Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

From House Budget Committee - Republican Caucus (http://house.gov/budget_republicans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)



CBO CONFIRMS OBAMACARE WILL INCREASE DRUG PRICES

In letter to Ranking Member Paul Ryan, CBO highlights the latest health care broken promise



In response to a request from House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] confirmed that President Obama’s massive health care law will increase prescription drug prices. The CBO confirms the range of onerous restrictions and requirements will drive health care costs up, at odds with the claims made by its proponents. CBO’s letter specifies that manufacturers will have an incentive to raise drug prices and that, as a result, health care costs will increase for some seniors and for those who are uninsured.



In response to the findings, Ranking Member Ryan issued the following statement:



“On Tuesday, the American electorate forcefully repudiated President Obama’s agenda, including his massive health care overhaul. Today, the Congressional Budget Office refuted President Obama’s claims, making clear that his policies will drive health care costs up, not down. Especially troubling for many seniors is the news that their prescription drug costs and premiums will increase as a result of this legislation. I will continue to work to repeal this deeply flawed overhaul, advancing instead patient-centered health care reform and reforms to secure Medicare for current and future generations.”



Highlights from the CBO’s letter to Ranking Member Ryan:

* “[The] increase in prices would make federal costs for Medicare’s drug benefit and the costs faced by some beneficiaries slightly higher than they would be in the absence of those provisions…”
* “The legislation also imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs. CBO expects that the fee will probably increase the prices of drugs purchased through Medicare and the prices of newly introduced drugs purchased through Medicaid and other federal programs by about 1 percent. Those increases will be in addition to the ones described above that stem from the new requirements for discounts and rebates.”
* “The premiums of drug plans will increase along with the increase in net drug prices, so the premiums paid by beneficiaries will increase slightly.”



To read CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s Letter to Ranking Member Paul Ryan: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11674/1 ... ricing.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shocking, I say. Absolutely shocking.

Not a surprise, Obama let big Pharma write this bill.

FargoBison wrote:Not a surprise, Obama let big Pharma write this bill.

You're leaving out big insurance.

And someone remind me, who gave the drug benny to medicare and are the prices negotiable?

Both sides protecting the same constituency.

The market will correct prices, don't worry.

Cap'n Cat wrote:The market will correct prices, don't worry.

Cat has suddenly gone from alarmist to modest mouse since Tuesday.

89Hen wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:The market will correct prices, don't worry.

Cat has suddenly gone from alarmist to modest mouse since Tuesday.

No, still an alarmist. Correcting prices means busloads of people buying drugs in Canada and through the Internet.

Capitalism, you bet!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

89Hen wrote: Cat has suddenly gone from alarmist to modest mouse since Tuesday.

No, still an alarmist. Correcting prices means busloads of people buying drugs in Canada and through the Internet.

Capitalism, you bet!

You do realize that drug prices in Canada are held artificially low, don't you? Price ceilings. You and all other American healthcare consumers are subsidizing Canadian pharmaceutical consumption.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

No, still an alarmist. Correcting prices means busloads of people buying drugs in Canada and through the Internet.

Capitalism, you bet!

You do realize that drug prices in Canada are held artificially low, don't you? Price ceilings. You and all other American healthcare consumers are subsidizing Canadian pharmaceutical consumption.

Yes, Graddy, I realize that. We need price ceilings. My opinion only.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
You do realize that drug prices in Canada are held artificially low, don't you? Price ceilings. You and all other American healthcare consumers are subsidizing Canadian pharmaceutical consumption.

Yes, Graddy, I realize that. We need price ceilings. My opinion only.

Then apparently you also think we need drug shortages and vastly reduced development of new drugs.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Yes, Graddy, I realize that. We need price ceilings. My opinion only.

Then apparently you also think we need drug shortages and vastly reduced development of new drugs.

Corporate scare tactics to protect profits, Graddy. You know it, I know it, so who we bullshittin', son?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Then apparently you also think we need drug shortages and vastly reduced development of new drugs.

Corporate scare tactics to protect profits, Graddy. You know it, I know it, so who we bullshittin', son?

So you think there's no empirical and conclusive evidence that price controls result in shortages, reduced R&D and reduced investment?

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Corporate scare tactics to protect profits, Graddy. You know it, I know it, so who we bullshittin', son?

So you think there's no empirical and conclusive evidence that price controls result in shortages, reduced R&D and reduced investment?

That's not the issue, Graddy. I don't think they would do it. They just tried to scare people with that....and it worked. Imagine them ACTUALLY doing that. Won't happen, it takes future profits away from them.


AND, notice what happened after they last threatened to "turn off the light in the lab" - all of a sudden drug companies started coming out with the "If you can't afford your medicine, Acme Labs may be able to help" stuff in their ads. Remember? It's still going on. Right there, they admitted that turning off the light in the lab was not a feasible or responsible thing to do.

Nope, they wouldn't do it.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
So you think there's no empirical and conclusive evidence that price controls result in shortages, reduced R&D and reduced investment?

That's not the issue, Graddy. I don't think they would do it. They just tried to scare people with that....and it worked. Imagine them ACTUALLY doing that. Won't happen, it takes future profits away from them.


AND, notice what happened after they last threatened to "turn off the light in the lab" - all of a sudden drug companies started coming out with the "If you can't afford your medicine, Acme Labs may be able to help" stuff in their ads. Remember? It's still going on. Right there, they admitted that turning off the light in the lab was not a feasible or responsible thing to do.

Nope, they wouldn't do it.

Sure they would. They wouldn't have much of a choice. Of course, that's just the R&D side of it. Production would be reduced as well, especially for the lowest margin drugs. Investment would be reduced. Why would anyone invest in a venture in which profit margins are kept artificially low? Money (investment capital) doesn't grow on trees.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

That's not the issue, Graddy. I don't think they would do it. They just tried to scare people with that....and it worked. Imagine them ACTUALLY doing that. Won't happen, it takes future profits away from them.


AND, notice what happened after they last threatened to "turn off the light in the lab" - all of a sudden drug companies started coming out with the "If you can't afford your medicine, Acme Labs may be able to help" stuff in their ads. Remember? It's still going on. Right there, they admitted that turning off the light in the lab was not a feasible or responsible thing to do.

Nope, they wouldn't do it.

Sure they would. They wouldn't have much of a choice. Of course, that's just the R&D side of it. Production would be reduced as well, especially for the lowest margin drugs. Investment would be reduced. Why would anyone invest in a venture in which profit margins are kept artificially low? Money (investment capital) doesn't grow on trees.

Understand your points, still don't think they would do it. You know what the margins on their drugs are? To me, they're abusively high. I think they're sticking it to people as it is....with the tacit approval of everyone, too, unfortunately.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Sure they would. They wouldn't have much of a choice. Of course, that's just the R&D side of it. Production would be reduced as well, especially for the lowest margin drugs. Investment would be reduced. Why would anyone invest in a venture in which profit margins are kept artificially low? Money (investment capital) doesn't grow on trees.

Understand your points, still don't think they would do it. You know what the margins on their drugs are? To me, they're abusively high. I think they're sticking it to people as it is....with the tacit approval of everyone, too, unfortunately.

They're already cutting production of drugs due to the bottom line... even if it's irresponsible.

About 40 percent of the shortages are caused by manufacturing problems, including safety issues, said Valerie Jensen, associate director of the Food and Drug Administration's drug shortage program. Nearly 20 percent are caused when firms simply stop making drugs and another 20 percent are due to production delays. The rest are chalked up to raw material shortages, increased demand, site issues and problems with parts such as syringes or vials.

But underlying them all is the profitability problem, said Jensen.

“Normally, it’s a business decision. That does lead to shortages,” said Jensen. "These are just not usually money-makers."

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39798646/ ... alth_care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



With the amount of time and money that goes into the production of a single drug (not to mention the amount of time and money spent on the 9 failures), the cost of marketing, The shady ethical practice of paying doctors to promote your drug, generic production cutting into your profits, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbyist used to sway legislation, etc, etc... drug prices will continue to go up, with or without the help of Obamacare.

Hey, I'm not necessarily disagreein'. It's a very unfortunate phenomenon of capitalism that some people may die because they can't afford medicine. System's broked up.

We don't have to look any further than the vaccination market. Once we decided that vaccines were necessary for all (certainly not objecting to that decision, it was and is the correct decision) and that also we didn't want to have to pay a lot for them (or namely we didn't want to pay nearly as much as the suppliers wanted us to pay), then strangely many of the players in the vaccination market just closed shop and moved into other ventures. As a result, and as we found out through the avian flu and swine flu scares, there is little to no innovation going on in that industry (heck, we're still injecting stuff into eggs to allow the vaccines to mature) and there just aren't enough suppliers to quickly ramp up supply when it's needed. Thankfully, the swine flu thing was overblown, but at some point in the future we're going to need a lot of vaccinations and need them quickly and we're going to end up not being able to meet the demand.

It's very Malthusian I'm sure for some, but it's very real evidence that people will invest their time and money into ventures that makes them more money, and unless we're careful, price controlling medicine everywhere will just result in limiting the advancement and availability of medicine. That doesn't mean I don't think Big Pharma is trying to screw us, I'm sure they want to make as much money as possible, but just that there are repercussions if we don't get the balance between price and profit just right.

learn Spanish

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Sure they would. They wouldn't have much of a choice. Of course, that's just the R&D side of it. Production would be reduced as well, especially for the lowest margin drugs. Investment would be reduced. Why would anyone invest in a venture in which profit margins are kept artificially low? Money (investment capital) doesn't grow on trees.

Understand your points, still don't think they would do it. You know what the margins on their drugs are? To me, they're abusively high. I think they're sticking it to people as it is....with the tacit approval of everyone, too, unfortunately.

Regardless of your position - The Giant Pharmaceutical conglomerates probably shouldn't have written the latest health care plan.... I think we can all agree on that.

However our last president let International Oil Companies write our Environmental Regulations - this seems to be a trend...

Cap'n Cat wrote:The market will correct prices, don't worry.

Market corrections only occur in markets that are not tampered with through restrictive legislation.

CID1990 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:The market will correct prices, don't worry.

Market corrections only occur in markets that are not tampered with through restrictive legislation.

Absent of monopolies and for products that are a choice.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Market corrections only occur in markets that are not tampered with through restrictive legislation.

Absent of monopolies and for products that are a choice.

Welcome to 2010, Kalm. Not 1920 anymore.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Absent of monopolies and for products that are a choice.

Welcome to 2010, Kalm. Not 1920 anymore.

So you're just kind of free market. Got it.