Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
63 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: CA Proposition 61 has drug companies very afraid rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/california-today-drug-i...

I don't think I've seen anyone else post about this. Prop 61 is the most expensive ballot campaign in California's history as the drug companies are spending tons of money trying to fight it. Basically it requires that all state agencies pay no more than the VA does for prescription drugs. Bernie Sanders has also been out in CA campaigning for prop 61.

Clearly the drug industry believes that prop 61 is going to cost them tons of money, otherwise they wouldn't be spending over $125 million fighting it.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I voted for it. It's insane how much the state (both CA and "the state" generally) pays for medication in the US. Just crazy.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
I voted for it. It's insane how much the state (both CA and "the state" generally) pays for medication in the US. Just crazy.

The drug companies are colluding on drug prices, I have no doubt about it.

As one example, Humira and Enbrel cost basically the same amount of money. Both drugs have gone up in price in lock step over the past ten years. I'm sure it is exactly the same with many other drugs that have multiple providers. It just isn't in the interest of the drug companies to compete on pricing so they have made illegal deals with each other to avoid competing on price. I'm 100% certain that I'm right and that that he only way prices are coming down is if the government forces these companies to lower them, just as most foreign governments have done.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I voted "no" because I'm against price fixing in general. If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will. If we could vote to reduce the FDA barriers for entry for new drug companies instead I'd vote "yes".

I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government. If our extremely liberal state senate can't pass something, that's a sign that the voters probably shouldn't pass it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
I voted "no" because I'm against price fixing in general. If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will. If we could vote to reduce the FDA barriers for entry for new drug companies instead I'd vote "yes".

That is where you are wrong. Companies can make more money by just splitting the market and doubling or tripling the price. Collusion is always more profitable and the drug companies have gotten very careful about making the deals so that no one can prove they have made them.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler Gobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Not the avatar you're looking for
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My main concern with it is that it could raise the cost of drugs for the VA. We need to lower the cost of prescription drugs for sure, I'm just skeptical on how effective this method will be.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
I voted "no" because I'm against price fixing in general. If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will. If we could vote to reduce the FDA barriers for entry for new drug companies instead I'd vote "yes".

I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government. If our extremely liberal state senate can't pass something, that's a sign that the voters probably shouldn't pass it.


That's rather nonsensical -- you're against price fixing, so you voted to keep letting them fix the price higher instead of fixing the price lower.

(Alright, alright, perhaps they would raise drug prices in CA in general to even things out. Still, on its face, voting for an idealistic principle when in pragmatic terms neither option is available doesn't make much sense.)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snoo Py
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
ironcates wrote:
I voted "no" because I'm against price fixing in general. If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will. If we could vote to reduce the FDA barriers for entry for new drug companies instead I'd vote "yes".

I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government. If our extremely liberal state senate can't pass something, that's a sign that the voters probably shouldn't pass it.


And I guess you're one of those who complain about Obamacare increasing the premiums.
I work in the pharma industry and I voted yes, the good of the country/state has priority, and even with this law we would still make tons of money.
No, in this industry, there are only big players,and they are all colluding, because it would be silly for them to do otherwise. And that is possible because we have dummies like you who are limiting the enforcement capacities of governments. Also the idea that we can make insane money on the public's health .....
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I voted "no" because I'm against price fixing in general. If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will. If we could vote to reduce the FDA barriers for entry for new drug companies instead I'd vote "yes".

I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government. If our extremely liberal state senate can't pass something, that's a sign that the voters probably shouldn't pass it.


That's rather nonsensical -- you're against price fixing, so you voted to keep letting them fix the price higher instead of fixing the price lower.

(Alright, alright, perhaps they would raise drug prices in CA in general to even things out. Still, on its face, voting for an idealistic principle when in pragmatic terms neither option is available doesn't make much sense.)

You'll have to study economics and the supply demand curve to make sense out of it. When the price is fixed lower than the market price you have shortages. When something is subsidized you have a glut. Perhaps a glut would be better for vaccines?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Joe Cool wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I voted "no" because I'm against price fixing in general. If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will. If we could vote to reduce the FDA barriers for entry for new drug companies instead I'd vote "yes".

I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government. If our extremely liberal state senate can't pass something, that's a sign that the voters probably shouldn't pass it.


And I guess you're one of those who complain about Obamacare increasing the premiums.

Yes, those evil insurance companies were undercharging us before Obama came in huh?
Quote:

I work in the pharma industry and I voted yes, the good of the country/state has priority, and even with this law we would still make tons of money.
No, in this industry, there are only big players,and they are all colluding, because it would be silly for them to do otherwise. And that is possible because we have dummies like you who are limiting the enforcement capacities of governments. Also the idea that we can make insane money on the public's health .....

The reason we have only big players is because it literally costs billions to get a drug approved by the FDA. This is not free market.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
In memorium. Bob Hoover died 25 Oct 2016 at 94. In WWII he was shot down in a Spitfire and stole an FW-190 to escape. He spent decades at air shows flying Ole Yeller, shown
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TylerGoble1 wrote:
My main concern with it is that it could raise the cost of drugs for the VA. We need to lower the cost of prescription drugs for sure, I'm just skeptical on how effective this method will be.

I don't really see it as a solution in itself, but a big stick to beat the drug companies into pre-empting it with national legislation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Joe Cool wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I voted "no" because I'm against price fixing in general. If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will. If we could vote to reduce the FDA barriers for entry for new drug companies instead I'd vote "yes".

I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government. If our extremely liberal state senate can't pass something, that's a sign that the voters probably shouldn't pass it.


And I guess you're one of those who complain about Obamacare increasing the premiums.

Yes, those evil insurance companies were undercharging us before Obama came in huh?
Quote:

I work in the pharma industry and I voted yes, the good of the country/state has priority, and even with this law we would still make tons of money.
No, in this industry, there are only big players,and they are all colluding, because it would be silly for them to do otherwise. And that is possible because we have dummies like you who are limiting the enforcement capacities of governments. Also the idea that we can make insane money on the public's health .....

The reason we have only big players is because it literally costs billions to get a drug approved by the FDA. This is not free market.


Actually more like the billions are being spent on advertising rather than anything else like R&D.

"The biggest spender, Johnson & Johnson, shelled out $17.5 billion on sales and marketing in 2013, compared with $8.2 billion for R&D. In the top 10, only Roche spent more on R&D than on sales and marketing.

Most of this marketing money is directed at the physicians who do the prescribing, rather than consumers. As Oliver pointed out, drug companies spent more than $3 billion a year marketing to consumers in the U.S. in 2012, but an estimated $24 billion marketing directly to health care professionals."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...

But why let facts get in the way

12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government.

Did you vote "no" on Prop 8?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will.

Wait... you're guaranteeing that companies won't collude to keep prices high? You understand companies actually do collude, right? Are you using your own special definition of "guarantee" or something?
7 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government.

Did you vote "no" on Prop 8?

A yes vote reduced government involvement in marriage. I wish I could vote yes to get the government out of the straight marriage business too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
ironcates wrote:
If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will.

Wait... you're guaranteeing that companies won't collude to keep prices high? You understand companies actually do collude, right? Are you using your own special definition of "guarantee" or something?
An example might help your argument.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government.

Did you vote "no" on Prop 8?

A yes vote reduced government involvement in marriage. I wish I could vote yes to get the government out of the straight marriage business too.


A yes vote on Prop 8 stripped away the rights of gay citizens to marry. You wish to expound upon how the government deciding who can and can't get married "reduces" their involvement. Or can we just mark this up to a hypocritical defense of bigotry. The right seems to be a endless font of this these days
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
ironcates wrote:
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government.

Did you vote "no" on Prop 8?

A yes vote reduced government involvement in marriage. I wish I could vote yes to get the government out of the straight marriage business too.


A yes vote on Prop 8 stripped away the rights of gay citizens to marry. You wish to expound upon how the government deciding who can and can't get married "reduces" their involvement. Or can we just mark this up to a hypocritical defense of bigotry. The right seems to be a endless font of this these days

I want the government out of the marriage business altogether. Civil union contracts are all they need to enforce the laws that I probably don't agree with either. Marriage is such a personally weighted commitment with religious overtones. The government shouldn't establish religion so get it out of government. I'm for getting rid of straight marriage monitored by the government too.

Doesn't really matter what I think now anyway. Congrats you won.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
ironcates wrote:
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government.

Did you vote "no" on Prop 8?

A yes vote reduced government involvement in marriage. I wish I could vote yes to get the government out of the straight marriage business too.


A yes vote on Prop 8 stripped away the rights of gay citizens to marry. You wish to expound upon how the government deciding who can and can't get married "reduces" their involvement. Or can we just mark this up to a hypocritical defense of bigotry. The right seems to be a endless font of this these days

I want the government out of the marriage business altogether. Civil union contracts are all they need to enforce the laws that I probably don't agree with either. Marriage is such a personally weighted commitment with religious overtones. The government shouldn't establish religion so get it out of government. I'm for getting rid of straight marriage monitored by the government too.

Doesn't really matter what I think now anyway. Congrats you won.

Nothing preventing anyone from just signing civil union contracts already. You seem to want the government to force everyone to get married how you want them to rather than allowing them to make their own choice in the matter.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
ironcates wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
ironcates wrote:
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government.

Did you vote "no" on Prop 8?

A yes vote reduced government involvement in marriage. I wish I could vote yes to get the government out of the straight marriage business too.


A yes vote on Prop 8 stripped away the rights of gay citizens to marry. You wish to expound upon how the government deciding who can and can't get married "reduces" their involvement. Or can we just mark this up to a hypocritical defense of bigotry. The right seems to be a endless font of this these days

I want the government out of the marriage business altogether. Civil union contracts are all they need to enforce the laws that I probably don't agree with either. Marriage is such a personally weighted commitment with religious overtones. The government shouldn't establish religion so get it out of government. I'm for getting rid of straight marriage monitored by the government too.

Doesn't really matter what I think now anyway. Congrats you won.

Nothing preventing anyone from just signing civil union contracts already. You seem to want the government to force everyone to get married how you want them to rather than allowing them to make their own choice in the matter.

Nothing was stopping them from getting married before. Should the government start recording who's been baptized or participated in a cult ritual? Everyone has a choice of how they want to live their life. Why does the government have to monitor that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
sfox wrote:
ironcates wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
ironcates wrote:
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government.

Did you vote "no" on Prop 8?

A yes vote reduced government involvement in marriage. I wish I could vote yes to get the government out of the straight marriage business too.


A yes vote on Prop 8 stripped away the rights of gay citizens to marry. You wish to expound upon how the government deciding who can and can't get married "reduces" their involvement. Or can we just mark this up to a hypocritical defense of bigotry. The right seems to be a endless font of this these days

I want the government out of the marriage business altogether. Civil union contracts are all they need to enforce the laws that I probably don't agree with either. Marriage is such a personally weighted commitment with religious overtones. The government shouldn't establish religion so get it out of government. I'm for getting rid of straight marriage monitored by the government too.

Doesn't really matter what I think now anyway. Congrats you won.

Nothing preventing anyone from just signing civil union contracts already. You seem to want the government to force everyone to get married how you want them to rather than allowing them to make their own choice in the matter.

Nothing was stopping them from getting married before. Should the government start recording who's been baptized or participated in a cult ritual? Everyone has a choice of how they want to live their life. Why does the government have to monitor that?


Are you publically displaying your ignorance for entertainment value? They could not get married before because the government said they could not. They did not have the same legal rights as other married couples. So stating that Prop 8 reduced government involvement in marriage is such unadulterated bullshit it is amazing you expect to be taken seriously.

And its not so much we "won" as bigotry seems to be on the way to losing. Sorry if that disappoints
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
kuhrusty wrote:
ironcates wrote:
If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will.

Wait... you're guaranteeing that companies won't collude to keep prices high? You understand companies actually do collude, right? Are you using your own special definition of "guarantee" or something?

An example might help your argument.

Just from the first few Google hits on "collusion pricing examples," I was going to use the "Great Electrical Equipment Conspiracy," a decades-long scam involving 47 companies agreeing on who would bid lowest, but the first example from here is a pharmaceutical company! colluding with its competitors to fix prices on vitamins--again, over decades. These companies certainly could have undercut each other for profit, and instead colluded to keep prices high.
8 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Nothing was stopping them from getting married before. Should the government start recording who's been baptized or participated in a cult ritual? Everyone has a choice of how they want to live their life. Why does the government have to monitor that?

Have you visited the US!? Here, marriage has a secular meaning which is independent of religion. That's what Prop. 8 was about, not some "cult ritual."
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
shumyum
United States
flag msg tools
badge
♒♒♒♒♎♒♒♒♒ sloooowly sinking
Avatar
This should not be a proposition. This should be decided by bureaucrats. I'm completely serious.

There is no way the general population knows the intricacies and ramifications of this issue nor should they have to.

Edit: I'm talking about Prop 61...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve K
United States
flag msg tools
Kumitedad wrote:
ironcates wrote:
Joe Cool wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I voted "no" because I'm against price fixing in general. If a company can come in an undercut another for profit, I guarantee they will. If we could vote to reduce the FDA barriers for entry for new drug companies instead I'd vote "yes".

I vote "no" on just about every prop in California unless it reduces government. If our extremely liberal state senate can't pass something, that's a sign that the voters probably shouldn't pass it.


And I guess you're one of those who complain about Obamacare increasing the premiums.

Yes, those evil insurance companies were undercharging us before Obama came in huh?
Quote:

I work in the pharma industry and I voted yes, the good of the country/state has priority, and even with this law we would still make tons of money.
No, in this industry, there are only big players,and they are all colluding, because it would be silly for them to do otherwise. And that is possible because we have dummies like you who are limiting the enforcement capacities of governments. Also the idea that we can make insane money on the public's health .....

The reason we have only big players is because it literally costs billions to get a drug approved by the FDA. This is not free market.


Actually more like the billions are being spent on advertising rather than anything else like R&D.

"The biggest spender, Johnson & Johnson, shelled out $17.5 billion on sales and marketing in 2013, compared with $8.2 billion for R&D. In the top 10, only Roche spent more on R&D than on sales and marketing.

Most of this marketing money is directed at the physicians who do the prescribing, rather than consumers. As Oliver pointed out, drug companies spent more than $3 billion a year marketing to consumers in the U.S. in 2012, but an estimated $24 billion marketing directly to health care professionals."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...

But why let facts get in the way



Because your facts are irrelevant. You are assuming irrationality on behalf of the firm. this actually underscores ironcates point. These companies look very hard at what the best return for their investment. They are the paramount authority on the issue, with all the relevant information and understanding of their market. And what they see says, R&D has a lower return than peddling what they already have. Do you get this? Your opinion on what a company does is irrelevant. What a company does **is** the information that is relevant.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.