Trump going after big Pharma

[Thunder999]

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/st...46474719977482

Trump going for deep state now.

[Thunder999]

Soo are we all just going to ignore that the President of the United States said he may go into hiding after implying that Big Pharma might put a hit on him?

And people still trust Big Pharma, Fauci, and the FDA?

https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status...67479094706176


https://www.infowars.com/trump-this-...e-for-a-while/

[MirinCanadian99]

While I support Donald Trump and wanna see him win reelection, people really have to freaking stop with these so-called Big "Insert word here". Pointing your finger at a scary boogeyman doesn't make it true. The truth is that drug prices in the USA are so high because of the GOVERNMENT itself. The FDA grants Drug Pharma Companies a monopoly on brand-name drugs. Monopolies breed high prices and little competition. Quit giving Pharmaceutical companies the right to own a drug indefinitely and let companies compete in the free market and watch those drug prices plummet. But we won't do that since that involves admitting government is inherently flawed.

Also people need to stop comparing the USA with places like Canada. Canada is a nation of 35 million folk which spends almost 264 billion dollars on its healthcare. (11.64% of our total GDP) The USA is a nation of 328 million people.

I think Trump will be fine. I'd make a more detailed reply but I'm just tired of these conspiracy theories.

[oreogasm]

[Ten_Hearts]

While I support Donald Trump and wanna see him win reelection, people really have to freaking stop with these so-called Big "Insert word here". Pointing your finger at a scary boogeyman doesn't make it true. The truth is that drug prices in the USA are so high because of the GOVERNMENT itself. The FDA grants Drug Pharma Companies a monopoly on brand-name drugs. Monopolies breed high prices and little competition. Quit giving Pharmaceutical companies the right to own a drug indefinitely and let companies compete in the free market and watch those drug prices plummet. But we won't do that since that involves admitting government is inherently flawed.

Also people need to stop comparing the USA with places like Canada. Canada is a nation of 35 million folk which spends almost 264 billion dollars on its healthcare. (11.64% of our total GDP) The USA is a nation of 328 million people.

I think Trump will be fine. I'd make a more detailed reply but I'm just tired of these conspiracy theories.

To correct your statement the right to product a drug is not indefinite, patent life is 20 years which begins well before a drug is commercially available.

[mikebadg3]

First the pee do rings, now big pharma? Is such a thing even possible

[rgnx]

While I support Donald Trump and wanna see him win reelection, people really have to freaking stop with these so-called Big "Insert word here". Pointing your finger at a scary boogeyman doesn't make it true. The truth is that drug prices in the USA are so high because of the GOVERNMENT itself. The FDA grants Drug Pharma Companies a monopoly on brand-name drugs. Monopolies breed high prices and little competition. Quit giving Pharmaceutical companies the right to own a drug indefinitely and let companies compete in the free market and watch those drug prices plummet. But we won't do that since that involves admitting government is inherently flawed.

Our Congress won't allow that. Our politicians are 100% in pockets of Big Pharma, and that's no conspiracy..

[~Hades~]

Greatest president since Lincoln

[A-GAME]

I'm honestly thankful that Trump lasted this long. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if someone took him out. Not only does he have innumerable enemies of the mentally ill kind, but like he said, he also has many rich and powerful enemies with the will and the resources to pull something like that off.

It should also be noted that he might just be using this narrative as a tool. He's a smart guy

Greatest president since Lincoln

This.

[isingmodel]

While I support Donald Trump and wanna see him win reelection, people really have to freaking stop with these so-called Big "Insert word here". Pointing your finger at a scary boogeyman doesn't make it true. The truth is that drug prices in the USA are so high because of the GOVERNMENT itself. The FDA grants Drug Pharma Companies a monopoly on brand-name drugs. Monopolies breed high prices and little competition. Quit giving Pharmaceutical companies the right to own a drug indefinitely and let companies compete in the free market and watch those drug prices plummet. But we won't do that since that involves admitting government is inherently flawed.

Also people need to stop comparing the USA with places like Canada. Canada is a nation of 35 million folk which spends almost 264 billion dollars on its healthcare. (11.64% of our total GDP) The USA is a nation of 328 million people.

I think Trump will be fine. I'd make a more detailed reply but I'm just tired of these conspiracy theories.

All well and good but what drug company is going to pour $2 billion into research if the second they release it pajeets from Mumbai can replicate it and sell it for 1/10th the cost to Americans?

[FatBallz]

I'm honestly thankful that Trump lasted this long. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if someone took him out. Not only does he have innumerable enemies of the mentally ill kind, but like he said, he also has many rich and powerful enemies with the will and the resources to pull something like that off.

It should also be noted that he might just be using this narrative as a tool. He's a smart guy

I was concerned about that when he first got elected. Not so much anymore, but that concern will go up as we get closer to and after the election, depending on the outcome. Considering the passions that run in some people with the level of TDS, it's good that nothing has happened.

If we were in the 1960s or 1970s, he would probably have attempts on a monthly basis.

[MirinCanadian99]

All well and good but what drug company is going to pour $2 billion into research if the second they release it pajeets from Mumbai can replicate it and sell it for 1/10th the cost to Americans?

It seems to work fine in all other sectors of the economy where there is a free market and Pajeets from Mumbai haven’t replicated it. Do you see an Indian Apple or a Chinese Apple? Not really, if anything Apple is huge in those countries. I didn’t say companies can’t claim their product but companies shouldn’t be granted access to a certain drug because they made it. Exxon Mobil doesn’t have a monopoly on refined oil and neither does Chevron for example.

Drug Pharmas should have legit competition. No company should have the right to own Insulin production in America or have the right to own a cancer treatment drug. Company A and B should be allowed to produce Insulin and they can compete for their market share. If Pajeet from India makes the same product and its cheaper than so be it. No harm done their. If anything Americans will save more money.

Edit: forgot to add but banks are the best example. They all offer the same product at varying different prices and still pump millions into R&D.

[bigcat3655]

This is one area where both Republicans and democrats should all be behind him. Anyone who isn't us getting their pockets lined. Drug costs are way too high. There should be more competition allowed to keep prices naturally lower.

[isingmodel]

It seems to work fine in all other sectors of the economy where there is a free market and Pajeets from Mumbai haven’t replicated it. Do you see an Indian Apple or a Chinese Apple? Not really, if anything Apple is huge in those countries. I didn’t say companies can’t claim their product but companies shouldn’t be granted access to a certain drug because they made it. Exxon Mobil doesn’t have a monopoly on refined oil and neither does Chevron for example.

Drug Pharmas should have legit competition. No company should have the right to own Insulin production in America or have the right to own a cancer treatment drug. Company A and B should be allowed to produce Insulin and they can compete for their market share. If Pajeet from India makes the same product and its cheaper than so be it. No harm done their. If anything Americans will save more money.

Edit: forgot to add but banks are the best example. They all offer the same product at varying different prices and still pump millions into R&D.

Yes I do see a Chinese Apple that has a larger market share in China than Apple does, it's called Huawei. But that's besides the point, the tech sector comes with a whole luxury and status element which is why people pay premiums for Apple stuff. No one is going to pay premium for a drug that is chemically identical to a much much cheaper one.

So again who is going to do this research? Tell me why a pharma company would put $2 billion towards drug research if as soon as it's released it gets copied and sold at a fraction of the cost, a cost which the original manufacturer cannot match? This might work if the public sector shouldered a much higher R&D burden and we increased public spending in drug development, but otherwise what is the incentive for putting huge amounts of resources towards innovation? Who is going to fund this?

[IronProdigy]

It seems to work fine in all other sectors of the economy where there is a free market and Pajeets from Mumbai haven’t replicated it. Do you see an Indian Apple or a Chinese Apple? Not really, if anything Apple is huge in those countries. I didn’t say companies can’t claim their product but companies shouldn’t be granted access to a certain drug because they made it. Exxon Mobil doesn’t have a monopoly on refined oil and neither does Chevron for example.

Drug Pharmas should have legit competition. No company should have the right to own Insulin production in America or have the right to own a cancer treatment drug. Company A and B should be allowed to produce Insulin and they can compete for their market share. If Pajeet from India makes the same product and its cheaper than so be it. No harm done their. If anything Americans will save more money.

Edit: forgot to add but banks are the best example. They all offer the same product at varying different prices and still pump millions into R&D.

You don't understand the patent life cycle or have a clear understanding of the pharmaceutical industry if you believe drug companies don't have legit competition. It is incredibly easy to decompose a drug once it gets out of the market, that's why they're protected by heavy patent. Sometimes, by the time the drug gets out in the market, the company has a year or two to recoup their investments before their patent expires and other companies develop a generic. You can't compare this industry with others because name brand carries little weight

[Thunder999]

This is one area where both Republicans and democrats should all be behind him. Anyone who isn't us getting their pockets lined. Drug costs are way too high. There should be more competition allowed to keep prices naturally lower.

Democrats are silent on this issue.

[MirinCanadian99]

Yes I do see a Chinese Apple that has a larger market share in China than Apple does, it's called Huawei. But that's besides the point, the tech sector comes with a whole luxury and status element which is why people pay premiums for Apple stuff. No one is going to pay premium for a drug that is chemically identical to a much much cheaper one.

So again who is going to do this research? Tell me why a pharma company would put $2 billion towards drug research if as soon as it's released it gets copied and sold at a fraction of the cost, a cost which the original manufacturer cannot match? This might work if the public sector shouldered a much higher R&D burden and we increased public spending in drug development, but otherwise what is the incentive for putting huge amounts of resources towards innovation? Who is going to fund this?

If you look at Data my guy, you'd realize that Huawei only has a market share of 8% globally whilst Apple has a market share of almost 24% and Samsung is almost 32%. So once again you're point that Pajeet will steal the patent and sell it back to Americans for cheaper is quite honestly false. People are gonna have brand loyalty no matter what and Huawei simply isn't the giant you think it is.

And yes people will pay more for a product they perceive as better. This is why people buy German cars over another brand. To think the American population is gonna simply choose Pajeet's product over Sam's product isn't an argument. And why should it matter? If an Indian firm can produce the same product cheaper, why are you bothered by that? You're acting like only American companies have the necessary money to invest into R&D when in reality a lot of those researchers are from places like India.

To answer your last question, private firms can invest their own money into R&D. Once again I didn't say a company can't have a patent on their product, they simply shouldn't have sole monopoly on the main ingredient. You can sell insulin and brand it however you like, you simply shouldn't have the sole legal rights to that insulin. It's like Advils and Tynelol. They are essentially used for the same thing but have a different composition. We don't need the public sector to shoulder anything because that's only gonna make these corporations be more lax in their development. They can apply for grants if they wish to do but at the end of the day, if these companies aren't profitable they should be allowed to tank and replaced by more innovative companies. The public shouldn't have to support companies that depend on a monopoly to make a quick buck.

here's an example: Company A researches a cancer treatment. Company B also researches a cancer treatment. They both have a cancer treatment, they should both be able to sell that cancer treatment. Neither of them should have sole ownership

Also like I said, Banks offer the same exact service and you'd be hard pressed to find differences. Yet, you still see these companies invest into R&D. One bank offers an online service and most banks follow suit. It's called innovation and the private sector. No tax dollars included.

[ParsleyTea]

If President Trump was referring to the drug companies, and lower drug costs, yes I can certainly imagine he will be make many powerful enemies. He's poking the bear. The most profitable industry is pharmaceuticals. They not only make a great deal of money, they spread the wealth around, buying TV and news advertisements, payments to universities, payments to doctors and hospitals, payments to federal agencies, etc. It is a pretty corrupt system in my opinion.

It should be done though. It's a brave move by the President. I'm glad President Trump is considering making substantial changes with drug pricing and hope he it able to follow through. High drug costs have become a burden for many American families. There is little reason why we should be paying such higher prices.

Thankfully I don't take any prescription drugs myself. I'd rather look into dietary ideas or over the counter products before going the prescription route. Some of the most popular drugs sold do little good for patients in my opinion and to often can have nasty side effects.

[Ten_Hearts]

It seems to work fine in all other sectors of the economy where there is a free market and Pajeets from Mumbai haven’t replicated it. Do you see an Indian Apple or a Chinese Apple? Not really, if anything Apple is huge in those countries. I didn’t say companies can’t claim their product but companies shouldn’t be granted access to a certain drug because they made it. Exxon Mobil doesn’t have a monopoly on refined oil and neither does Chevron for example.

Drug Pharmas should have legit competition. No company should have the right to own Insulin production in America or have the right to own a cancer treatment drug. Company A and B should be allowed to produce Insulin and they can compete for their market share. If Pajeet from India makes the same product and its cheaper than so be it. No harm done their. If anything Americans will save more money.

Edit: forgot to add but banks are the best example. They all offer the same product at varying different prices and still pump millions into R&D.

Insulin is not on patent and generic versions are available. The issue in regards to insulin is the new compounds that are a lot more effective.

The issues I guess arise in that research costs more than the eventual production of a drug. That and quality issues in countries in india.

You also most definitely do not have the right to reverse engineer an apple phone and sell it in the usa. And if you look at old news articles there are numerous examples of patent lawsuits between different phone companies.

[brosapiens]

I think he knew this would come since 2016. He saw that an attack on his life would be conspired by someone from within his organization.
He's been trying to warn us all this time.

I broke the code so you don't have to:

[Suit]

Nobody is stupid enough to attempt anything on Trump.

That would be the ultimate trigger, this country would balkanize instantly.

[IronProdigy]

If you look at Data my guy, you'd realize that Huawei only has a market share of 8% globally whilst Apple has a market share of almost 24% and Samsung is almost 32%. So once again you're point that Pajeet will steal the patent and sell it back to Americans for cheaper is quite honestly false. People are gonna have brand loyalty no matter what and Huawei simply isn't the giant you think it is.

And yes people will pay more for a product they perceive as better. This is why people buy German cars over another brand. To think the American population is gonna simply choose Pajeet's product over Sam's product isn't an argument. And why should it matter? If an Indian firm can produce the same product cheaper, why are you bothered by that? You're acting like only American companies have the necessary money to invest into R&D when in reality a lot of those researchers are from places like India.

To answer your last question, private firms can invest their own money into R&D. Once again I didn't say a company can't have a patent on their product, they simply shouldn't have sole monopoly on the main ingredient. You can sell insulin and brand it however you like, you simply shouldn't have the sole legal rights to that insulin. It's like Advils and Tynelol. They are essentially used for the same thing but have a different composition. We don't need the public sector to shoulder anything because that's only gonna make these corporations be more lax in their development. They can apply for grants if they wish to do but at the end of the day, if these companies aren't profitable they should be allowed to tank and replaced by more innovative companies. The public shouldn't have to support companies that depend on a monopoly to make a quick buck.

here's an example: Company A researches a cancer treatment. Company B also researches a cancer treatment. They both have a cancer treatment, they should both be able to sell that cancer treatment. Neither of them should have sole ownership

Also like I said, Banks offer the same exact service and you'd be hard pressed to find differences. Yet, you still see these companies invest into R&D. One bank offers an online service and most banks follow suit. It's called innovation and the private sector. No tax dollars included.

You are so out of your element, it's not a surprise you're 21 and spouting the same thing all the others who are uneducated about the industry does.
Good luck trying to finance your own money in R&D for a drug, that's a guaranteed way of going bankrupt. I'm not even going to go into grants lmao. Most of the money used for R&D come from investors from large equity firms, people with real big money. You basically already have to convince these guys that you're drug will be profitable before you can even begin the R&D process. Monopoly on the main ingredient? What are you talking about? Drugs are a combination of many compounds, not one main ingredient. There is no main ingredient. It's the combination and effectiveness of that combination that makes the drug useful and it's that combination that makes the patent. That's where countless research and experiments come into play. You don't realize there are two separate entities in the pharmaceutical industry, the developer and the generic. Once the developer of the drug squeeze out all his money before the patent expires, he abandons the drug and let the generic companies take over. Competing with generic manufacturers is a lose-lose situation. You're targeting the developer when the real enemy is the generic manufacturers.

[MirinCanadian99]

You are so out of your element, it's not a surprise you're 21 and spouting the same thing all the others who are uneducated about the industry does.
Good luck trying to finance your own money in R&D for a drug, that's a guaranteed way of going bankrupt. I'm not even going to go into grants lmao. Most of the money used for R&D come from investors from large equity firms, people with real big money. You basically already have to convince these guys that you're drug will be profitable before you can even begin the R&D process. Monopoly on the main ingredient? What are you talking about? Drugs are a combination of many compounds, not one main ingredient. There is no main ingredient. It's the combination and effectiveness of that combination that makes the drug useful and it's that combination that makes the patent. That's where countless research and experiments come into play. You don't realize there are two separate entities in the pharmaceutical industry, the developer and the generic. Once the developer of the drug squeeze out all his money before the patent expires, he abandons the drug and let the generic companies take over. Competing with generic manufacturers is a lose-lose situation. You're targeting the developer when the real enemy is the generic manufacturers.

You missed my point. I never said you fund it yourself. I said private individuals can finance it as they see fit. I said the government enforces a quasi monopoly. Here is an excerb from a website:

“ Once new drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the monopolies assured by patents enable pharmaceutical companies to charge any price they choose. They generally pick prices that not only cover their development costs, but also generate profits that exceed those of most other industries”

And another one: “ Drug companies enjoy government-sanctioned and -enforced monopolies over the supply of many drugs.”

Link: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blo...opolies-stupid

The same message can be found on many other websites.

Calling people uneducated on a topic and calling out their age is a sure fine way of telling me you’re the uneducated guy in here.

[Ten_Hearts]

If you look at Data my guy, you'd realize that Huawei only has a market share of 8% globally whilst Apple has a market share of almost 24% and Samsung is almost 32%. So once again you're point that Pajeet will steal the patent and sell it back to Americans for cheaper is quite honestly false. People are gonna have brand loyalty no matter what and Huawei simply isn't the giant you think it is.

And yes people will pay more for a product they perceive as better. This is why people buy German cars over another brand. To think the American population is gonna simply choose Pajeet's product over Sam's product isn't an argument. And why should it matter? If an Indian firm can produce the same product cheaper, why are you bothered by that? You're acting like only American companies have the necessary money to invest into R&D when in reality a lot of those researchers are from places like India.

To answer your last question, private firms can invest their own money into R&D. Once again I didn't say a company can't have a patent on their product, they simply shouldn't have sole monopoly on the main ingredient. You can sell insulin and brand it however you like, you simply shouldn't have the sole legal rights to that insulin. It's like Advils and Tynelol. They are essentially used for the same thing but have a different composition. We don't need the public sector to shoulder anything because that's only gonna make these corporations be more lax in their development. They can apply for grants if they wish to do but at the end of the day, if these companies aren't profitable they should be allowed to tank and replaced by more innovative companies. The public shouldn't have to support companies that depend on a monopoly to make a quick buck.

here's an example: Company A researches a cancer treatment. Company B also researches a cancer treatment. They both have a cancer treatment, they should both be able to sell that cancer treatment. Neither of them should have sole ownership

Also like I said, Banks offer the same exact service and you'd be hard pressed to find differences. Yet, you still see these companies invest into R&D. One bank offers an online service and most banks follow suit. It's called innovation and the private sector. No tax dollars included.

Advil and Tylenol are different compounds...the patents are by the compounds you can certainly make different compounds that largely have the same function. Example for a recent class of biologic cancer drug PD-L1 inhibitors. At least 3 pd-l1 inhibitors have come out in the last 5 years and a few other pd-1. These drugs are still enormously expensive each. You're completely allowed to come out with a compound that serves the same function while the other is on patent. What you can't do is produce a biosimilar and sell that.

[IronProdigy]

You missed my point. I never said you fund it yourself. I said private individuals can finance it as they see fit. I said the government enforces a quasi monopoly. Here is an excerb from a website:

“ Once new drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the monopolies assured by patents enable pharmaceutical companies to charge any price they choose. They generally pick prices that not only cover their development costs, but also generate profits that exceed those of most other industries”

And another one: “ Drug companies enjoy government-sanctioned and -enforced monopolies over the supply of many drugs.”

Link: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blo...opolies-stupid

The same message can be found on many other websites.

Calling people uneducated on a topic and calling out their age is a sure fine way of telling me you’re the uneducated guy in here.

I called out your age because you clearly never worked in the industry, where I actually have. Your argument makes it sound like all monopolies are bad, which is not true. Also, governments DO NOT enforce monopolies, the patent enforces the monopoly and so by extension, it's the LAW that enforces the monopoly. You need to stop conflating between monopolies and patents. I don't need an excerpt from those sites because I already know how pharmaceutical companies operate. Monopolies are not a bad thing. Without it, a pharmaceutical company will never make their money back, which as Ising pointed out, means that there would be no R&D in the first place. Patents allow for a temporary monopoly and trying to rip that immunity will destroy the industry.

[rgnx]

Without it, a pharmaceutical company will never make their money back, which as Ising pointed out, means that there would be no R&D in the first place. Patents allow for a temporary monopoly and trying to rip that immunity will destroy the industry.

Are you certain a pharmaceutical company will never make their money back? I don't think you can say that.

Big Pharma is what, hundreds of billions if not trillion dollar industry? They would lose massive amounts of profits, but face it, Big Pharma is too big and corrupt. They need to be reeled in.

So what if Big Pharma opts out because they profit millions instead of billions? There will ALWAYS be new players, maybe that's exactly what we need.

Big Pharma = too big, too much control, too much lobbying power, too corrupt.

[mikebadg3]

I'm not reading all these paragraphs

[Adam16121]

The biggest part about this is his decision to force pharmacy benefit managers to pass rebate savings (which would normally be considered illegal kickbacks aka bribes), onto patients. Safe harbor regulations were founded on corruption, and they did not start with big Pharma (though they colluded eventually), but from PBMs (who recently began merging with insurance companies as a mitigation effort).

Note: some pbms did the right thing and passed these savings to patients from the start. These companies deserve some respect.

[IronProdigy]

Are you certain a pharmaceutical company will never make their money back? I don't think you can say that.

Big Pharma is what, hundreds of billions if not trillion dollar industry? They would lose massive amounts of profits, but face it, Big Pharma is too big and corrupt. They need to be reeled in.

So what if Big Pharma opts out because they profit millions instead of billions? There will ALWAYS be new players, maybe that's exactly what we need.

Big Pharma = too big, too much control, too much lobbying power, too corrupt.

Big pharma is that large because you also have to accommodate for generic manufacturers, which is a huge amount of the profits and the ones I believe should be targeted, not the developers. It costs and exorbitant amount of money to begin R&D in this industry compared to others and that's because the drugs you manufacturer are going inside humans, so huge liability and extensive research/tests have to be done. Obviously there are going to be ahole exceptions like Martin Shckrelli who abuse the patent system and price gouge but most of these pharmaceutical companies are trying to get as much money as possible because investors want them to, and they need to make back all the money they lost from development. As I mentioned before, with the patent system some of them have 1-3 years to make as much as possible before it goes generic and at that point, they have to leave. They can't compete against generic manufacturers because of economy of scale.

[A-GAME]

Nobody is stupid enough to attempt anything on Trump.

That would be the ultimate trigger, this country would balkanize instantly.

What if that were the plan? A weak America is what it's enemies want because a balkanized country will undoubtedly be weaker and easier to control or conquer.