Trump scrapped a proposed $2 drug program for seniors. But why?

[KCfromNC]

Whatever. I trust Trump over someone’s opinion.

Posters will notice the source not being trusted in this case are Trump's own words.

 

[Say it aint so]

"Whatever. I trust Trump Jim Jones over someone’s opinion."

 

[RileyG]

"Whatever. I trust Trump Jim Jones over someone’s opinion."

lol, if you want to make that comparison go ahead. It’s not credible

 

[DaisyDay]

Posters will notice the source not being trusted in this case are Trump's own words.

Funny thing about Trump's own words being trusted or not - we are told repeatedly that he doesn't actually mean the things he says, that he is joking or trolling or something. This is not a good thing.

 

[RileyG]

Funny thing about Trump's own words being trusted or not - we are told repeatedly that he doesn't actually mean the things he says, that he is joking or trolling or something. This is not a good thing.

You can say the same about any politician. all politicians lies, imo, some lie more than others

 

[DaisyDay]

You can say the same about any politician. all politicians lies, imo, some lie more than others

Some lie exponentially more to the point where no one can tell whether he means what he says or not.

 

[RileyG]

Some lie exponentially more to the point where no one can tell whether he means what he says or not.

Agreed. My only further comment is I’m wary about which sources I listen to or find credible.

 

[Diamond72]

Medicaid isn't going anywhere, neither is Social Security...

They "borrowed" the funds instead of investing them. If a public business did what the feds are doing they would be in jail for pyramiding. Now they are having problems to pay back the money they borrowed.

 

[Diamond72]

Some lie exponentially more to the point where no one can tell whether he means what he says or not.

My Bible says all liars are thrown into the lake of Fire. God represents truth and honesty.

Revelation 21:8 (NIV):

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

 

[Diamond72]

Does the Bible also say or reveal or hint that all men (flesh) are liars ?

Good question. David talks about this and Paul tries to explain what David was saying.

Romans 3:4 (NIV): "Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.'"

These verses highlight the idea that while humans are prone to deceit and dishonesty, God embodies truth and honesty. The Bible often emphasizes the contrast between human fallibility and divine perfection.

The truth sets us free and God encourages us to enjoy the freedom we have. We do not all take advantage of that though. Some people want to remain in bondage. For me I do my best to abide in the truth.

John 8:32 (NIV): "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

[RileyG]

Posters will notice the source not being trusted in this case are Trump's own words.

If you say so.

 

[DaisyDay]

Posters will notice the source not being trusted in this case are Trump's own words.

Horse/water.

 

[Richard T]

Trump Order Didn't Reverse All of Biden's Measures to Lower Drug Costs - FactCheck.org

President Donald Trump rescinded an executive order issued by former President Joe Biden aimed at finding new models for lowering drug costs. Trump's action didn't affect the caps on seniors' drug costs or Medicare price negotiations that Biden signed into law. But social media posts have...

www.factcheck.org

President Donald Trump rescinded an executive order issued by former President Joe Biden aimed at finding new models for lowering drug costs. Trump’s action didn’t affect the caps on seniors’ drug costs or Medicare price negotiations that Biden signed into law. But social media posts have wrongly claimed otherwise.

Is this what's being discussed?


With regards to rolling back Biden actions on this, there a few different ways to look at it, and it's messy because objecting to some of the provisions can come from both a place of prudence, or it can come people a place of nefarious "protect the donors" selfishness.

One idea was to create a list, referred to as the “$2 drug model,” which would give beneficiaries access to a set of low-cost generic drugs for common conditions at a flat copay of $2 available through Medicare Part B plans. “The idea was basically to encourage more utilization of these lower-cost medications,” Cubanski said.

A second model was “designed to facilitate greater access through Medicaid programs to expensive cell and gene therapies” through multistate purchasing agreements, Cubanski said. “They are right now really difficult to purchase on an individual need because of the expense of these medications.”

The third model was called the “accelerating clinical evidence model. It was engineered I think to encourage pharmaceutical companies who had had their drugs approved by the FDA … to move more quickly through the confirmatory clinical trials that are needed in order to get full approval from the FDA,” Cubanski explained. The accelerated approvals would make some drugs available to patients faster and at a lower price.


Speaking as someone who's not an elected official, and who doesn't receive a dime from (nor invest in any Pharma companies), I put the one in green that I thought was a really good idea, and the 2 in red that I have some potential concerns in (and that the concerns have nothing to do with profits)


That first item... whenever you hear of these "$X Drug plan" initiatives, those are often misleading and capitalizing on a certain level of public ignorance about pharmaceuticals.

People have been conditioned into thinking "generics are just as good as name brand" and "all generics are the same". That's actually not true.

Canada did a study on one particular class of drugs (blood pressure medication), and studied over 130,000 individuals taking those medications both 2 years before and 1 year after the generic was available and they switched to it.

As reported by Harvard who reviewed the study's findings:
They found that
A) The generic versions can have up to a 20% variation in the active ingredient (while that may not be a game changer for something like amoxicillin, that's certainly a problem for other common cardiovascular drugs, and especially mental health drugs)
B) The found that adverse reactions climbed up in comparison to when the patient had been on the name brand.

The researchers looked at the numbers of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for 136,177 individuals ages 66 and over (60% of them women) who used any of three blood pressure medications: losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand). They examined data for the periods 24 months before and 12 months after the generic versions of these medications went on the market.

In the month after each of the generics went into use, the rates of these adverse events went up: 10% for losartan, 12% for valsartan, and 14% for candesartan.

(it should also be noted that 10-15% of patients have to switch back to name brand after having problems - whether it be reactions - or failure of condition control -- that percentage even higher specifically among people on psychiatric medications where dosage is extremely critical)

So, these "$2 drug plan" approaches can be misleading... they can take a drug where the Official (®) name brand costs $80, a mid-range generic costs $18, and a bottom shelf generic costs $4, and then simply negotiate the bottom shelf one from $4 down to $2, encourage people to take the bottom shelf one, and then pitch it as if they saved everyone $78 with their plan.



For the third one, I think it goes without saying that cutting corners and trying to rush approvals is going to be something that ultimately won't sit well with people of either political stripe. Folks on the left certainly aren't going to be hugely keen on "deregulate to make something cheaper", and if covid vaccines were any indicator, many on the right didn't respond well to the "take this pharmaceutical product that was quickly rolled out"


As far as the "nefarious selfish" objections I alluded to...well that one is pretty straight-forward, this can cut into profits, and for many politicians, phrama donors are a big part of who's buttering their bread so to speak.

i learnt about a year ago that the active ingredient percentages really do vary across generic drugs and across batches even from the same company. I imagine the absorption rate has quite a bit of variance as well. In some cases the name brand drug just disappears after patent expiration. The pharma companies are almost in collusion by getting Dr's to prescribe more alternatives that are much more expensive through such actions as shutting sales, reformulating the drug to include a new patented ingredient or a new delivery system such as an extended release version.
I can think of two ways to help. First, is to forbid advertising of prescription products to the general public. Second, perhaps a 100% tax on all gifts, trips and free samples given to Dr's from the Pharma companies. Some do carry a conflict of interest in what they prescribe.

 

[Larniavc]

"but why?"

Older people are non viable units of production.

 

[DaisyDay]

I can think of two ways to help. First, is to forbid advertising of prescription products to the general public. Second, perhaps a 100% tax on all gifts, trips and free samples given to Dr's from the Pharma companies. Some do carry a conflict of interest in what they prescribe.

Yeah, I'm on board with both of these.