Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

4lbs

(6,858 posts)
1. Yeah, I keep telling everyone I know about big pharma sponsoring "No on 61" ads claiming they
Thu Oct 20, 2016, 11:46 PM
Oct 2016

are worried that drug prices will increase.

Really? Since when has big pharma EVER been worried about their drugs costing too much?

Then I go in and tell them

if big pharma truly was worried about increased drug prices due to this prop (and if it was actually true that they would go up), why not proactively decrease their drug prices by the equivalent amount they think this will raise them?

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,330 posts)
3. I'm definitely no expert on the subject but the ads smell like dogshit.
Thu Oct 20, 2016, 11:53 PM
Oct 2016

So I checked out one of the "no" sites. Yeah bullshit.

still_one

(92,212 posts)
4. There is nothing in Prop 61 that would would prevent an increase from
Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:03 AM
Oct 2016

happening. That is a huge thing missing from it. Also, there are no safeguards to prevent artificial drug shortages from occurring. The 12% that would be affected by Proposition 61, could have some unintended consequences, not unlike the ACA, where if someone's income was borderline, they would not qualify for the subsidy, and the premiums have become unaffordable for some in that situation, that they are actually going without insurance because they cannot afford it. Just the opposite of what it is supposed to do.

We need to start moving toward either Medicare for all or some kind of single payer system.

The ACA enabled us to get the foot in the door, now we MUST move toward a single payer system instead of band aid approaches



still_one

(92,212 posts)
2. If 61 passes won't do much, and there is a real chance for unintended consequences
Thu Oct 20, 2016, 11:51 PM
Oct 2016

that could end up either making certain drugs unavailable to the 12% affected by this, or increase the price of drugs to the VA

We really need to do is something like Medicare for all. The mechanism is already there, we just cover everyone



Initech

(100,079 posts)
5. I'm sure drug companies are worried about drug prices rising.
Fri Oct 21, 2016, 12:13 AM
Oct 2016

Maybe that means they'll be able to advertise Viagra in single packs every 45 seconds instead of every 15 seconds?

stuffmatters

(2,574 posts)
6. If Merck & Pfizer are against it and Bernie is for it, I'm for Prop 61.
Fri Oct 21, 2016, 02:40 AM
Oct 2016

Price controls on PHARMA have to start somewhere. They fought against Medicare's right to negotiate drug prices and against the reimportation of (Canadian) drugs in Obamacare and won both times.. Prop 61 would be a first step in the right direction of bringing PHARMA drug prices under some control instead of people dying because they have jacked up the price.

PHARMA's relentless ads ag Prop 61 are saturation fearmongering. IMHO

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,330 posts)
7. Agree. 100%
Fri Oct 21, 2016, 03:24 AM
Oct 2016

California is the 6th largest economy in the world. This could be the beginning of real change.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It's so nice of Merck and...