Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 3061

Does the Government Need to Takeover Negotiations for Medicare Part D's Prescription Drug Prices?

Argument in favor

Allowing HHS to negotiate prices for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D might save Medicare money at the expense of pharmaceutical companies through bigger discounts.

Lloyd's Opinion
···
10/09/2015
Yes! The goverment needs to step in and stop the drug companies from over charging, we are a laughing stock in the world because these kinds of policys.
Like (13)
Follow
Share
Jerry's Opinion
···
10/12/2015
The USA is the only country that doesn't negotiate Medicare drug prices. Guess why? The VA does and it's very much lower.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
10/11/2015
When a drug costs hundreds of times more in America than they do in other countries, that's a problem. As a big purchaser, the government has enormous economic power that should be used to better our lives.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Medicare Part D is currently the most cost efficient program within Medicare, and is well under budget. The system is working as it’s currently structured, it shouldn’t change.

Loraki's Opinion
···
10/11/2015
The federal government needs to get OUT of the health care business! Why Is America Engaging in #Socialism, When Most of World Is Moving Away from It? *********************************************** Politicians and bureaucrats have strong incentives to misuse public resources by pretending that they are businessmen, and state and federal constitutions permit them to do so. The incentives are there because government-owned enterprises offer the politicians and bureaucrats who control them opportunities to reward friends and punish enemies. Politicians and bureaucrats also can win public support by depicting great potential benefits while suppressing full information about costs. *********************************************** If any public policy lesson stands out from the experience of the 20th century, it is that socialism doesn’t work. I use the word “socialism” in its technical sense of government ownership of the means of production—or, in lay language, government operation of business enterprises. Socialism in this narrow sense must be distinguished from the modern #welfare state, in which the government allocates a large share of economic resources but does not presume to produce them. Nearly all of the truly horrific massacres of the 20th century—those in which people were slaughtered by the millions—were perpetrated by socialist governments. Hitler’s National Socialist Germany, Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China’s communist government were, of course, the worse offenders. (The only non-socialist state with a record anywhere comparable was Imperial Japan.) Compared with those socialist regimes, more recent perpetrators of terror, such as radical Islam, are models of gentility. However, one does not have to resort to horrific cases to communicate the record of socialism. Socialism in its softer forms offers lessons as well. Government ownership of business enterprise almost bankrupted Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. It did bankrupt Greece. Everywhere it has greatly retarded economic progress. That is why so many countries have joined the global movement toward privatization. Perhaps surprisingly, the major nation learning least from the failures of socialism has been the United States. Enterprises such as airports and passenger trains, which are now private in Great Britain, have remained thoroughly socialized in the United States. With some exceptions, the current U.S. trend actually is toward more socialism. This trend seems to defy common sense. The lessons of the 20th century aside, the 21st century also has witnessed an almost constant stream of news about the failures of government enterprises. Social Security and other state-run insurance plans flirt with bankruptcy. State-run school systems and federally-owned veterans’ hospitals are a constant source of disaster stories. Those stories probably would be worse if not for government practices that disguise the magnitude of socialism’s costs. Yet the storm of demand for this or that government-run project continues to blow with ever greater fury. One example is Missoula, Montana, my former home, which benefits from a competent water company that delivers pure water at a reasonable price—but persists in demagogic efforts to “nationalize” the company. http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-wins-legal-fight-to-take-over-mountain-water-co/article_c16fa303-87fe-520e-8492-1594c00ffb98.html (Admittedly, Montana has a “prairie socialist” history.) Even in a state like Colorado, which historically has been oriented toward free enterprise, the pressure for more and more government-operated business continues to grow. Thus, units of Colorado government persist in expanding their transportation holdings, despite insufficient ridership and towering deficits. Instead of privatizing its airport, as sensible governments have done, the City and County of Denver has not only elected to retain it, but has gone into the land-development business. http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2015/06/denver-international-airport-development-deal-may.html The City of Lakewood, where I live, wants to follow suit—apparently thinking that it is better placed than professional developers to create a new “neighborhood.” Talk about a triumph of hope over experience! http://www.denverpost.com/lakewood/ci_25368123/lakewood-negotiations-acquire-60-acre-federal-center-parcel The utter irrationality of such efforts induces one to ask (1) why is America still engaging in socialism, when most of the world is moving away from it; and (2) how can we protect ourselves? The short answer to the first question is that politicians and bureaucrats have strong incentives to misuse public resources by pretending that they are businessmen, and state and federal constitutions permit them to do so. The incentives are there because government-owned enterprises offer the politicians and bureaucrats who control them opportunities to reward friends and punish enemies. Politicians and bureaucrats also can win public support by depicting great potential benefits while suppressing full information about costs. Lakewood, Colorado, offers an excellent example: Officials tout the purported benefits of a light rail line through the city. But they say little about the system’s sparse ridership, the economic drain from its cost, and how the system “crowds out” more thrifty private alternatives. Pro-socialist incentives can be changed in a number of ways. Discussing all of them is beyond the scope of this article. One example, however, is to hold politicians who promote or operate government-run enterprises personally liable for their deficits, at least in some situations. Additionally, we need to amend state and federal constitutions to provide citizens with greater protection. It’s been done before. In the 19th century, most states amended their constitutions to require balanced budgets and to limit state debt. They did so after several states went bankrupt because politicians refused to stop overspending on infrastructure projects. Here are some examples of how we can respond at the state constitutional level: Constitutional provisions that authorize or require the state to operate certain enterprises, such as pension funds, should be repealed. Government pension funds should be transitioned to private ownership, subject to normal state regulation. School financing provisions should be amended so that state dollars follow the student rather than being funneled automatically into bureaucratic monopolies. Municipal ownership of businesses should be banned. Except in the most unusual situations, municipalities should be required to contract for most services rather than provide them in-house. State constitutions should require government accounting practices to adhere as closely as possible to their private-sector counterparts. Finally, politicians and government employees should receive fixed financial rewards, added to their pay, for adopting innovations that save taxpayer money. Rob Natelson is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver. His constitutional studies frequently are referenced by justices and parties at the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/rob-natelson/why-america-engaging-socialism-when-most-world-moving-away-it?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=c-america-engaging-socialism
Like (6)
Follow
Share
billwdk9's Opinion
···
10/20/2015
Except in an oversight capacity, the federal government should completely stay out of commerse.
Like (5)
Follow
Share
Brian's Opinion
···
07/30/2016
Let the free market negotiatiate drug prices.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Health
      Committee on Ways and Means
      Health
    IntroducedJuly 14th, 2015
    Yes! The goverment needs to step in and stop the drug companies from over charging, we are a laughing stock in the world because these kinds of policys.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    The federal government needs to get OUT of the health care business! Why Is America Engaging in #Socialism, When Most of World Is Moving Away from It? *********************************************** Politicians and bureaucrats have strong incentives to misuse public resources by pretending that they are businessmen, and state and federal constitutions permit them to do so. The incentives are there because government-owned enterprises offer the politicians and bureaucrats who control them opportunities to reward friends and punish enemies. Politicians and bureaucrats also can win public support by depicting great potential benefits while suppressing full information about costs. *********************************************** If any public policy lesson stands out from the experience of the 20th century, it is that socialism doesn’t work. I use the word “socialism” in its technical sense of government ownership of the means of production—or, in lay language, government operation of business enterprises. Socialism in this narrow sense must be distinguished from the modern #welfare state, in which the government allocates a large share of economic resources but does not presume to produce them. Nearly all of the truly horrific massacres of the 20th century—those in which people were slaughtered by the millions—were perpetrated by socialist governments. Hitler’s National Socialist Germany, Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China’s communist government were, of course, the worse offenders. (The only non-socialist state with a record anywhere comparable was Imperial Japan.) Compared with those socialist regimes, more recent perpetrators of terror, such as radical Islam, are models of gentility. However, one does not have to resort to horrific cases to communicate the record of socialism. Socialism in its softer forms offers lessons as well. Government ownership of business enterprise almost bankrupted Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. It did bankrupt Greece. Everywhere it has greatly retarded economic progress. That is why so many countries have joined the global movement toward privatization. Perhaps surprisingly, the major nation learning least from the failures of socialism has been the United States. Enterprises such as airports and passenger trains, which are now private in Great Britain, have remained thoroughly socialized in the United States. With some exceptions, the current U.S. trend actually is toward more socialism. This trend seems to defy common sense. The lessons of the 20th century aside, the 21st century also has witnessed an almost constant stream of news about the failures of government enterprises. Social Security and other state-run insurance plans flirt with bankruptcy. State-run school systems and federally-owned veterans’ hospitals are a constant source of disaster stories. Those stories probably would be worse if not for government practices that disguise the magnitude of socialism’s costs. Yet the storm of demand for this or that government-run project continues to blow with ever greater fury. One example is Missoula, Montana, my former home, which benefits from a competent water company that delivers pure water at a reasonable price—but persists in demagogic efforts to “nationalize” the company. http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-wins-legal-fight-to-take-over-mountain-water-co/article_c16fa303-87fe-520e-8492-1594c00ffb98.html (Admittedly, Montana has a “prairie socialist” history.) Even in a state like Colorado, which historically has been oriented toward free enterprise, the pressure for more and more government-operated business continues to grow. Thus, units of Colorado government persist in expanding their transportation holdings, despite insufficient ridership and towering deficits. Instead of privatizing its airport, as sensible governments have done, the City and County of Denver has not only elected to retain it, but has gone into the land-development business. http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2015/06/denver-international-airport-development-deal-may.html The City of Lakewood, where I live, wants to follow suit—apparently thinking that it is better placed than professional developers to create a new “neighborhood.” Talk about a triumph of hope over experience! http://www.denverpost.com/lakewood/ci_25368123/lakewood-negotiations-acquire-60-acre-federal-center-parcel The utter irrationality of such efforts induces one to ask (1) why is America still engaging in socialism, when most of the world is moving away from it; and (2) how can we protect ourselves? The short answer to the first question is that politicians and bureaucrats have strong incentives to misuse public resources by pretending that they are businessmen, and state and federal constitutions permit them to do so. The incentives are there because government-owned enterprises offer the politicians and bureaucrats who control them opportunities to reward friends and punish enemies. Politicians and bureaucrats also can win public support by depicting great potential benefits while suppressing full information about costs. Lakewood, Colorado, offers an excellent example: Officials tout the purported benefits of a light rail line through the city. But they say little about the system’s sparse ridership, the economic drain from its cost, and how the system “crowds out” more thrifty private alternatives. Pro-socialist incentives can be changed in a number of ways. Discussing all of them is beyond the scope of this article. One example, however, is to hold politicians who promote or operate government-run enterprises personally liable for their deficits, at least in some situations. Additionally, we need to amend state and federal constitutions to provide citizens with greater protection. It’s been done before. In the 19th century, most states amended their constitutions to require balanced budgets and to limit state debt. They did so after several states went bankrupt because politicians refused to stop overspending on infrastructure projects. Here are some examples of how we can respond at the state constitutional level: Constitutional provisions that authorize or require the state to operate certain enterprises, such as pension funds, should be repealed. Government pension funds should be transitioned to private ownership, subject to normal state regulation. School financing provisions should be amended so that state dollars follow the student rather than being funneled automatically into bureaucratic monopolies. Municipal ownership of businesses should be banned. Except in the most unusual situations, municipalities should be required to contract for most services rather than provide them in-house. State constitutions should require government accounting practices to adhere as closely as possible to their private-sector counterparts. Finally, politicians and government employees should receive fixed financial rewards, added to their pay, for adopting innovations that save taxpayer money. Rob Natelson is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver. His constitutional studies frequently are referenced by justices and parties at the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/rob-natelson/why-america-engaging-socialism-when-most-world-moving-away-it?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=c-america-engaging-socialism
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    The USA is the only country that doesn't negotiate Medicare drug prices. Guess why? The VA does and it's very much lower.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Except in an oversight capacity, the federal government should completely stay out of commerse.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    U.S, consumers pay too much of the price for drug companies R&D.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Medicare should he allowed to negotiate prices for prescriptions. Even though many prescription drugs are moderately priced, there are many drugs that are very expensive. This prices them out if reach for many people. Negotiated prices would benefit those that can't afford these expensive medications.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    When a drug costs hundreds of times more in America than they do in other countries, that's a problem. As a big purchaser, the government has enormous economic power that should be used to better our lives.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Let the free market negotiatiate drug prices.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill signifies an unwarranted expansion of government power. I say "nay".
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Government never gets things done. Let the free markets control the prices of goods.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Since our Democrats passed Obamacare and which messed with the normal relationship between the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies and the insured, drug costs have escalated. Why? Because the government pays all cost over-runs. Just like the cost increases in all government contracts. Double-or-Nothing is the average over-run.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    The government should be able to use it's buying leverage to negotiate lower prices for medications.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Just another in a long line of attempts to seize power away from others. No more power from corrupt politicians
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Nobody thinks that the government can do better than the market place. They are too subject to lobbyists and politics.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    The cost of medications is out of control in this country. Medicare and insurance companies decide whether or not we can have the medication based on cost as opposed to medical necessity. Patients and doctors should also be able to prescribe the newest treatment available.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    To have ever let this happen is outrageous. The people who profited were the politicians like Billy Tausin who immediately went to work for the pharma lobby at $2 million a year. Fifteen in all received lucrative lobbying jobs.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    The government can't manage what they try to now, they don't need anymore on their plate. They can't handle it! We need less government in our lives. They seem to be everywhere these days.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This is confusing. The Government seriously ruins what it touches.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    We need the government to be able to use our spending muscle on Medicare to get the best prices for us. Price gouging by big Pharma has contributed greatly to the high cost of healthcare in the U.S. No other country pays the prices we do for prescriptions so our government needs to do their job and regulate the unbounded greed. In the front line as a pharmacist I watched the prices increase astronomically for no other reason than they can do it. Time for common sense.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Leave it alone people
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    MORE