Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you start punishing the pharmaceutical industry, you're going to have less innovation; you are going to have fewer life-saving drugs. That's not a good thing.
Put another way, how will they continue to stuff politicians' pockets if we cut into their massive profits? Who cares if people can't afford their drugs? Not Ron Johnson.
Why would a drug company want to cure people? It's much more profitable to do what they are doing now and develop drugs that make someone's symptoms better as long as they are taking them daily. Can ride the profits for decades.
Why would a drug company want to cure people? It's much more profitable to do what they are doing now and develop drugs that make someone's symptoms better as long as they are taking them daily. Can ride the profits for decades.
Curing someone cuts off the profits.
Perhaps Ron is missing that part.
I agree with you and disagree with Ron here.
BigPharma has no incentive to make life saving or safe medications especially since the FDA is not requiring them to. The more drugs they can sell the more $$$ they make and many of their drugs cause other conditions that you need to take drugs for. They also want you psychologically dependent on drugs and vaccines for quick easy fixes.
Did you get a COVID shot? Apply the same logic to the COVID shot.
BigPharma has no incentive to make life saving or safe medications especially since the FDA is not requiring them to. The more drugs they can sell the more $$$ they make and many of their drugs cause other conditions that you need to take drugs for. They also want you psychologically dependent on drugs and vaccines for quick easy fixes.
Did you get a COVID shot? Apply the same logic to the COVID shot.
That is a pretty cynical take...
90% of drugs out there are to alleviate conditions caused by lifestyle or aging. They can't "cure" those conditions.
A lot of other drugs that can "cure" conditions are having to be altered by superbugs.
Then of course you have your pain killers.
But there have been lots of drugs that have done a lot of good. Anti cancer drugs in particular.
And of course, I have to admit that my dad's a pharmacist who has influenced me to defend the drug companies to some degree. Like the good conservative that he is he just complains about the government regs and claims that they are the problem.
If drug companies would quit running TV ads, they would have more money for research.
True. Leave it to the U.S. to be only one of two countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise direct to consumers. They waste billions of dollars in advertising every year and then whine that lowering prices will hurt their bottom line.
When you start punishing the pharmaceutical industry, you're going to have less innovation; you are going to have fewer life-saving drugs. That's not a good thing.
Put another way, how will they continue to stuff politicians' pockets if we cut into their massive profits? Who cares if people can't afford their drugs? Not Ron Johnson.
Before COVID the Democrats always went on the "Big evil pharmaceuticals only care about money".
COVID hits and we have Democratic leadership buying Hundreds of Millions of doses of a vaccine and then pushing people to get the vaccine.
Just over a year later the Democrats are now back to "Oh look at those evil pharmaceuticals they are in bed with the Conservatives and only care about money".
BigPharma has no incentive to make life saving or safe medications especially since the FDA is not requiring them to. The more drugs they can sell the more $$$ they make and many of their drugs cause other conditions that you need to take drugs for. They also want you psychologically dependent on drugs and vaccines for quick easy fixes.
Did you get a COVID shot? Apply the same logic to the COVID shot.
there's nothing to be gleaned from the article originally linked. It's from a website no more credible than Alex Jones. It posts partial quotes without context. What the article claims the complete answer is:
Quote:
"The industry is going to pay a huge price and we're going to pay the price on innovation," Kilmeade declared.
"Correct," Johnson agreed. "You're absolutely right. When you start punishing the pharmaceutical industry, you're going to have less innovation; you are going to have fewer life-saving drugs. That's not a good thing."
the article goes on to claim:
Quote:
Johnson alleged that Democrats would use any savings to Medicare from lower drug prices to fund climate programs.
According to the AARP senior vice president for government affairs Bill Sweeney, a bill recently passed by Democrats will lower the cost of medicine for seniors.
they're either being disingenuous or are idiots.
Of course the Medicare drug negotiation provisions will save seniors money. If they cap insulin at $35 and cap every senior at $2K out of pocket, that saves the seniors money. Of course, a simple $2K on the individual who consumes say $5K of drugs ...then Medicare (aka taxpayers) pay the extra $3K.
But RawStory gives you the "alleged" that Democrats would use any savings to fund climate ... he doesn't need to allege it. It's the truth.
Of the $700B raised in "revenue" to pay for the climate items etc, $329B of it comes from the drug pricing provisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
