Trump opens can of worms with blast at drugmakers

Why? Because that would seriously cut into Big Pharma's profits. It has NOTHING to do with the safety of the drug or the device.

The counterfeit drug industry is a $200 billion a year business, and it is estimated that 10% of all drugs are counterfeit. And yes, many of the drugs that are re-imported into the US are counterfeit. So that's reason #1.

The other reason it's illegal is because countries like Canada impose price controls on American manufacturers and threaten their patents if they don't what they're told. Most people who want to buy re-imported drugs that government "negotiated" at the point of a gun don't realize that they are benefiting from socialism. Many don't care as long as they get the lower cost. To hell with everyone else. Others, however, do care because they know that without profit, there is no innovation.

I'd like to see my kids live in a world where drug resistant bacteria, cancer, Parkinsons, Malaria, MS, MD, ALS and on and on are no longer a threat. The sure way to kill that dream is to control the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

Trump is going to diverge from Republicans and from Conservative orthodoxy at certain times.

Allowing big pharma to bankrupt the middle class is not part of the conservative orthodoxy.

Yes but I’m not seeing anything from the lawmakers who seem to have minds of their own. The GOP claim to have a position but I can’t find it. If they do have one I’ll be shocked they can agree on anything at all.

The counterfeit drug industry is a $200 billion a year business, and it is estimated that 10% of all drugs are counterfeit. And yes, many of the drugs that are re-imported into the US are counterfeit. So that's reason #1.

So, you wish to restrict my freedom to purchase a legal product offered for sale in the open market in order to protect me from fraud? How kind of you. My freedom is not yours to give or withhold no matter how much you wish to protect me. What rights do I really have if your wish to protect me is sufficient cause to remove them? Unalienable rights? Well, yeah, unless maybe I might hurt myself or be defrauded. Is that it?

The other reason it's illegal is because countries like Canada impose price controls on American manufacturers and threaten their patents if they don't what they're told.

Again, you wish to restrict my right to purchase an item in the free market because of someone elses crimes [price controls]. The pharmaceutical companies are free to negotiate their deals with other countries as they see fit. If my freedom to purchase a legal item causes that "deal" to be unprofitable then how is that my problem and what gives anyone again the right to restrict my freedom? Unalienable rights? Yeah, well, unless it causes these guys over here to lose a bit on their profit margins.

Most people who want to buy re-imported drugs that government "negotiated" at the point of a gun don't realize that they are benefiting from socialism.

Again, the fact that they were subjected to a "crime" [negotiated at the point of a gun] is not my problem. And really, when you come right down to it, the negotiation was NOT conducted at the point of a gun. The pharmaceutical company was always free to walk away. They simply chose not to and found out that they could still make the "deal" profitable by restricting my freedom. You really don't have a firm grasp on this idea of individual freedom, do you?

Many don't care as long as they get the lower cost. To hell with everyone else. Others, however, do care because they know that without profit, there is no innovation.

How many excuses are you going to come up with to restrict my freedom? Do you really not understand that the right of people to engage in the free market is not subject to your wishes to make things "better" in your own way of seeing things? If I wish to buy something from a fellow that wishes to sell it to me, the fact that it cuts into some entrenched monopoly's profits is NOT MY PROBLEM. I am a free man. You are a supporter of government/business power being used to restrict my freedom. In this regard, you are a fascist. Mises.org - What is fascism?

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.

“Allowing big pharma to bankrupt the middle class is not part of the conservative orthodoxy. “

Well, that sentiment presupposes that the Federal Government can and/or should engage in “central planning”, which I would have hoped would be anathema on FR.

While I’m not an expert on how the drug industry works, I am aware that they are expensive to develop and bring to market.

I wonder if a new patent category can be devised for drugs which trades a longer time limit on exclusivity in exchange for protections against spikes in pricing and eliminates the ability for a drug company to simply adjust the formula to extend protections. As an example:

New OTC allergy drug: 10 year patent to drug company with stipulations which encourage downward pressure on prices.

New OTC allergy drug ER: Extended release 24-hour derivative of original drug gets separate 1 year exclusive patent.

Perhaps that coupled with a streamlining of the FDA regulatory framework may help. I’d also like to know what percentage of drug costs are marketing and advertising. Maybe a restriction on television ads for prescription drugs might be looked at.

I’m sure there are a number of ideas which can help, but which have met various forms of resistance by the drug lobbies.

Then they make money of suboxone, the drug that gets addicts off of the drug that pharma made in the first place.

There's always money to be made in sustaining the problem.

So, you wish to restrict my freedom to purchase a legal product offered for sale in the open market in order to protect me from fraud?

Are you against the FDA or USDA establishing food safety protocols and inspecting food processing plants so that you and your family aren't made sick from any number of pathogens that unscrupulous vendors might ignore?

Or does basic food handling and safety also compromise your freedom?

Again, you wish to restrict my right to purchase an item in the free market because of someone elses crimes [price controls]

Uh, maybe you should learn more about what constitutes a free market and what the term "legal" means. It would save you from the embarrassment that comes from arguing in favor of socialism while pretending to be against it.

The pharmaceutical company was always free to walk away.

And allow that same country to violate patents in the name of putting the people before profits? Not much of a negotiation, is it? Maybe you also need to acquaint yourself with that term.

If I wish to buy something from a fellow that wishes to sell it to me, the fact that it cuts into some entrenched monopoly's profits

Please add the word monopoly to your expanding homework list.

As you continue arguing in favor of government forcing businesses to sell their products in the manner that you choose -- while hurling accusations of fascism at those who don't believe government should force businesses to sell at prices determined by government -- you should realize that you are a collectivist. You should also understand that the collectivist driven economy does not bring innovations to market. So while this kind of government may provide you with the drugs you demand at the price you want to force these evil companies to charge you, you will never see cures for any of the many afflictions facing the world today. It's a very shortsighted and selfish world view, but as long as you get yours, everyone else can fend for themselves. How collectivist of you. Are there any other private sector industries government should take over so you can be adequately supplied with products and services at prices you can afford? It's about freedom, after all.

Are you against the FDA or USDA establishing food safety protocols and inspecting food processing plants so that you and your family aren't made sick from any number of pathogens that unscrupulous vendors might ignore?

We can discuss food safety laws if you wish but the argument I had with your position was that the pharmaceutical corporations were using the force of government to restrict my purchases in the free market. How does food safety regulation fit in here? The drugs in question were already produced in the United States under the FDA's rules and regulations and the FDA does not restrict a pharmaceutical company from selling their product to a Canadian pharmacy which may then resell to me. It is the US Congress that creates the laws restricting me from dealing with the Canadian pharmacy. In other words, they are acting in a fascistic manner by protecting the profits of their corporate donors. I stand by my statement that in this regard you are a fascist.

Uh, maybe you should learn more about what constitutes a free market and what the term "legal" means. It would save you from the embarrassment that comes from arguing in favor of socialism while pretending to be against it.

And maybe you should learn the definition of the word irony before you post with this tagline again:

Mase: Save me from the people who would save me from myself!

And your statement that I am the one that needs to learn what constitutes a free market similarly drips with irony.

Now to your statement about allowing patents to be violated:

"And allow that same country to violate patents in the name of putting the people before profits? Not much of a negotiation, is it? Maybe you also need to acquaint yourself with that term.

Seriously? The terms of patent law enforcement are treaty matters handled between the respective governments. It is not a matter of private negotiation between the pharmaceutical companies and their customers - even if one of their customers happens to be a government. Between GOVERNMENTS. Not between a corporation and a government. That would be another example of fascism in action.

As you continue arguing in favor of government forcing businesses to sell their products in the manner that you choose

No where did I argue in favor of government forcing businesses to sell their products in the manner that I choose. I clearly state that people should be free to deal among themselves without the force of government being used by corporations to restrict this right. In the matter at hand, it is not whether or not the government forces a business to sell their products in the manner I choose, it is whether or not the government forces me and others NOT to buy from other persons and corporations that are willing to sell. You have your facts completely backwards here.

So while this kind of government may provide you with the drugs you demand at the price you want to force these evil companies to charge you

And that misstatement of my position gets right to the point of the matter. I don't wish to force anyone or any corporation to charge me a price that I choose. You are the one advocating using government force in the dealings between free men.

I have clearly made my position that I wish to be free to deal with others WITHOUT the intervention of government force. You are really stretching here trying to justify your support for fascism. Do you really think your societal improvements brought about by force will result in a better society than one created by men living in freedom?

I think there are a lot of people who have great ideas like yours .. it just seem that those who have the power to change it don’t seem to WANT to change it.

However, with a new “change maker” in office .. I expect that to change.

Yeah that’s right. The crony corporatists are up to their armpits in it.

The GOPe whoremasters love the donor money.

Your point is a good one .. and it is also my concern. If we scale back too much, what dangers lie ahead ..??

It’s a problem nobody seems to want to tackle.

Yes, I’ve read it and I read it again. It has some good thoughts but does not realistically address one of the most serious problems of repeal of ACA. It does not provide for protection of those with pre-existing conditions who were formerly insured as part of an ongoing risk group. In the absence of some kind ot plan to include them in the larger risk pool every currently sick person is thrown out into the cold or headed for bankrupting premiums or cost.

The concept of insurance is shared risk and not to just insure people who don’t need it at the moment. Trump’s plan does not address this at all.

The closest the Trump plan gets to some kind of care for high risk groups is this and it is just pablum. I’d expect more from Trump since what is written sounds like just another politician.

“As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.”

If instead the plan required equal opportunity access to all persons who have previously been insured and agree to join a risk group with premiums related to age and thus risk.

Anyone who does not understand large risk pools and pre-existing conditions has not thought through his own risk management plan.

Somehow though the program has to prevent people who want to ride on the coat tails of others until they get sick and only then enroll for coverage.

Argue as you will about how any such program smacks of single provider or universal I really don’t care. Healthcare is something everyone should have equal access to. What we have now is a monopoly of providers and a system that consumes 20% of our economy. It is simply unsustainable. Our health care system is killing us.