« First « Previous Comments 24 - 63 of 74 Next » Last » Search these comments
Eric Holder says
Who's forcing the government?
Either the legislature did so,
or, if not, then the executive failed to negotiate in favor of the American people.
Do you think that the basic premise (Americans get overcharged) is false?
Legislature is government.

Eric Holder says
Legislature is government.
But the legislature does not represent the people as a whole, only elite interests:
https://archive.org/details/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc/page/n1/mode/2up
That other country has more socialism, yes. I don't see a contradiction.
No, the other country pays less - I assure you Pfizer and Merck aren't providing the drugs at a loss - but make up the difference on the US.
Explain to me how the pricing mechanism that lets price in the country of origin be higher than the export target. Especially when one country's volume of population and sales is massive compared to others.
Why would they leave money on the table if the market can bear higher prices and the government doesn't impose some kind of price controls on them?
Eric Holder says
Why would they leave money on the table if the market can bear higher prices and the government doesn't impose some kind of price controls on them?
You mean, the Government is forbidden from negotiating price on items it buys millions of annually.
Who supports those rules?
So, back to it: why these other countries have lower prices on US drugs if their markets can bear higher prices and their governments are not imposing some kind of price controls?
Eric Holder says
So, back to it: why these other countries have lower prices on US drugs if their markets can bear higher prices and their governments are not imposing some kind of price controls?
Here's how we can find out. We tell the manufacturers "we will buy at the same price as France" Then the companies will either stop selling to France if the French don't agree to American prices or they will agree to sell to the Americans at the French prices.
Medicare is forbidden from negotiating on almost all drugs prices despite being one, if not the, largest volume drug buyer on the planet.
Who supports those laws?
You also hold the premise that manufacturers might be content to sell to countries that impose price controls.
You believe the premise that the prices are determined in a free market and not by a cartel.
Eric Holder says
They don't?
Please clarify your question.
If the first is true, then manufacturers who are already content to sell at the French price would be content to sell to Americans at the French price.
If the second is true, then all we need to do is dictate the price and companies will happily comply.
yawaraf says
You believe the premise that the prices are determined in a free market
I do? I don't remember making this claim
I think they are getting charged what market can bea
My only explanation is either the market in the other country can't bear higher prices or the government there imposes some kind of price controls.
If the US is richer as you say, that means the US should be able to buy more and better shit, not pay higher prices for the same shit that poor folks buy.
They can be forced into it, but this is called price controls.
Eric Holder says
They can be forced into it, but this is called price controls.
If the France imposes prices controls, how is the company forced to sell in that country? Why doesn't it restrict its business to countries without price controls?
yawaraf says
If the US is richer as you say, that means the US should be able to buy more and better shit, not pay higher prices for the same shit that poor folks buy.
This is not how market works absent price contols. If I hold the IP on some product I'll be setting price to maximize my profit, not improve your feelings. Until my patent expires, that is.
yawaraf says
Eric Holder says
They can be forced into it, but this is called price controls.
If the France imposes prices controls, how is the company forced to sell in that country? Why doesn't it restrict its business to countries without price controls?
Because it decides that it is still worth it.
Eric Holder says
yawaraf says
If the US is richer as you say, that means the US should be able to buy more and better shit, not pay higher prices for the same shit that poor folks buy.
This is not how market works absent price contols. If I hold the IP on some product I'll be setting price to maximize my profit, not improve your feelings. Until my patent expires, that is.
If it were a free market, then an American pharmacy, should be able to purchase the drugs at list prices in the low-price region and move them to the high-price region and sell at retail at a reasonable mark-up.
Where am I wrong in my analysis?
the company prohibits re-export of its product. It does not go against free market.
RWSGFY says
the company prohibits re-export of its product. It does not go against free market.
We will agree to disagree. I do not believe that such agreements are compatible with a free market.
In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority
Where are the Bernie fluffers? They should be having a commie-cunt love-in at this news.

This only means that the US government does not impose price controls on drugs.
Republicans at National level: "What's wrong with Medicare paying [my donors] full retail price for pills they buy annually in the billions?"
The government has given the drug companies a monopoly by issuing them patents.
Under most other circumstances monopoles are regulated by the government to avoid this extract same thing--price gouging.
« First « Previous Comments 24 - 63 of 74 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114491534347862682