Trump to issue Executive Order to Lower Drug Prices

[SG854]

A few comments:

1. (I mentioned it earlier in this thread) Trump's use of sweeping executive orders is hypocritical, regardless of how you feel about the order itself. Obama's executive orders were called out for being tyrannical and the first step towards a dictatorship, even though they weren't nearly as sweeping as Trump's.
2. Trump's proposal is a Democratic idea that the Republicans have historically balked at. It flies in the face of the Republican ideal of an unencumbered free market where competition naturally drives down prices (spoiler alert: it doesn't work that way).
3. It's not entirely clear how much this would actually change (or what it can change). We haven't seen the order yet, and an executive order has very real limitations. It might end up doing little to nothing.
4. On a similar topic, Trump just signed an executive order on kidney disease, and I think the order is good. However, it's being done through Medicare's innovation center, which only exists because of Obamacare. Without Obamacare, the order doesn't do anything.

Trunp has donated to both Democrats and Republicans. Before 2016 people joked around that Trump running as Republican was just a ploy by Hillary to make her look better. Since people thought he’d run as Democrat and didn’t take him seriously.


It may be hypocritical. But who cares about hypocrisy when it can be beneficial if it’s done.


Tightening up the boarders is a Democratic proposal and something Democrat’s like Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Obama campaigned on. So Trump supporting Democratic ideals isn’t too far out there.


Probably nothing will change and big pharma will persuade Trump the other way. So who knows what will happen.

 

[Viri]

Yes, the Great White Hope just keeps making America greater and greater everyday. I hate to think what will happen when he leaves office in 2025. Hopefully, another non-politician with true conservative values will continue to make America better just as Trump has done for us.

Too bad the hypocritical leftists keep fighting him on every issue that will help the people they are supposed to be "fighting for"?

I just hope who ever is next, stays tough on China. I hope Trump and who ever is next becomes even tougher on China.

 

[Lacius]

Trunp has donated to both Democrats and Republicans. Before 2016 people joked around that Trump running as Republican was just a ploy by Hillary to make her look better. Since people thought he’d run as Democrat and didn’t take him seriously.

Trump explained this as saying that, when one is rich, you give to lots of candidates because then they will listen to you. It's irrelevant to his policy positions as a staunch conservative. The executive order contradicts everything he and the Republicans have said over the past decade.

It may be hypocritical. But who cares about hypocrisy when it can be beneficial if it’s done.

I can praise an order (depending on what it actually ends up being) while also criticizing the hypocrisy.

Tightening up the boarders is a Democratic proposal and something Democrat’s like Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Obama campaigned on. So Trump supporting Democratic ideals isn’t too far out there.

The following are not things that Sanders, Clinton, and Obama campaigned on:

• The wall
• Child-separation
• Child deaths
• Deplorable holding conditions

Probably nothing will change and big pharma will persuade Trump the other way. So who knows what will happen.

I agree. I'm not optimistic this will go very far.

Edit: If we want this kind of change, we're going to need to elect a Democratic president and a Democratic congress.

 

[cots]

I've lived in America for a few years, so I understand plenty. Its very clear that you're just a trump fanboy. And just because hes president doesnt automatically mean he deserves our respect. How about those cases in which a doctor rapes his victims? Because hes a doctor he deserves respect? No. This oaf is the worst of humanity and it's clear that I know even more than you do about your own system, if you think that Obama is a self-righteous arrogant asshole, and think that defending trump is alright. I'd suggest you learn more about your own political system before backing a corrupt goon and believing in conspiracies that fox news throws about.

I'm not defending any perceived negative aspects of Trump or trying to justify anything he's done that is wrong. I was taught, by impartial teachers long ago to respect our three branches of Government. I wasn't taught to only respect a certain party or certain political related beliefs. I defended Obama and the Presidents before them against full blind hatred and hypocrisy and still deal with stubborn people from both sides, which is why I don't belong to either side. I also don't limit my news intake to only certain entertainment companies websites. I actually intake a lot more than just cable network TV and internet gossip when it comes to educating myself about current events. There's a whole world outside of your window.

People are so blinded by their hatred they perceive anything related to Trump as being negative. He's not smart enough to be responsible for everything that happens bad in life. That's giving him way too much credit. Politicians in general, especially those with great power, act like elitist control freaks that are better than everyone else and know better. Obama had a smuck rich boy attitude, like he knew everything and was right about everything, just like most people in power do. I don't particularity like this sort of attitude, even if it's being displayed to gain people confidences.

You seem to think because I'm not focusing on the negative aspects of our current President and blindly hating him, changing my entire belief structure to counteract his every move and doing so to fit into some PC culture that I'm some sort of blind fanboy. That's far from the case, but I understand how hatred can blind ones eyes and eat at their soul.

 

[bitjacker]

Thoughts on this wont change the end result. Cause and effect will favor generic drug companies. Expect research and development to stop. Cancer won't get cured for 2 more decades. HIV drugs will cease to be.

 

[SG854]

Trump explained this as saying that, when one is rich, you give to lots of candidates because then they will listen to you. It's irrelevant to his policy positions as a staunch conservative. The executive order contradicts everything he and the Republicans have said over the past decade.


I can praise an order (depending on what it actually ends up being) while also criticizing the hypocrisy.


The following are not things that Sanders, Clinton, and Obama campaigned on:

• The wall
• Child-separation
• Child deaths
• Deplorable holding conditions

I agree. I'm not optimistic this will go very far.

Edit: If we want this kind of change, we're going to need to elect a Democratic president and a Democratic congress.

People also use money and campaign contributions for Democratic ideals in politics.



Apparently George Soros and the Koch Brothers are teaming up to persuade politicians to end U.S. endless wars.

The Boogie Men of the Right and Left teaming up is just funny to me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../soros-koch-end-interventionist-wars-military



The point about immigration and the basic premise was that tightening the boarders was a Democratic position and Trump has supported Democratic ideals. How he goes about it is a different topic, but none the less a Democratic position to limit illegals entering.

 

[Lacius]

People also use money and campaign contributions for Democratic ideals in politics.

I didn't say they don't. I also didn't criticize Trump's donation habits (although I don't condone giving money to Republican candidates). I don't know how any of this is relevant to the conversation.

Apparently George Soros and the Koch Brothers are teaming up to persuade politicians to end U.S. endless wars.

That's good. I can applaud this while condemning most of the other things the Koch Brothers have done.

The point about immigration and the basic premise was that tightening the boarders was is a Democratic position and Trump has supported Democratic ideals. How he goes about it is a different topic, but none the less a Democratic position to limit illegals entering.

I'd call the general goal of "having a secure border," without logistics, a bipartisan position, not specifically a "Democratic position."

Edit: To be clear, my point was that Trump was embracing an actual Democratic position.

 

[Xzi]

Am I wrong, or don't executive orders only apply to institutions and agencies within the government? I'm pretty sure that private entities, such as big pharma companies, can ignore this as nothing more than a suggestion; it might as well be a Tweet rather than an EO.

 

[cots]

Thoughts on this wont change the end result. Cause and effect will favor generic drug companies. Expect research and development to stop. Cancer won't get cured for 2 more decades. HIV drugs will cease to be.

.. and expect total nuclear Armageddon, the end of times and the Friends TV reunion to never happen.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

People also use money and campaign contributions for Democratic ideals in politics.



Apparently George Soros and the Koch Brothers are teaming up to persuade politicians to end U.S. endless wars.

The Boogie Men of the Right and Left teaming up is just funny to me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../soros-koch-end-interventionist-wars-military



The point about immigration and the basic premise was that tightening the boarders was a Democratic position and Trump has supported Democratic ideals. How he goes about it is a different topic, but none the less a Democratic position to limit illegals entering.

Are you going to reply to my post, that was about your original subject matter, or turn this into another Democrat vs Republican debate on every current hot topic issue under the sun? It's already turned into a Trump-hate-jerkfest, which sadly, was to be expected. Did you even read my reply to the second video you posted?

 

[SG854]

I didn't say they don't. I also didn't criticize Trump's donation habits (although I don't condone giving money to Republican candidates). I don't know how any of this is relevant to the conversation.


That's good. I can applaud this while condemning most of the other things the Koch Brothers have done.


I'd call the general goal of "having a secure border," without logistics, a bipartisan position, not specifically a "Democratic position."

Edit: To be clear, my point was that Trump was embracing an actual Democratic position.

When you mentioned that it’s irrelevant to his policy position as a staunch Conservative, I was making the point that it might not be irrelevant because he can use money to influence and support Democratic ideals. And using the George Soros and Koch brothers example as how it can be done.


Open Boarders was a Republican position because of cheap labor. But whatever, point being Trump does support Democratic ideas like you said.

I guess both Democrats and Republicans support lower Drug prices, and not just a Democratic position. But how they go about it is different.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

.. and expect total nuclear Armageddon, the end of times and the Friends TV reunion to never happen.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Are you going to reply to my post, that was about your original subject matter, or turn this into another Democrat vs Republican debate on every current hot topic issue under the sun? It's already turned into a Trump-hate-jerkfest, which sadly, was to be expected. Did you even read my reply to the second video you posted?

Ya I did read it.

Sorry but people are always turning it into a dem vs republican, so I always feel the need to address it.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

Am I wrong, or don't executive orders only apply to institutions and agencies within the government? I'm pretty sure that private entities, such as big pharma companies, can ignore this as nothing more than a suggestion; it might as well be a Tweet rather than an EO.

Shh.... dont bring pesky facts into this. never thought that the free trade position (Bernie Sanders allowing pharmaceuticals from canada) would be the socialist position and The "exec order" position would be considered the small gubament position.

Truly bizarro world.

 

[SG854]

Am I wrong, or don't executive orders only apply to institutions and agencies within the government? I'm pretty sure that private entities, such as big pharma companies, can ignore this as nothing more than a suggestion; it might as well be a Tweet rather than an EO.

I can also apply to the Private sector which Obama has done with private cyber security, gov working with private sector.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...promoting-private-sector-cybersecurity-inform



It’s likely Big Pharma doesn’t think Trumps executive order will actually be enforceable, but the reason biotech stocks fell is because it signals Trump is pushing to get something done, executive order morphing into something else as they figure things out. Which they talk about in the second video I linked in this thread.

 

[Xzi]

It’s likely Big Pharma doesn’t think Trumps executive order will actually be enforceable, but the reason biotech stocks fell is because it signals Trump is pushing to get something done, executive order morphing into something else as they figure things out. Which they talk about in the second video I linked in this thread.

Hopefully that is the case and this isn't just more smoke and mirrors. Saying you've done something is a lot easier than actually doing it, and his fan base will believe him regardless.

 

[SG854]

Hopefully that is the case and this isn't just more smoke and mirrors. Saying you've done something is a lot easier than actually doing it, and his fan base will believe him regardless.

I would say keep your hopes down for right now, so you aren’t smacked too hard with disappointment. Which I can see you already doing.


But stocks dropping and big pharma threatening to pull new drugs is a good sign, they feel actual threat. So a criticism of Trump is that pharma makes a deal with him but it’s a bad one that doesn’t change anything, but Trump being really dumb thinks is a good deal not because of malice intent but because he’s dumb.

 

[kuwanger]

It's not entirely clear how much this would actually change (or what it can change). We haven't seen the order yet, and an executive order has very real limitations. It might end up doing little to nothing.

Exactly this. Executive orders are intended to order the executive around within the confines of Executive power. In principle this means you can't simply dictate to companies what to do--like giving away free ice cream in the summer--and expect any results. The whole idea of the bully pulpit is to proverbially bully/shame groups for doing the wrong thing even if one has no real power to do anything. I guess this is why Obama came across as an elitist to some: Republicans had such control over Congress that trying to speak force-ably to the public on his opinions, ideas, and beliefs is all he really could do.

Compare this to Trump who actually, at least for a while, had substantial power with Republican control of Congress. Now that the House isn't Republican controlled, all he has are Executive orders that are likely toothless and a bully pulpit that only further demonstrates his general pestilence of others having a difference of opinion, how often he changes his opinion, how unclear he is of his opinion, and just how many times he blatantly lies or is so incompetent that he doesn't know what the truth is.

The only reason his Executive order has any real chance of having an effect is Congress, through the power of removing funding, is usually the most prominent rein on the power of the President. Yet, they've clearly abandoned their job as evidence by the whole "emergency" border wall funding: when funding couldn't be obtained through Congress, Trump immediately used powers intent for emergencies to usurp Congressional power on funding (even going as far as explicitly saying it wasn't an emergency), and Congress refused to act to rescind that blatant money grab. If Trump can do it once for one issue, what's to stop him from doing it again?

The only things stopping or slowing Trump at this point as far as abuse of Executive power are the Courts and those in his own administration who repeatedly refuse to do clearly illegal things--things like ordering the firing of the person investigating you for crimes for investigating you for crimes (it'd be another thing if it were about conflict of interest). In a lot of ways, Trump's Presidency reminds me a lot of Grant's Presidency. Honestly, though, scandal in the US government (like many governments) is very common.

 

[DBlaze]

Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most corrupt areas i've ever seen, aynthing done against those shitheads is a good thing.
And the fact that they threaten to pull new drugs (and the fact they raise prices to insane degrees) shows that it's all about money, there's next to no humanity in that industry.

 

[FAST6191]

The cost of medications in the US is obscene. The things I have seen people live with there, the financial burden I have seen people endure to manage not even chronic but passing conditions, the effects it has on business (low level/small-medium enterprise, high level and self employed), the things I have seen people modify to work around it* and so on and so on are things that would be considered bad in third word countries a lot of the time. The reason usually cited for these prices in the US is the lack of a coherent bargaining structure to do it from -- if insurers are lucky to have a few million in given coverage pool and have to bargain from that perspective then the UK (or just about any other place with it at country level**) being able to say 60 odd million people on our books and the main game in town... do it or don't.

*epi pens is a fun one -- some $600 at one point, UK is £8.80 for a prescription, albeit the government gets charged about £45 (about $60 at current rates), and said prescription is likely free for those under age, under income levels and if renewed more than a few times in a year it then becomes free. People with serious allergies then face serious choices about what they can do and where they can go if going to the wrong place can rinse you of $600 (maybe more if more than one is needed or you need to go to the hospital afterwards), and not just "oh damn, can't go to the peanut farm" but going to or going past places most of us would not think twice about, and taking jobs that only carry a low (but not effectively absent) risk.

**some places are noted as having a far more genetically coherent population (Japan, Singapore, and so forth), which can lower costs a bit, not got hard numbers in front of me but I don't imagine most big European countries and the big countries of the English speaking world don't differ and experience similar geographical conditions (extreme cold, extreme heat, dryness, altitude, snow, tropics... all available or made available by cheap holidays and ports).

To that end wanting to address the problem seems like something a politician should be doing.

That said is this likely to fix the problem? Is it likely to fix the problem long term? Is it likely to delay fixing it for real if it is not that effective?

There are also the questions of is this an overstep in terms of use of power? Back when Obamacare was being floated/implemented then many had cries of "muh free market" (because that was working so well before***). Even without that is this executive order lark designed for this sort of scenario? Most times I hear it described these executive orders are there to allow things to happen in very quick time if analysis paralysis will cause a moment to be lost. Setting long term policy by one then being the opposite of that -- the president is perfectly free to introduce and plump for legislation that would achieve the same goal.

***if you can get into it then the US does have a top tier system. Not by much though -- some things maybe have a few percentage points here and there over places with free care.

I was taught, by impartial teachers long ago to respect our three branches of Government. I wasn't taught to only respect a certain party or certain political related beliefs.

Is respect not one of those things that is supposed to be earned rather than given blindly, and that is before we do the respect as in authority and respect as in think positively of thing.

 

[kuwanger]

the president is perfectly free to introduce and plump for legislation that would achieve the same goal.

It's pretty straight forward: Trump can't push for any progressive position because the Democrat House would potentially support it and the Republican Senate would invariably block it for being "communism" or some bullshit. Better to push policy through Executive Orders, no matter how illegal, where Congress is too tied up to do anything and the Courts take months or years to act. Again, this is precisely what Obama did which exactly the same problem. The minor difference is where Republicans are wholesale (barring maybe a few mavericks) against such policies, most the Democrats are for the policy but there's enough "Blue Dog" "Centrist" Democrats that are so afraid of appearing "communist" and losing to a Republican to push most such stuff. So, I blame almost all Republicans and a few Democrats for Congress being nearly wholly dysfunctional. Oh, and the voters. Especially the ones who keep voting in the same people out of a fear things will get "worse" where "worse" is exactly what always happens by their own standards.

 

[FAST6191]

It's pretty straight forward: Trump can't push for any progressive position because the Democrat House would potentially support it and the Republican Senate would invariably block it for being "communism" or some bullshit. Better to push policy through Executive Orders, no matter how illegal, where Congress is too tied up to do anything and the Courts take months or years to act. Again, this is precisely what Obama did which exactly the same problem. The minor difference is where Republicans are wholesale (barring maybe a few mavericks) against such policies, most the Democrats are for the policy but there's enough "Blue Dog" "Centrist" Democrats that are so afraid of appearing "communist" and losing to a Republican to push most such stuff. So, I blame almost all Republicans and a few Democrats for Congress being nearly wholly dysfunctional. Oh, and the voters. Especially the ones who keep voting in the same people out of a fear things will get "worse" where "worse" is exactly what always happens by their own standards.

While I don't disagree with that assessment as a general one (I would have said pretty much the same thing and indeed use it as a model to predict things myself) I would say that seeing the push back various places got (especially among the poorer states that form the present/remaining Republican base) when they were looking to repeal Obamacare as it saw people various survive or thrive that would not have done so without it might also weigh in here.

Indeed at this point I would be more worried about some of the really rather left wing types blocking it (or obviating the efforts of the mavericks or seeing the mavericks prevent themselves from leaping, missing and being torn apart by their own people) because it does not go far enough, or on some kind of principle for another issue.

 

[kuwanger]

seeing the push back various places got (especially among the poorer states that form the present/remaining Republican base) when they were looking to repeal Obamacare as it saw people various survive or thrive that would not have done so without it might also weigh in here.

The "funny" part about about that being how many of those same states rejected Medicaid dollars outlined in Obamacare? Like I said, Republicans are often the platform of 'fear things will get "worse"'. Republicans weren't even offering an actual replacement to Obamacare nor really a return to pre-Obamacare. That wasn't just "worse", that was worse. That they spent 7+ years on a platform of repealing Obamacare to finally be in a position to do it and not do so because they had no real plan also speaks volumes how unqualified all those people were to lead. They went on the platform to act just to get elected but refuse to act for fear things will get "worse"...for their cushy political job come next election cycle.

Indeed at this point I would be more worried about some of the really rather left wing types blocking it (or obviating the efforts of the mavericks or seeing the mavericks prevent themselves from leaping, missing and being torn apart by their own people) because it does not go far enough, or on some kind of principle for another issue.

This I don't entirely disagree with. Sadly way too many Democrats are just as vindictive as the Republicans, more interested in politics and making Trump look bad using some excuse of principle than acting. Honestly, I'd have no problem if Trump served another 4 years if it meant the US got its shit together and pushed forward a lot of the needed reforms in taxes, services, etc. As vindictive as Democrats can be, I honestly think that if Trump or the Republics acted conciliatory or "for the great good" there'd be enough Democrats to go along with it. There's a lot less lock-step in the Democratic party.

The problem is, the President isn't the real problem nor the solution. Obama was the principled (mostly) guy; that didn't work. Trump is the unprincipled guy (mostly); that's not working. We need an actual "deal maker", not a con artist. That requires a Congress willing to act. Sadly too few in Congress are willing to act and lose their cushy job. Doing virtually nothing on just about everything is almost a certain way to stay in Congress for about a decade. It's little wonder people like AOC scare the shit out of most people in Congress.