Posted on 10/04/2025 6:03:50 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
It was grudging praise for President Donald Trump yet considering the source it was surprising bordering on astounding praise. Atlantic magazine writer Nicholas Florko should therefore be put on the alert to prepare for his shunning by his colleagues and other members of the media for daring to give what is in effect high praise to Trump for forcing Pfizer to agree to slash its drug prices with other pharmaceutical companies expected to follow suit.
Florko's Thought Crime arrived on Thursday in the form of his article, "Pfizer Finally Gave Trump What He Wanted." The praise from Florko did not come easily yet he had to admit that Trump achieved a significant health care accomplishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
![]() |
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Just saw some pigs fly by.
Pfizer probably stopped advertising in the magazine.
Atlantic has no integrity or character.
Sounded like only for Medicaid.
You too, huh?
Atlantic Magazine said this.
Wow.
“May you live in interesting times’’ goes that ancient proverb
And we are.
The Left loves wage and price controls.
Fortunately this price pressure came through tariffs not unconstitutional direct gov’t regulation.
Hopefully Bayer follows suit. I take a blood thinner, Xarelto, made by Bayer, that costs 552.61 per month. Fortunately my insurance company makes me pay only $40 per month, but the full cost is big sticker shock.
My cardiologist tells me that he has lots of patients who have to pay the full price, or rather, do without.
Remember, to some degree, those price cuts will be offset by the tariff-forced cost and price increases.
Raw turmeric root and garlic, try it.
Saw a blind squirrel with an acorn too...
😁
Yeah l have some misgivings about this also. Price controls do not work and the leftist idiots at The Atlantic are praising this which gives me even greater pause.
Trump did a great job with this in his first term but “for sale” Biden of course rolled it all back in his first week and the MSM asked no questions.
—Many of these drug companies have a monopolistic position. Talking about free markets and competition is a moot point.
—Many of these drug companies get money from the government (the peoples money) at times to help pay for some of the research etc.
I love the idea of getting rich and have nothing against others doing so either.
But there are ethical / moral limits on what you should do, or how far you should go in order to achieve this wealth.
Charging 9000% (no over exaggeration and no typo) what it costs to manufacture a drug in some cases probably isn’t reasonable.
It’s better than taking Warfarin, even if it’s more expensive.
The costs of these meds are insane. I’m a pharmacy tech, so I see it daily at work. There are more issues at play, though.
My pharmacy doesn’t make enough on meds to pay for the bottles they’re dispensed in; including the stupidly expensive ones. Most of the profit goes to PBM’s (pharmacy benefit managers) who negotiate with insurance companies and manufacturers to determine pricing. There are two third parties competing for another piece of the pie, and lots of bureaucratic garbage to go with it. This wastes time and money.
We heavily subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to developing drugs. Many of the drugs that do their job really well take a lot of time, effort, and money to develop. Other countries are, somehow, getting huge breaks. I believe tariffs are needed for thos reason.
There is an approximately ten-year patent period in which no other manufacturer may make a generic version of a drug that is new to market. This was meant to allow makers to recoup their development costs, but prices don’t come down quickly for brand, even when gemerics are introduced to the market. I think the patent period is too long and needs to be cut by, at minimum, half.
The last problem is that inflation is making everything more expensive, including insurance and drugs. Sadly, I think that is the easiest issue of those I’ve listed to solve.
There needs to be fewer parties between doctors, outcomes, and patients. Ideally, none; but developers aren’t about to negotiate pricing directly with doctors or mom and pop pharmacies. Lilly, I believe, is offering GLP-1 inhibitors at a deeply discounted rate ($300 vs. $1200) with a valid RX if you buy right from them. That is a step in the right direction.
This is a disguised attack on the patent system that has given us the drugs that people want and doctors prescribe. Drug prices are not high because drug companies profit from their patents.
Interesting
(Recap)
The more middlemen trying to get a cut of the pie, the more prices explode.
The pharmacies are getting pinched.
(Premise)
There are generally two ways things are priced on a market. Based on what it’s actually worth or what you think the market will bear.
The first model takes all input costs (material, labor, capital machinery, R&D, facilities, plus a profit and taxes and charges this), i.e. PVC pipe used in the plumbing of your home.
The second analyzes the market and figures out a price point, or multiple price points, where you can charge the maximum without a demand drop off. You charge what people are willing to pay: i.e. $250 Nike shoes made of foam and nylon, glued together in a third-world sweat shop.
(Question)
***Don’t you think the system is only so complex and the prices so high because at the very beginning of the supply chain you have a manufacturer that is trying to maximize profits by charging what they can, to different customers, in different places, at different times?
Maybe I am oversimplifying things in my mind, I’m not from this industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.