Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 74 of 74
  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    Again: "negotiation" only works if either side is ABLE and WILLING to walk away. So by all means, negotiate. We'd like your $500 drug to be $400. No. Next step? Either Medicare recipients don't get the drug, or?


  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    So are you saying that you favor Pelosi’s approach?

    When you talk to your wife, do you show her tweets of what someone else said or do you have your own thoughts that you state directly?

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    So are you saying that you favor Pelosi’s approach?

    When you talk to your wife, do you show her tweets of what someone else said or do you have your own thoughts that you state directly?
    Section2 asked what happened when the drug companies refused to negotiate. It's right there in the article.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    Thank you. So not a negotiation. Government force. Why lie Nancy?

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    Section2 asked what happened when the drug companies refused to negotiate. It's right there in the article.
    I didn't read the article. And you are using misleading language as well. Drug companies won't "refuse to negotiate". They might "refuse to do what the government wants."

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    Thank you. So not a negotiation. Government force. Why lie Nancy?
    Good. Government forces is absolutely required in this area. I welcome it.

    I feel that, too much profit, making too many people too rich, happens in the drug making business.

    (Note: "too" is of course subjective)

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    I didn't read the article. And you are using misleading language as well. Drug companies won't "refuse to negotiate". They might "refuse to do what the government wants."
    It says negotiate in good faith.

    Good faith is somewhat subjective, but I don't think they're going to be splitting hairs. I think they (the government) will accept incremental improvement, as long as the drug companies are willing to give at least an inch. Stonewalling, pretending they don't have to give anything, etc. will bring the hammer, which I think is correct.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    Good. Government forces is absolutely required in this area. I welcome it.

    I feel that, too much profit, making too many people too rich, happens in the drug making business.

    (Note: "too" is of course subjective)
    There is too much profit. Perhaps the government should cease giving drug companies monopolies. No need for more force, when the initial problem is force.
    Of course, new force will come with all kinds of new problems, and probably won't solve the initial problem. And then on to the next fix. That's why we have the health care system we have today.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    It says negotiate in good faith.

    Good faith is somewhat subjective, but I don't think they're going to be splitting hairs. I think they (the government) will accept incremental improvement, as long as the drug companies are willing to give at least an inch. Stonewalling, pretending they don't have to give anything, etc. will bring the hammer, which I think is correct.
    Good faith isn't "somewhat" subjective, it's 100% subjective. The most important market mechanism is the free price system.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    Good faith isn't "somewhat" subjective, it's 100% subjective. The most important market mechanism is the free price system.
    It is subjective, my point is that I don't think the Gov. is looking to bring the hammer down. Rather, they're looking for the drug companies to give an inch, as opposed to stonewalling.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    It is subjective, my point is that I don't think the Gov. is looking to bring the hammer down. Rather, they're looking for the drug companies to give an inch, as opposed to stonewalling.
    A penalty of 75% of sales (not profits) is about as large of a hammer as you can wield. You will do what the government says or else.

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    A penalty of 75% of sales (not profits) is about as large of a hammer as you can wield. You will do what the government says or else.
    It is a big hammer, but I think they don't want to use it. They just want the threat of it to force the companies to do something more than nothing.

  13. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    It is a big hammer, but I think they don't want to use it.
    Of course not. They just want to slow the rate of drug price inflation a percentage point. And now you're on ignore like G4L.

  14. #74

    Default

    What the hell is Mnpls anyway?
    Who hates iowa?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •