McConnell To Oppose Negotiating For Lower Prices

Mitch McConnell is a disgrace to the United States of America. For the life of me , I can't understand why the good people of Kentuckey vote for him. He is against anything that helps people, and just does the bidding of his lord and master G. W. Bush.

ps: for those who live around here, this is the nutcase that wants to ruin our way of life by destroying TVA.

If you will refer to the link below, you will see that the CBO has already explained to the Dem's that this piece of legislation will have little or no effect on the medicare program. Just because "81-percent of seniors side with the Democrats" doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. The Dem's saying they are going to save "Billions of $'s for Medicare" is bunk and has pointed out to them. It sounds good, but like the old saying goes "if it sounds to good to be true it probably is".

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/79xx/doc7992/DrugPriceNegotiation.pdf

The CBO response, delivered April 10th, says that in the absence of other legislation, the ability of the Secretary of HHS would be limited by a lack of leverage to use in negotiations.
It responds to the fact that the Secretary has said that even if Congress gave the authority, the negotiations would not be commenced.
It says "Although cost savings might be possible in selective instances, the impact on Medicare's overall drug spending would likely be limited."

Your assertion, SP, of "little or no effect" is not supported by the letter you posted. In response to the question, "If the Secretary were given authority to negotiate by Congress, and used that authority,(emphasis added) would it be possible to obtain savings to Medicare?"

"The key factor in determining whether negotiations would lead to price reductions is the leverage that the Secretary would have to secure larger price concessions from drug manufacturers than competing PDP's currently obtain,"

The CBO added, "The Current HHS Secretary has indicated that he would not pursue drug price netotiation if given the authority to do so, . . ."

Once again, a Democrat asks several legitimate questions, gets answers. In this case the Specific reason given for the answer that the negotiation authority would have negligible effect is the RELUCTANCE OF BUSH APPOINTEES TO CUT INTO THE PROFITS OF THE DRUG COMPANIES. Not the ineffectiveness of negotiation to save money.

If you will read a little closer you will see that the CBO says the bill would "In such cases, CBO assumes that the effect of the Secretary’s actions—if he or she took advantage of the new authority—would primarily reflect the use of the “bully pulpit” to pressure drug manufacturers into reducing prices". If this is what it's going to come down to, why don't they just TAKE the drugs from the drug companies. They don't need income anyway. Their R&D (which is funded by their income) doesn't help anybody anyway. Right?

quote:

Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
If you will read a little closer you will see that the CBO says the bill would "In such cases, CBO assumes that the effect of the Secretary’s actions—if he or she took advantage of the new authority—would primarily reflect the use of the “bully pulpit” to pressure drug manufacturers into reducing prices". If this is what it's going to come down to, why don't they just TAKE the drugs from the drug companies. They don't need income anyway. Their R&D (which is funded by their income) doesn't help anybody anyway. Right?

Precisely. It says use of the bully pulpit CAN, AND WILL REDUCE PRICES, but only if it is used. WHAT PART OF "has indicated that he would not pursue drug price negotiation if given the authority . . ." do you not comprehend?

If the authority is granted, but the negotiations are not MANDATED, the effect of the authority will be negligible. Stands to reason doesn't it? If I tell you that you may negotiate a reduced price on a car, and you don't negotiate you will not save on the purchase of the car.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
If you will read a little closer you will see that the CBO says the bill would "In such cases, CBO assumes that the effect of the Secretary’s actions—if he or she took advantage of the new authority—would primarily reflect the use of the “bully pulpit” to pressure drug manufacturers into reducing prices". If this is what it's going to come down to, why don't they just TAKE the drugs from the drug companies. They don't need income anyway. Their R&D (which is funded by their income) doesn't help anybody anyway. Right?

Precisely. It says use of the bully pulpit CAN, AND WILL REDUCE PRICES, but only if it is used. WHAT PART OF "has indicated that he would not pursue drug price negotiation if given the authority . . ." do you not comprehend?

If the authority is granted, but the negotiations are not MANDATED, the effect of the authority will be negligible. Stands to reason doesn't it? If I tell you that you may negotiate a reduced price on a car, and you don't negotiate you will not save on the purchase of the car.

Now you are misquoting what the letter says. It specifically says "Bully pulpit strategies would probably be effective only if they were constrained to a small number of drugs; otherwise, the pressure of the spotlight would be dissipated". The whole point of the letter is that even if you MANDATED negotiations, it would only save on a small fraction of drugs and would have very little effect on the medicare drug expenditures.
As I stated before, the only way the Fed's can save by "negotiating" is to do the following "The
authority to establish a formulary, set prices administratively, or take other regulatory actions
against firms failing to offer price reductions could give the Secretary the ability to obtain
significant discounts in negotiations with drug manufacturers. In the absence of such authority, the Secretary’s ability to issue credible threats or take other actions in an effort to
obtain significant discounts would be limited" which basically means taking the drugs from the companies or forcing them to settle for ridiculously low prices.

Yes, it says that, and you had already Pointed it out

quote:

Southern Patriot
Posted 12 April 2007 11:22 AM
If you will read a little closer you will see that the CBO says the bill would "In such cases, CBO assumes that the effect of the Secretary’s actions—if he or she took advantage of the new authority—would primarily reflect the use of the “bully pulpit” to pressure drug manufacturers into reducing prices". If this is what it's going to come down to, why don't they just TAKE the drugs from the drug companies. They don't need income anyway. Their R&D (which is funded by their income) doesn't help anybody anyway. Right?

And, the premise that the Bully pulpit would have limited effect if it was not focused practically goes without saying.

I did not misquote, and I did not focus on the point that the dissipation of the effort if it were too broadly applied would reduce its effectiveness. I focused on the repeated reference to the assertion that the Secretary of HHS would NOT NEGOTIATE EVEN IF HE HAD THE AUTHORITY. That Circumstance is impermanent. There will be a different Secretary of HHS eventually. And that person MIGHT JUST BE WILLING TO FOCUS AN EFFORT IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY.