug innovations and research. The reason we're getting such good drugs is because the FDA mandates a period of time in which generics of the drug cannot be made. It's used as a way for the drug companies to defray the costs of R&D, and gain profit from the drug before other drug companies take the formula and create a generic. If the government goes around the FDA mandate like this, then drug companies will stop seeing the profits, and R&D would suffer.

Answer 3

I am all for universal healthcare. The problem with this scenario is that the US accounts for most of the world's research and development in pharmaceuticals. The capitalistic system allows them (drug companies) to fund R & D and then gives them exclusive rights to market the product (where the can recoup and profit from their drugs) for the life of the patent. A good question is that if we did socialize healthcare, would we still be making the advances and output we are today. Ideally, yes but it is difficult to say for sure.

Answer 4

Why would the US give money to Europe? Like your argument 'for' the legislation.Lol
Most European countries have such a system and therefore will not be able to reduce the costs of their drugs.
The idea is for the government to by all the drugs, and therefore reduce the price - they are not tell the companies that they can only charge x amount for each pill.
Such bulk buying is used in Australia and in Europe, It works very well - it should reduce all insurance cost in theory - but they might have to be made to pass on any savings to the consumer.

Answer 5

In a purely economic sense, all prices should be regulated by a free and open marketplace. In this way the true value of a product or service will be shown. When the government sets price floors/ceilings, it changes the incentive scheme set by a naturally floating price. Not to mention it will create shortages or surpluses. For more insight on this concept, do a little research on the gas crisis of the 1970's when Nixon capped gas prices and caused major shortages and long lines at the pump.

This idea may seem a little harsh or inhuman when it comes to medicine. But think of this: why would drug companies bother inventing new and helpful drugs if there is no profit incentive?

Answer 6

The prescription drug plan, Medicare Part D, has been a disaster that benefits the drug companies and insurance providers much, much more than your grandparents. Please do some research about this. I've worked on Medicare Part D research projects as part of my job and, believe me, it's a nightmare for many, if not most, of the elderly.

Answer 7

Absolutely. The Defense department currently negotiates drug prices for retired military and so the prices COULD be negotiated for all senior Americans with the weight of the entire Federal Govt.

Answer 8

If they are not allowed to do so, drug prices, because of the costs to get some of the ingredients, will "go through the roof". Those in hard need of the drug(s) will spend most of their money, as it is reported here in the US. already, on prescriptions. You need what you need, but let's have money for a FEW pleasures. Good grief!

Answer 9

no