What is this? Bernie Sanders? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama?
No, the Republican President Elect. Not the first time he has said it, just the most recent.
Trump's right about drug prices: Our view
The Editorial Board , USA TODAY Published 4:22 p.m. ET Jan. 16, 2017 | Updated 5:26 p.m. ET Jan. 16, 2017Donald Trump has certainly gotten the pharmaceutical industry's attention with his ruminations about drug prices. Within 20 minutes of last Wednesday's news conference, in which the president-elect called for the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, the industry shed roughly $25 billion in stock value.
Trump is nothing if not blunt, and in this case, he happens to be right. Drug companies are, he says, “getting away with murder. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world, and yet we don’t bid properly, and we’re going to save billions of dollars.”
As with many of Trump's proposals, exactly what he has in mind is somewhat murky. But he has hinted at two things: jawboning the drug industry, much as he has done with defense contractors and manufacturers, and allowing the government to bargain directly with drug companies.
Medicare's inability to negotiate over prices is one of the biggest tragicomedies in all of government. The situation stems from the 2003 law that created Medicare's "Part D" drug benefit but mandated that the job of negotiating would be farmed out to myriad insurance companies that don't have government's pricing power to buy in bulk.
The argument used by Big Pharma and its congressional allies to sell this unusual procedure was — and we’re not making this up — that negotiating directly to save taxpayer money constituted Big Government.
It is time to drop this ridiculous pretense, and it can be done entirely separately from the GOP's poorly conceived effort to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
Government wouldn’t refuse to negotiate directly over a new aircraft carrier or an interstate highway bridge. Why should it over drugs? When spending taxpayer money, government should not spend more than it has to.
This is especially true for Medicare, which is expected to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade on prescription drugs. Government should not pick winners and losers among individual drug companies. But it can and should use its leverage as the world's largest purchaser of prescription drugs.
Estimates on how much money could be saved through direct negotiation vary, depending on how the negotiating would take place and who is doing the estimate.
The best estimate is from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which said a plan by President Obama could save $121.3 billion over 10 years just from low-income beneficiaries.
Trump might be the one person who can challenge the powerful drug lobby and finally talk some sense into Republicans on this matter. He has changed the party’s doctrine for the worse on many issues, including trade and deficit spending. Now is a chance for him to change doctrine for the better.
USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.
The situation stems from the 2003 law that created Medicare's "Part D" drug benefit but mandated that the job of negotiating would be farmed out to myriad insurance companies that don't have government's pricing power to buy in bulk.
Hmmm. Wonder how that happened.
The situation stems from the 2003 law that created Medicare's "Part D" drug benefit but mandated that the job of negotiating would be farmed out to myriad insurance companies that don't have government's pricing power to buy in bulk.
Hmmm. Wonder how that happened.
Racism?
I would troll Bhawk too if I were you. You know you can't hold a candle to him in an honest debate, as we've seen him own you time and time again, so the only thing left is to troll. Instead of telling me that's it's not true, try winning a debate with him. I've been waiting years to see it happen just one time.
[Edited on 1/18/2017 by BoytonBrother]
The situation stems from the 2003 law that created Medicare's "Part D" drug benefit but mandated that the job of negotiating would be farmed out to myriad insurance companies that don't have government's pricing power to buy in bulk.
Hmmm. Wonder how that happened.
Congress is largely puppets for drug companies, like they are insurance companies. Plus Republicans had a majority in both houses.
But why simply post something rhetorical you already know the answer to?
What is different this time? Congress is still puppets and the Rs have the majorities. I don't recall what then President Bush's position on competitively shopping drugs for medicare, I suspect he had a party line position...Trump does not have a party line position.
Are you saying that you do not agree with what Trump has said on medicare putting drugs up for bid? Is Trump having this view somehow a bad thing in your mind? I'm confused.
