Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Proving that she, along with other Pharmacy companies are
when it comes to getting money from Insurance companies.. Time to open the "Free Market" up to the world..Good thing the OP supports exporting our terrible pharma policies as part of "free" trade dealsProving that she, along with other Pharmacy companies are
Guarantee you that if we allowed EpiPens from other countries to come to the US the price would dive immediately.
And when insurance premiums jump it's because of clowns like this - no one blames the Pharma companies. It's all on Obamacare these days. I'm thinking that insurance and pharma are in collusion to destroy pricing on drugs and premiums to topple Obamacare.Proving that she, along with other Pharmacy companies are
Guarantee you that if we allowed EpiPens from other countries to come to the US the price would dive immediately.
I heard it was more like $10. Some other company invented a version but for some reason they got some quality complaints about it possibly not giving the correct dosage and they were recalled. But after the recall and testing the company could not mind any problem with the device.
I don't, actually.
But mattyl tells me that insurance companies care about controlling costs and it's big, bad Obamacare that is to blame for everything.Proving that she, along with other Pharmacy companies are
Exactly how does shorting a stock work? I know you are betting it goes down but are you buying shares at like $38.00.
If someone like this charges 50% more to Insurance companies, should they just eat the cost???But mattyl tells me that insurance companies care about controlling costs and it's big, bad Obamacare that is to blame for everything.
You are borrowing shares from somebody else and selling them, in this case at $43.58. You then hope to buy the shares cheaper at sometime in the future and give the shares back.
Good luck with that, they're probably a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation.
This is why I'm not an ideologue.
I think it's fair to say that the insurers and pharma as private companies are going to look out for their bottom line, and that the ACA naively took for granted that these companies would play along because their best interests were protected (i.e. they were allowed to operate status quo for the most part). Well, unsurprisingly these companies want it all and more, are trying to maximize profits by leveraging the system. So blame the ACA for poorly regulating the for-profit businesses that are profiteering from the system, but to defend the insurers and pharma is also naive.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. As another poster mentioned, US citizens are prohibited from importing this good from abroad, and the government creates monopolies for prescription drugs through patent law. It seems to me that a freer market would be a viable solution to a problem like this, not the source of the problem.
Does that lessen the incentive to take risks with r&d if your profits are capped? Not that pharma companies are dis covering much these days.
Patent laws are an essential element of a free market. If it costs me $10 million of research to create a product which then costs me ten cents to produce, why should competitors also be able to produce it for ten cents and undercut me? So we have to have patents.
What you've just described is the economic rationale for why it might make sense for the government to create a monopoly, at least temporarily. That doesn't really make it a "free market" idea, more like a necessary evil.
