Who's in favor of higher prices on Prescription Drugs?

Question

The Democratic Congress has passed legislation to require the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for the best possible prices on prescription drugs for Medicare recipients, meaning the elderly and disabled.

Lower drug prices for the needy. Good idea, right? President Bush doesn't think so.

He said he will veto this bill, that "competition in the free market" keeps drug prices low. But there IS no competition when a single drug company owns a patent on a drug and no one else can make or sell it.

Drug companies spend literally billions of dollars to protect their patents, lobby congress, and to market their most profitable drugs. Even then they are showing record profits. Nothing is wrong with wealth or earning profits, of course, unless people are dying because they can’t afford to support those profits. And people are dying.

Was Bush elected by the people, including the poor, or by big business? That is now more obvious than ever.

Has he no shame?

In my question I said, "Drug companies spend literally billions of dollars to protect their patents, lobby congress, and to market their most profitable drugs. "

I should have added, "To buy Presidents (and Congressmen)."

Folks, if you agree with my argument, please give this question a "thumbs up." It won't help me, but let's not just allow the Bush-ites to give it thumbs down. Let's show our support too.

Answer 1

The bottom line is profits. Find a way for the drug companies to make a profit by selling their product for less money and prescription prices will come down.

Answer 2

You hit the important issues nail on the head. By law, governement-run health care programs, including Medicare, cannot negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices. The result is that many people, particularly lower income ones, cannot afford their prescriptions, or they take half doses. Advertising of prescription drugs should be banned. It forces doctors to practice medicine by prescription because patients come in and tell the doctor what drugs they want. The doctor writes the script to get the patient to leave because he gets so little in payment from the insurance companies that he can't afford to discuss the alternatives to the afvertised drugs the patient wants. In my city we have two major hospitals. They each have their own MRI machines, and those machines are EXPENSIVE! We also have several independent MRI services. But if you are in a hospuital and need an MRI, the doctor will only let you get it in the hospital -- which costs at least five times as much as it costs in an independent MRI clinic. The government funds a lot of the R&D od big pharmas. But if the research results in a new and popular drug, the drug company gets the patent(s) and all the revenues. So if you use that drug, you pay twice: First, you pay taxes to support the R&D; second, you pay when you buy the drug. The government should get a pro rata share of the profits from any such drug, which should go directly to subsidize government-run health care programs. Tort reform would make a big difference. Malpractice awards are a small part of the problem. The big and expensive problem is defensive medicine, which causes doctors to order every conceivable test to avoid the possibility that they'll get sued. We have the best health care in theworld, but we do not have the best health care SYSTEM in the world. We are driving many doctors out of the profession because payments to providers are too low. We have an acute shortage of nurses. How are we going to add 46 million people to the health care rolls without more doctors and nurses?

Answer 3

Cheaper drugs are a great idea, but once you involve the government in regulating these prices you take away the right of capitalism in a free market. This is what this country was founded on. If we want cheaper medication, the patents given to drug companies should be shortened to 5-10 years and we need to open the market to drugs from other countries, ie. canada, mexico, and several countries in Europe who can make and sell the same drugs at less than half the price. This would drive down the price of U.S. made medications and still keep it a fair market. Bush disagrees, because what will be next? The government telling car companies to lower their prices, or deciding on how much you can sell your home.

Answer 4

Of course no one is in favor of higher prices, but has our government ever regulated a commodity with out a SNAFU. And why should AARP members get the break why not everyone. They are already old and responsible for our high cost in the first place, mostly because they hang on to life. AARP buys votes on a huge scale for elderly benefits. Just like the Drug Companies have.

The answer is simple, First No drug advertising, we don't need weak minded people being convinced by the boob tube that they need a drug. Go to you doctor for the drug advice. Second, shorten the time that generic drugs become available to the public. Three KEEP THE GOV'T OUT OF THIS BUSINESS.
Four, the Dems want to socialize the entire health industry, which would give 7 percent of our GDP over to politicians.

Answer 5

The drug companies have a patent to the "recipe" and trade name of a drug for only ten years (I think) and then other companies can manufacture the generic product.
I think drug prices are quite outrageous, though. Almost all drugs available are produced to benefit those with illnesses, ailments, and terrible symptoms, right? I don't think that making money should be the ultimate goal. Helping people live with the utmost quality of life should be THE goal. I mean, I am only 28 and am on a smorgasbord of meds. If not for me, my pharmacists, as well as several pharmaceutical companies, would be out of business. And if not for my meds, I too would "be out of business", know what I mean? I would definitely not be in favour of higher drug prices. No way, no how.

Answer 6

You are 100% correct in what you said and I personally think that Bush is a blithering idiot. The people who put him into office should receive thirty lashes each. I had an evaluation of the profitability of several drugs and they were horrendous. 600%.
Why is it that I can buy certain drugs in Canada at better than half the price as the USA?

Answer 7

BUSH SUCKS, hun! I'll be so glad when he is outta the office and someone new comes in and actually knows what they are doing and can run America properly.

I think (just my opinion) that Bush hates poor people, blacks, gay, and many other people.

He is discriminate and biased against certain people in this country. with that attitude, he is NOT a good president and USA is going to down the tubes because the man in office is too under-educated to understand anything about people in general!

Sorry for the rant, I just don't like BUSH!

Answer 8

Any company who has taken federal money for research should automatically have lower drug prices for it's citizen. If your going to take our tax dollar then give us a break.

Answer 9

no he doesn't have any shame, especially not when he's doing that AND thinking about restarting the draft to put more "toys", aka soldiers, into the Iraq war. I think it would be a good idea to lower prices, but the medical insurance field really needs to be saved, because it's literally dying into chaos. So we need to fix that as well haha

Answer 10

the problem is the poor people did not bother to vote in the last few presidential election.
folks, its easy to see their are more poor needy people then there are rich big business types.
Busch won both elections and he won because the people who could have put the democrats in were doing something else more important on election day.
the masses are asses and i am sorry to say this is the folly of this country. most people won't vote to save their own ***.