The Cherokee Ledger News recently reported that Dr. Price voted not to let Medicare negotiate drug prices to help save both the program and retired Americans money. He did so against the wishes of the AARP and in contrast to most of his colleagues in congress. The Veterans Administration does negotiate prices, and saves vets millions.

Why the “no” vote, you ask? Because he’s bought and paid-for by the medical lobby. His votes are easy to predict. If the bill moves money into the hands of the medical lobby, he’s all over it. If it moves money out of the medical industry, it’s a no-go (I’m sorry, it’s “bad for patients”).

But let’s take a look at Price’s excuses:

• “The less involvement government has in medical care, the better.”
–So does this mean Price wants to eliminate Medicare? No, I didn’t think so. This is just meaningless rhetoric.

• 90 percent of AARP members support giving Medicare the power to bargain for lower drug costs.
– To them Price says, “I’m sorry that AARP’s taken such a partisan approach on this.”

• “Washington bureaucrats will decide which drugs will be available for patients, not from a scientific or safety standpoint, but purely based on money. Many drugs would be knocked off the approved list if Medicare had the power to negotiate, resulting in a smaller choice of drugs being available to seniors”
– False. The bill (unfortunately) did not authorize Medicare to remove a non-discounted drug from coverage. The stronger Veterans Administration policy does.

• “Nobody negotiates with the federal government. The federal government tells you what to do.”
– Well, he voted to make sure the first sentence remained true.

• “Government never has quality in mind when it comes to medical care; its whole objective is decreasing costs.”
–As opposed to health insurance companies, who think of nothing but quality and don’t care about expenses? Sure.

• “The free market has continually proven more adept at lowering expenses.”
–Whoops, I thought it was the government that was manically focused on decreasing costs. Well, his quote is true, if you realize it’s referring to health insurance company expenses, not patients’ out-of-pocket expenses.

• “Many quality physicians have been forced out of business by Medicare requirements.”
– Even if that’s true, it was no doubt due to Medicare’s reimbursements for office visits and other direct physician care, not its prescription reimbursement policies.

I would strongly suggest that you post the correction on your Blog, especially for the Veterans that have MS (Multiple Sclerosis) and need Tysabri.

Thank you. Lauren Roberts

…

Right now, the free ride Europe has been getting is one of the things that has driven up the costs in the United States. We pay the price differential for their short term savings–kind of a European tax on drugs paid by the American consumer.
We are also one of the last countries to have a relatively free market in pharmaceuticals, and are probably the last with sufficient wealth and population to justify the R&D risks. Here is a good article from the UK that describes the quandary. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=6747

So the question is, do we want that new cancer cure, or any of the other miracle drugs that have been and are being developed? Also, what about all those jobs in R&D? This could have significant secondary costs throughout the economy.

Realize, that I do not like Mercantilism in any form, and what you describe re the “Prescription Drug Marketing Act” of 1987, is exactly that. The question is, that since it was foreign governments that caused the problem, just where should ‘Big Pharma’ go for protection? Do they need protection? Do we want to continue subsidizing European health care? Can we use the redirection of costs in trade negotiations with the EU? Those to me are the real issues we need to resolve at a National level.

There is no good way to run government healthcare. May god help those whose lives depend on it.

I don’t fault Dr. Paul for not being able to polish this turd.

What meaningless platitudes! Buzzwords do not change or alter solid logic. Globalization and air travel do not “require” international meddling and imperialism. Such activities lead to the destruction of lives and bending of truth, both utterly immoral activities.

Isolationism is an ad hominem-esque misnomer. Political non-interventionists welcome international trade (free trade!) and international peace. They realize that a rich and prosperous citizenry are far less likely to go to war with the nations they visit and trade with.

Backwater Iraq/Iran is not the threat the our “leaders” claim they are. They are poor shit countries with who merely fight in any way they can to Israeli dominance in the middle east, and sometimes to pursue petty interests for their own petty fiefdoms (unlike our naked imperialism in th e U.S.).

Never forget that the only countries that have WMD’s are those that complain about them so much.

The problem is that government is using its negotiating to get certain protected people a better deal on prescription drugs. While Medicare is a boon for those privileged enough to get it, the rest of us pay both directly and indirectly for their privilege. I don’t think we disagree on this part.

When it comes to government spending money for its own use, I’d accept the idea that they should pay the lowest possible price as an axiom.

Government should not be in the process of setting drug prices, period. Neogotiating with government, in this case, is akin to the neogotiation that goes on between a robber and their victim.

However, when government is saying buying cars or office supplies for its own use; you damn right I want them getting the best deal they can. When government is handing out contracts, I want them to go to the lowest bidder.

John (and Kevin) –

If you look at the effects that Medicare is having on non-Medicare patients through their “negotiation tactics” you would disagree with that position. I know several people who work in medical billing and accounting, and they say Medicare continually underpays them for services, causing the prices for those services to go up for everyone else. The reality of the matter is that we all pay much more for Medicare than the tax taken out of our earnings.

I’m glad you brought up the myth that our Founding Fathers believed in military non-interventionism. George Washington did, but other Founders did not. John Adams sent the American navy to assist the British Royal Navy in fighting the French Navy in the West Indies. Thomas Jefferson sent the navy and the Marines to the Barbary States to combat piracy (the 19th century’s War on Terror).

Isolationism, argueably, was a good policy in the late 18th century. Now, in a time of air travel, globalization, missiles, and weapons of mass destruction is a foolish proposition.