Let’s analyze a typical, biased mainstream media, article that talks about “Big Pharma,” drugs prices, and the politics the surrounds them.
According to Kimberly Leonard, a staff writer at U.S. News and World Report:
Lowering drug prices is much more complicated than candidates make it sound.
(Oh, of course it is.)
Republican front-runner Donald Trump surprised many when he endorsed a proposal that has been on President Barack Obama’s wish list for years: allowing government-run Medicare to set drug prices to reduce the growth in healthcare costs.
(Ahhh yes, Barack Obama’s “wish list.” That’s the list that sounds good to everybody, and is full of good ideas, but will never happen because it conflicts with Obama’s big campaign contributors. The fact that Donald Trump endorsed it means it may actually have a chance of happening.)
“When it comes time to negotiate the cost of drugs, we are going to negotiate like crazy,” Trump said at a campaign event while in New Hampshire.
This straightforward-sounding proposal has also been endorsed by Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
(Ahhh yes, it’s been endorsed by the Democrat candidates. This again sounds good to everybody, and is a good idea, but will never happen if the Democrat candidates are put in the position to actually do something, just like Barack Obama. The fact that Donald Trump is saying this, again, means it may actually have a chance of happening.)
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows that 93 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans support the idea. (Yes, they support “the idea,” but they don’t actually support doing it!) But like a lot of promises candidates make during campaigns, this one will be difficult to keep. (You can say that again! For one, it would require an act of Congress (No…it would really be more like an act of GOD!) The pharmaceutical industry, which has a strong lobbying presence, opposes the idea of government-set prices. (Reeeeeally? No kidding.)
Because the U.S. doesn’t have a single-payer system it can’t be compared with governments in other countries that cover all citizens and negotiate drug prices. The American health care system is a patchwork of private and public entities; heavily regulated yet subject to market pricing.
(Yes…, the American health care system is a pathetic “patchwork” of private and public entities which are “heavily regulated.” But…, America is also the place people from around the world flock when they really need some health issue taken care of quickly and properly and with cutting edge technology.)
Candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders say that, “Without changes to other parts of the system, allowing the federal government to negotiate prices may not result in significant savings, studies show.” (What study would show that negotiating lower drug prices would not lower the cost of drugs? And what is meant by significant savings? Isn’t saving anything better than saving nothing? I guess not if you’re a rich politician or a rich drug manufacturer!) But they and other politicians support investing in targeted medical research, like finding cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. (Of course…, who isn’t for finding a cure for cancer or Alzheimer’s disease?)
The drug industry says the pressure on prices conflicts with realizing these goals of a cure for cancer and Alzheimer’s. “We want to be part of that, we want to continue finding cures and treatments faster,” they say. “But we can’t have policies and regulatory barriers that actually prevent us from doing that.”
(This is Big Pharma’s excuse when the suggestion of any kind of limitation on them is mentioned. It’s basically psychological blackmail for our health.)
What happened under the Obama administration illustrates some of the difficulties the next president would face. Obama vowed to let Medicare negotiate cheaper drug prices when he was running for the Oval Office in 2008. After being sworn in, however, he allowed pharmaceutical companies a seat at the table to finalize the details of his health care reform bill, ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act.
(Hmmm, who would have ever expected that?!)
(So, President Obama paid back his campaign debts by allowing “pharmaceutical companies a seat at the table” to finalize the details of his health care reform bill. This “seat” would turn out to be the seat at the head of the table! “What happened under the Obama administration illustrates some of the difficulties the next president would face.” That’s only true if Hillary had won. If Hillary had won it would have been a seamless transition, ObamaCare would be in “full speed ahead” mode, and the charade of their concern would have just proceeded as we have become accustomed to.)
(Since Donald trump won, he is facing his own set of challenges that only someone, who isn’t beholden to Big Pharma, and someone who actually wants to help “We the People” would face.)
U.S. News and World Report is just another member of the biased mainstream media, and hence “the swamp.” You can see how they try and lump President Trump in with the other “swamp dwellars.” You can see how they try and legitimize the “swampy” forces out there, while manipulating their readers with misinformation.
Stay thirsty my friends, but don’t drink the “swampy” Kool-aid! It stinks!