Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: geode00 who wrote (262231)	4/22/2008 2:31:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Medicare would be a big buyer as is the VA but there are plenty of private buyers as well. Medicare would be the buyer for a market of millions of individuals who would not be buying drugs in any significant quantities outside the program. It would have a dominant market presence, backed up by the ability to regulate. It would be applying power, not real negotiation. As it is, the US is SUBSIDIZING drugs for other countries. Technically it isn't, but effectively to a certain extent it is, so I won't argue the point. The problem is, that if you get rid of this quasi-subsidy, that you probably don't cause the other countries to pay more, you just set up a situation where no one is paying enough to cover a lot of drug R&D and testing. We are paying closer to market rates, the other countries exert political force to lower the prices. If we exert the same sort of force, we might get lower prices as well but we also won't get much new drug development. As it is THE ENTIRE POINT OF MEDICARE PART D is to destroy Medicare and further privatize everything. That's not just wrong its ridiculous.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next