So Hillary of the failed Clinton Health Care reform has said that she will go after drug companies that charge exorbitantly high prices that bear no relation with actual costs. Drug companies that do that may suffer legal consequences including fines.
The failure of Obamacare is that it did not accomplish its stated purpose of lowering health care costs. Instead it was half-assed insurance reform that shows that the Pubs knew what they were talking about. Health care costs have gone UP since ACA passed. Poor people are being denied appropriate insurance because the insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges in low income counties. The first death panels have been set up. OK maybe not the last one but the first two are accurate.
So if Her Royal Harpiness will also go after health providers such as hospitals, labs and doctors that likewise price-gouge Americans I may actually have to vote for her. Question is does she have the balls to follow through when elected?
I’m not clear what position you’re taking here. She will probably attempt to do something, and unless there is a Democratic congress accomplish nothing. Even then Hillary is all about motive without regard to results. That’s pretty much her entire track record so far.
The problem you discuss is not capitalism, it’s the lack of it. The government regulates away competition.
“Poor people are being denied appropriate insurance because [del]the insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges in low income counties.[/del] GOP-controlled states wouldn’t take free Medicaid money if it meant helping the poors, after CJ John Roberts allowed them to refuse it.”
Obamacare did succeed in getting more people covered however if you want to discuss facts then address that under ACA:
Health care costs have risen.
Poor people are being hurt by insurance companies pulling out of the echanges in low-income areas which is apparently legal.
BUT this thread is about Hillary. ACA did nothing to control health care costs. Hillary at least says she will start to control drug costs and THAT is something we haven’t seen before re: health care reform.
So you are denying my point that insurance companies are pulling out of exchanges in low-income areas? Or did you just want to make a [redacted to avoid warning] blast against Republicans that doesn’t address the thread at all?
And since you did nothing to address the actual point of the thread, do you think Hillary will actually get legislation passed to control drug costs?
Neither. I was making the point that it was the refusal of the Medicaid expansion by some states that resulted in persons and families below 138% of the poverty line having the least bit of risk of losing coverage under Obamacare.
In states that accepted the Federal Medicaid expansion money, no persons or families in poverty have to worry about losing coverage due to anything that happens in the Exchanges.
That poor people in some states are affected by the Exchanges isn’t due to Obamacare; it’s due to a deliberate monkeywrenching of Obamacare. Blame the monkeywrenchers.
Your OP was so confused that it was hard to tell what the point of the thread was, given the minimal connection among its three paragraphs, and even less connection between them and the thread title.
High prices solve high prices. If there is so much profit in the selling of Epi-pen type devices, another drug company will enter the market and attempt to take away market share from the existing suppliers, by lowering prices.
Low prices solve low prices. If the price is artificially too low (maybe because of oversupply or because price controls have been put in place) Many producers will quit producing the product, because there is no profit. There will soon be shortages and the price will have to rise to incentivize producers to make more to meet demand.
Clinton’s comments shows that she’s just an automaton that speaks in soundbites to the masses without truly understanding economics.
ACA (Obamacare) has not controlled health care costs. In fact costs have gone up. Hillary claims she will control drug costs through legislation including penalties for price gouging. This would be the first time that health care reform would actually address costs directly.
Is she serious or is it rhetoric?
Can she get it through Congress? She failed miserably the first time she was in charge of health care reform.
If it passes and is upheld, will this be the start of controlling the exorbitant prices in health care?
If she gets comprehensive heath reform passed, will it be called Harpycare?
I think the spearhead of Hillarycare is serious, at least about her intent. No one would argue that ACA is perfect and cannot be improved, and cost control is the most obvious thing that needs addressing in the health care system now that universal access is pretty well established. Results will depend on what residual strength the Republican oppositionists still have next term.
A serious answer might be that it will be called expanded Medicare.
One cannot expect health care costs not to go up. The question is, has the ACA reduced the rate of increase? I think so. Want to cut health care costs? Authorize Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Wonder which party opposes this.
There may be some people who have lost coverage. Millions more have gained it. Uninsured rates have dropped to record lows. I don’t believe you can objectively call the ACA a failure.
Mylan has no competition precisely because of government regulation. Patents protect monopolies, and the generic alternatives to the Epi-Pen are stuck in FDA limbo.
In an entirely free market, Teva and other companies would have brought out the competition years and years ago, and prices would have likely plunged. Pharmaceuticals haven’t been an entirely free market at least since the introduction of chemical patents in the 1920s.
You would be better served by voting for someone who would lengthen the protection time afforded by medical patents. That is what causes the high cost of new drugs.