Lol.

---

That wouldn't work. They would maove their manufacturing back overseas just as quickly as they brought it here.  Export tariffs are extremely hard to get right. 
We should just join other countries with the price cap idea.  If they need more money for research, let them apply for grants.

Yeah, price controls are the answer. 

Well export tariffs go against the libertarian ideals you claim, just like taxes and price caps do. Libertarian ideals don't work in this arena because it's not really a free market when you need something to save your life and only one entity is selling it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol.

---

Yeah, price controls are the answer. 

Well export tariffs go against the libertarian ideals you claim, just like taxes and price caps do. Libertarian ideals don't work in this arena because it's not really a free market when you need something to save your life and only one entity is selling it.

I've always claimed Libertarian ideals in the context of America First. You cannot have a free market when other partners play by different rules, that's why I do not support uncontrolled free trade, because we cannot fairly compete with slave labor and price caps.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well export tariffs go against the libertarian ideals you claim, just like taxes and price caps do. Libertarian ideals don't work in this arena because it's not really a free market when you need something to save your life and only one entity is selling it.

I've always claimed Libertarian ideals in the context of America First. You cannot have a free market when other partners play by different rules, that's why I do not support uncontrolled free trade, because we cannot fairly compete with slave labor and price caps.

I'm with you on imposing import tariffs on countries with terrible labor conditions or destructive environmental policy, but I don't see why a country like Canada or Germany should be in that category for capping the prices of certain drugs.
If the price cap was too low, the drug company wouldn't sell it to them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The reason prices are higher in America is because foreign countries place price caps on their products. It's just one more way that America subsidizes the whole planet. And all business exploit for profit, that's Capitalism. If we really wanted to win this we'd lower taxes to bring their manufacturing here then tariff the hell out of the exports to make those other countries pay their fair share. But no one in power wants that, they have it good already, on our backs.

That wouldn't work. They would maove their manufacturing back overseas just as quickly as they brought it here.  Export tariffs are extremely hard to get right. 
We should just join other countries with the price cap idea.  If they need more money for research, let them apply for grants.

Import tariff’s.  I see how he wrote it but it was clearly implied.  You knew that but still had to be you.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I just think we need to start capping how much individuals can make from corporations.

---

I just think we need to start capping how much individuals can make from corporations.

I get what you are saying but that is a slippery slope.  Once the feds start capping profits where does it end?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

That wouldn't work. They would maove their manufacturing back overseas just as quickly as they brought it here.  Export tariffs are extremely hard to get right. 
We should just join other countries with the price cap idea.  If they need more money for research, let them apply for grants.

Import tariff’s.  I see how he wrote it but it was clearly implied.  You knew that but still had to be you.

Oh really? And how would an import tariff inposed by the United States ensure that other countries pay higher prices for drugs? Is that what you meant, FSG?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Import tariff’s.  I see how he wrote it but it was clearly implied.  You knew that but still had to be you.

Oh really? And how would an import tariff inposed by the United States ensure that other countries pay higher prices for drugs? Is that what you meant, FSG?

If China can build something for $1 but it cost $3 to build it here and you raise tariffs to make that product cost the same or more then then US corporations will bring the manufacturing back home to maximize profits.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Oh really? And how would an import tariff inposed by the United States ensure that other countries pay higher prices for drugs? Is that what you meant, FSG?

If China can build something for $1 but it cost $3 to build it here and you raise tariffs to make that product cost the same or more then then US corporations will bring the manufacturing back home to maximize profits.

So you want MORE Government intervention.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

Oh really? And how would an import tariff inposed by the United States ensure that other countries pay higher prices for drugs? Is that what you meant, FSG?

If China can build something for $1 but it cost $3 to build it here and you raise tariffs to make that product cost the same or more then then US corporations will bring the manufacturing back home to maximize profits.

Sure but that's not what FSG said.  What you described could bring the manufacturing home, yes, but the consumer pays more, not less.  FSG was saying drug buyers would pay less, somehow.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Import tariff’s.  I see how he wrote it but it was clearly implied.  You knew that but still had to be you.

Oh really? And how would an import tariff inposed by the United States ensure that other countries pay higher prices for drugs? Is that what you meant, FSG?

No, I meant that you make the environment for manufacturing in this Country supremely appealing to the producers, then you partner with them to control supply to those countries that insist on price caps. Pharmaceuticals are not fungible, we could leverage them to break the price control schemes and force the other countries to pay their fair share. An import tariff plan would be essentially a trade war where we deny the American Market to those countries that won't play nice. Either strategy takes time and would be painful, but the resulting level playing field would be worth it IMO. The alternative is that we continue to pay for everyone else with money we keep borrowing and eventually we'll have another Depression.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I just think we need to start capping how much individuals can make from corporations.

I get what you are saying but that is a slippery slope.  Once the feds start capping profits where does it end?

I welcome the slippery slope. All conservatism has left me as it pertains to the global elite. I would cap it to a percentage of the median income. We still want economic incentives, but it's way beyond that, imo.

---

I get what you are saying but that is a slippery slope.  Once the feds start capping profits where does it end?

I welcome the slippery slope. All conservatism has left me as it pertains to the global elite. I would cap it to a percentage of the median income. We still want economic incentives, but it's way beyond that, imo.

I would just take the research away from them and then provide the drugs developed at cost + % or $X cap to generic manufacturers. Without researchers or ability to create new drugs, the companies would quickly fold.

If you pay the researchers or pay universities, etc to develop the drugs then you solve the issues. If you offer bonuses for developing lower cost drugs, provide incentives to share research, etc it would help create a lot of better drugs that are cheaper.

Cancer drugs could be revolutionized if someone would just pay for the research on a lot of off label cheap drugs that seem to work.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Oh really? And how would an import tariff inposed by the United States ensure that other countries pay higher prices for drugs? Is that what you meant, FSG?

No, I meant that you make the environment for manufacturing in this Country supremely appealing to the producers, then you partner with them to control supply to those countries that insist on price caps. Pharmaceuticals are not fungible, we could leverage them to break the price control schemes and force the other countries to pay their fair share. An import tariff plan would be essentially a trade war where we deny the American Market to those countries that won't play nice. Either strategy takes time and would be painful, but the resulting level playing field would be worth it IMO. The alternative is that we continue to pay for everyone else with money we keep borrowing and eventually we'll have another Depression.

If I'm a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, the appealing place to manufacture would be the place that lets me export to any country I would like to export to.  Your idea is more than painful, it contradicts itself.  I think you're saying it would be a bait and switch.. but that would probably take more than 8 years.  Very unlikely we would ever have the continuity of government necessary to wait out such a strategy.
Meanwhile, price caps can be implemented short term.  And they would stay.  "Hey that guy wants to make drugs expensive again" "Well I won't vote for him then."

---

I welcome the slippery slope. All conservatism has left me as it pertains to the global elite. I would cap it to a percentage of the median income. We still want economic incentives, but it's way beyond that, imo.

I would just take the research away from them and then provide the drugs developed at cost + % or $X cap to generic manufacturers. Without  researchers or ability to create new drugs, the companies would quickly fold.

If you pay the researchers or pay universities, etc to develop the drugs then you solve the issues. If you offer bonuses for developing lower cost drugs, provide incentives to share research, etc it would help create a lot of better drugs that are cheaper.

Cancer drugs could be revolutionized if someone would just pay for the research on a lot of off label cheap drugs that seem to work.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

You're on the right track.  No need to blow up capitalism as we know it.  Just pay for research up front rather than on the back end.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No, I meant that you make the environment for manufacturing in this Country supremely appealing to the producers, then you partner with them to control supply to those countries that insist on price caps. Pharmaceuticals are not fungible, we could leverage them to break the price control schemes and force the other countries to pay their fair share. An import tariff plan would be essentially a trade war where we deny the American Market to those countries that won't play nice. Either strategy takes time and would be painful, but the resulting level playing field would be worth it IMO. The alternative is that we continue to pay for everyone else with money we keep borrowing and eventually we'll have another Depression.

If I'm a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, the appealing place to manufacture would be the place that lets me export to any country I would like to export to.  Your idea is more than painful, it contradicts itself.  I think you're saying it would be a bait and switch.. but that would probably take more than 8 years.  Very unlikely we would ever have the continuity of government necessary to wait out such a strategy.
Meanwhile, price caps can be implemented short term.  And they would stay.  "Hey that guy wants to make drugs expensive again" "Well I won't vote for him then."

---

I would just take the research away from them and then provide the drugs developed at cost + % or $X cap to generic manufacturers. Without  researchers or ability to create new drugs, the companies would quickly fold.

If you pay the researchers or pay universities, etc to develop the drugs then you solve the issues. If you offer bonuses for developing lower cost drugs, provide incentives to share research, etc it would help create a lot of better drugs that are cheaper.

Cancer drugs could be revolutionized if someone would just pay for the research on a lot of off label cheap drugs that seem to work.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

You're on the right track.  No need to blow up capitalism as we know it.  Just pay for research up front rather than on the back end.

No, because they don't currently get to export to "any country they would like to", they only get to go to countries when they agree to cap their price. A Country powerful enough to help me break those conditions, as the US is, would be an ideal partnership. Just because you're incapable of wielding actual power (like the Pubs you claim to support) doesn't mean it can't be done. And the domestic market would be at worst no different and potentially much more favorable in this scenario, so getting votes, especially from people who unlike you actually like America and want it to be the world leader, would be a cinch.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If I'm a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, the appealing place to manufacture would be the place that lets me export to any country I would like to export to.  Your idea is more than painful, it contradicts itself.  I think you're saying it would be a bait and switch.. but that would probably take more than 8 years.  Very unlikely we would ever have the continuity of government necessary to wait out such a strategy.
Meanwhile, price caps can be implemented short term.  And they would stay.  "Hey that guy wants to make drugs expensive again" "Well I won't vote for him then."

---

You're on the right track.  No need to blow up capitalism as we know it.  Just pay for research up front rather than on the back end.

No, because they don't currently get to export to "any country they would like to", they only get to go to countries when they agree to cap their price. A Country powerful enough to help me break those conditions, as the US is, would be an ideal partnership. Just because you're incapable of wielding actual power (like the Pubs you claim to support) doesn't mean it can't be done. And the domestic market would be at worst no different and potentially much more favorable in this scenario, so getting votes, especially from people who unlike you actually like America and want it to be the world leader, would be a cinch.

Any drug company, today, can say no to any price cap they don't like.
UK NHS: "We cap that drug at £5 per dose."
Pfizer: "Fine.  Buy it from someone else, because we won't sell at that price."
or 
Eli Lilly: "That's patented, friends.  £8 per dose or you don't get it from anyone."

These negotiations are going on all the time for numerous drugs in numerous countries, but usually out of the public eye (which allows some corruption of course, but I digress).  Countries don't announce price caps unless a manufacturer is on board with it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think you're right. Government in other country decides how much they are prepared to subsidize drugs for and will pass if the price is too high. Then it's up to drug co to decide. Is zero revenue better than capped revenue?

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

No, because they don't currently get to export to "any country they would like to", they only get to go to countries when they agree to cap their price. A Country powerful enough to help me break those conditions, as the US is, would be an ideal partnership. Just because you're incapable of wielding actual power (like the Pubs you claim to support) doesn't mean it can't be done. And the domestic market would be at worst no different and potentially much more favorable in this scenario, so getting votes, especially from people who unlike you actually like America and want it to be the world leader, would be a cinch.

Any drug company, today, can say no to any price cap they don't like.
UK NHS: "We cap that drug at £5 per dose."
Pfizer: "Fine.  Buy it from someone else, because we won't sell at that price."
or 
Eli Lilly: "That's patented, friends.  £8 per dose or you don't get it from anyone."

These negotiations are going on all the time for numerous drugs in numerous countries, but usually out of the public eye (which allows some corruption of course, but I digress).  Countries don't announce price caps unless a manufacturer is on board with it.

I think you're right. Government in other country decides how much they are prepared to subsidize drugs for and will pass if the price is too high. Then it's up to drug co to decide. Is zero revenue better than capped revenue?

There is a lot more that goes into negotiations than just the price. Price frankly is not that important unless it is a niche product and will not have much volume. Volume is much more important as is tier status. Most of the rebates and reimbursements are built around meeting volume targets.

Price is set but generally not that important as the rebates bring the price down to what is actually paid.

Then there are non-contracted drugs where they can offer the consumer the rebate and not deal with the insurance companies.

They use models for all of these and it's very interesting in the data they use for them. Then they have to track the contract performance, monitor fraud from the payers, charge backs when they catch fraud, etc.

Then the whole other side to it is the insurance and the formulary tiers. That's almost worse than the drug companies as they decide what drugs are covered regardless of the best drug for you. There is a reason you have certain drugs offered on different tiers. Tier 1 is basically generic, tier 2 and 3 is where the companies fight over and will pay to keep other drugs off or preferred status. It's all done based on the rebates and generally nothing to do with your needs.

In the past I've built a lot of the systems that helped do all of this, it's why I hate this industry because of how backwards it is.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

No, because they don't currently get to export to "any country they would like to", they only get to go to countries when they agree to cap their price. A Country powerful enough to help me break those conditions, as the US is, would be an ideal partnership. Just because you're incapable of wielding actual power (like the Pubs you claim to support) doesn't mean it can't be done. And the domestic market would be at worst no different and potentially much more favorable in this scenario, so getting votes, especially from people who unlike you actually like America and want it to be the world leader, would be a cinch.

Any drug company, today, can say no to any price cap they don't like.
UK NHS: "We cap that drug at £5 per dose."
Pfizer: "Fine.  Buy it from someone else, because we won't sell at that price."
or 
Eli Lilly: "That's patented, friends.  £8 per dose or you don't get it from anyone."
or
USA: "Hey guys, work with us and we'll get you 40 a dose from those countries."

These negotiations are going on all the time for numerous drugs in numerous countries, but usually out of the public eye (which allows some corruption of course, but I digress).  Countries don't announce price caps unless a manufacturer is on board with it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Any drug company, today, can say no to any price cap they don't like.
UK NHS: "We cap that drug at £5 per dose."
Pfizer: "Fine.  Buy it from someone else, because we won't sell at that price."
or 
Eli Lilly: "That's patented, friends.  £8 per dose or you don't get it from anyone."
or
USA: "Hey guys, work with us and we'll get you 40 a dose from those countries."

These negotiations are going on all the time for numerous drugs in numerous countries, but usually out of the public eye (which allows some corruption of course, but I digress).  Countries don't announce price caps unless a manufacturer is on board with it.

How can the US cause the UK to pay for something that the UK doesn't want to pay for?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.