Pfizer CEO: Hillary’s Drug Proposal “Drives” Us Toward Single-payer
. . . and rationing
The prof’s post entitled “ObamaCare is the Gateway Drug to Single-payer” couldn’t be more apt. There are serious flaws with ObamaCare, and in the terms by which it was presented to the American people, it has been a colossal failure from its foundation to its implementation . . . at least those “good” and popular parts that Obama has allowed to take effect (he’s kicked the not-so-good, deeply unpopular parts down the road).
Hillary has a plan to address the problem that she sees as central to ObamaCare’s continued unpopularity, and that plan (surprise, surprise) involves the federal government’s involvement with / setting of prescription drug pricing. Her plan is so threatening to free market principles that Pfizer’s CEO says that if implemented this plan will lead directly to single-payer.
The head of Pfizer Inc., America’s biggest drugmaker, said that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s proposals to contain the price of pharmaceuticals would be “very negative” for the industry and are a step toward single-payer health care.
Pfizer CEO Ian Read criticized Clinton’s plan, which she released earlier this month, at an investor conference hosted by Wells Fargo in Boston. Clinton’s prescription drug policy would give the government a broad role in overseeing drug prices, including a board to monitor sharp cost increases, and would specifically target price hikes on older medicines.
“The Clinton approach to health care drives you to a one-payer system, and drives you to rationing, drives you to a place where most consumers don’t want to be,” Read said. “In its totality it would be very negative for innovation.”
For Hillary’s part, her campaign responded to this criticism by trotting out the old standby: “profits before patients.”
In a statement, Clinton campaign spokeswoman Julie Wood said that the candidate has called for expanding investments in innovation for health care.
“She’s said clearly that our pharmaceutical and biotech industries are great sources of innovation and she wants to support their development of new treatments,” Wood said. “But she shares the outrage of Americans who have been subjected to unjustified price hikes for treatments that have long been on the market, and she’s going to hold drug companies accountable when they put profits before patients.”
Interestingly, we’ve just seen the market work as intended. Facing intense public pressure after substantially raising the price of its epipens, Mylan announced that it will be introducing a generic version of the same device. The price, currently at $300 for the new generic, is still much higher than the $50 it originally was; should the consumer protest, the price of the generic will go down. If it doesn’t, another company will step up and fill that need (if the FDA permits it to do so).
Supply. Demand.
Once again the “profit before patients” mantra is disproved; a private company can set whatever price it likes . . . within the parameters the consumer-patient finds reasonable. In a free market, the consumer holds the company accountable, and change quickly follows any misstep (remember “new Coke“?). In a central planning system, the price is set by an entity against which most people are not wealthy enough to have legal recourse, and as we’ve seen with ObamaCare, ethanol, and a host of other government-managed sectors of our economy, demand can be “created” or “mandated” via law, rules, and regulations.
Single-payer has long been the progressive goal, and Hillary’s drug plan is just one more step in that direction.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Typical Marxist, communist. Control the banks, control the media, control the schools, control healthcare…….just as planned!!!
Yes, control everything for you and I…but they and their friends?
Nay, Nay…free market – or more likely simply “free” for them, paid for by us.
Once America is centralized, they will move on to phase two of their agenda, central globalized power. which won’t take long with the European Union gladly joining for the leather jacket.
Pfizer’s CEO gave an answer that toes the PC line, but doctors are very scared Hillary’s radical approach will result in a reversal of gains our citizens have enjoyed in life span and survival from formerly deadly diseases, cancers and injuries.
In socialized-medicine, single payer schemes (including our VA and Medicaid plans) the amount of care provided is managed as a budget item. If you’re going blind in England, you’ll only get treatment for one eye, the government can’t recoup their investment in you (you won’t pay enough taxes before you lose your vision) so treating one eye is deemed ‘appropriate’.
Political animals like the Clintons will force Pfizer to come out with new transgender hormones before they can make a desperately needed antibiotic, we’ll see spending for conditions affecting one race prioritized, while development of treatments to help political enemies will be curbed.
When she decides she wants to be the one paying for development, only things Hillary likes will get developed. Scared yet?
Least you forget, Der Donald wants to control health care, too.
“We can’t have people dying in the streets…”
Remember?
Remember!
One of them will be elected!
Hillary and Trump are not equal!
Hillary will do far more damage to conservativism than will Trump!
Hillary = 40 years of a liberal court!
Voting #NeverTrump elects Hillary!
A ‘Principle’ that forces you into an action that destroys your principles is a fallacy!
The left became powerful by keeping the goal in sight and using tactical compromises to move the agenda forward. Only a fool would deny that fact. Only a fool would deny that tactic to his side.
A conscience is not always right! Hitler followed his – look what happened. A blind allegiance to a false conscience is a form of denial of reality. You ignore the reality of the consequences of your actions and claim moral superiority – the worst of both worlds.
Rags refuses to make a plan to deal with the consequences of a Hillary victory because it would force him to deal with the reality of the harm she will do – something he refuses to do. He stays in his denial and justifies it with his claim of ‘voting his conscience’.
Rags view of the world is limited by the walls of his colon! He wants to make it your view.
Note that I’m personally and viciously attacked by VaPigman for stating a fact.
Not my opinion, just a blank fact.
ThoughtPolicing allows for no heresy, no straying from the herd. Those speaking facts that run against the approved memes must be silenced, and those who dare to hold such ideas silently must be intimidated.
I spit on a “movement” like the one that spawns such a departure from the norms of American independence and conservative ideas.
And, of course, being a T-rump sucker, VaPigman resorts to plain old lying. I’ve told him my “plan”…several times. He keeps lying about it, because he thinks its some kind of kill-shot.
rags,
after we take out your the calling, your only disagreement with me is your claim to have a plan.
Let’s talk about your plan. Back in June we discussed this. Your response to me was:
“I’m sorry you are a lying SOS. I have a plan, often articulated, but recognizing it would rob you of your lying-point.
My plans is elegant in simplicity, and allows me to be true to my standards/values/and what some of you T-rump suckers sneeringly refer to as my “principles”.
I won’t vote for a stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist fraud. You will.”
You won’t vote for Trump – that’s your plan.
But that’s not the plan I asked about. Not then and not now. What I asked for was your plan to deal with the consequences of not voting for Trump. To do the thing that separates adults from children and humans from animals. To think of the consequences of your actions and accept responsibility for the mess they create. Children and puppies spill the drink and expect someone else to clean it up. Adults clean up their own mess. You have consistently refused to man up and face the consequences of the action you advocate. Denying the consequences of your actions is juvenile behavior.
You continue to call me a liar. Because you are in denial, you see truth as a lie. That which disagrees with your fantasy must be false. If you deal with the consequences of your plan, your fantasy falls apart. So you attack those who ask you to explain. You call them “a lying SOS” and “T-rump suckers” to bully them into silence. Those who ask you to explain your position are accused of trying to silence you. You are the thought police you claim to despise.
Truth. And I’m proud to speak it.
No, you stinking, lying, Collectivist thug.
My plan…as I’ve stated…is to wake up every day determined to be the best person I can be.
Regardless of which stinking, lying pathological Collectivist thug is elected by the likes of you, I’ll just have to do my best to support good people wherever I can find them, which is all any one person can hope to do.
I’ll also be the vocal, militate, and aware supporter of the Constitution you and your little yellow god hate so much. Which means that if he’s in office…just as if Hellary is in office…I’ll work to get them legally removed, and fight them until that happens.
I’ll keep this so that I won’t have to write it again to refute your lies. You’ll have to make up new ones.
If you can’t man up and be an adult, being the victim is all you got left.
I wouldn’t know. I’ll take your experienced word for it, you lying thug.
how does not wanting people to die in the streets equate to controlling health care???
to me it shows he cares about people
To me…and anyone with a brain…it shows he’s a believer in the Collectivist bullshit that we “let people die in the streets”…
AND he intends to use the Federal government to “fix it”.
As he’s said.
one more time how does people dying in the streets equate to a single payer system
There are WORLDS of ways to screw up health care besides “single payer”.
Where have you been for the last 7-8 years?
Ever hear of the VA?
The Indian Health Service?
The government has special controls in place that make it difficult for anyone to field a generic. That’s why the generic being offered by the original manufacturer is still very expensive.
the original company putting out a generic is interesting to say the least, the ideal of generic drug is it’s supposed to be same as the original drug but the inert/filler material might be different, the company putting it out would not have the cost of FDA circus hoops to get it approved, the is what happened to the company trying to put out a generic EPI-pen, the FDA wanted them to do the same testing for the original drug.