KillerAg21 said:

---

It by definition is not free market capitalism. Having the government tell the free market how it can sell its products and for how much is inherently a left policy.

---

A capitalistic market doesn't always mean a free market.
Our tax dollars fund a lot of research at Colleges/Universties that professors & Colleges/Universities own patents. Even ****heads like Fauci had patents.
Foreign governments have placed restrictions on the cost of drugs which is direct price controls.
Seems people in the US are tired of getting screwed.

BigRobSA said:

---

mlb87 said:

---

My wife is in pharmaceutical research and the element driving up the costs are the FDA requirements. Folks outside the business have no idea how cumbersome and extensive these are. I do however agree that US consumers shouldn't be bearing the lion share of the costs.

---

Yep. And that's part of a conservative policy, removing said requirements (if not the entire dept).

Too bad Trump isn't in charge of that dept.

---

How far do you want to take this? Allow a free for all where drug companies can market however they want, claim whatever they want, test however they want, and sell whatever they want with no Rx needed? No government is no government. At all.

And the only recourse against harm is you trying to hire a lawyer to fight against a drug company and their endless ability to fund a legal team that is representing a client that was under no obligation to test and record keep under regulatory oversite?

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Then negotiate with those countries.

---

You mean like Trump is doing with tariffs? Funny, you didn't like those either...

---

You're confusing me with other posters. I had no issue with using tariffs to protect US companies. It will raise prices on consumers because the cost will be passed along to them but I did not care about it. Tariffs have been used against foreigners since our nations inception.

This is doing the opposite. He is targeting US companies and setting their prices based on what they are charging other customers.

It would be the same as telling me that I have to charge every legal client the same rate, which I certainly do not. It is none of the government's business what I charge unless they are contracting my services for themselves and even then they do not get to mandate what I charge, they can obviously take their business elsewhere if they do not like my pricing.

---

Except that it was not you who determined that billing rate: certain clients demanded to be charged an unprofitable rate for your services, and you acquiesced, and raised rates for others in order to compensate. Now, those other clients are demanding they get the same deal.

---

I get to decide what my rate is for each client and whether it is profitable for me or not. Not the government. And hell, I provide a constitutionally mandated service. If I want to sell my service to the government, of course they can dictate that price, they are a large player in the market. But I do not have to do business with them at all and can set my price for private customers.l without interference from them other than they also provide the service but at a much lower performance. Hence, people pay the prices that I set rather than use to government option. The government shouldn't even be in my market as a competitor to begin with.

If other clients demand the same rate and I do not want to do so, they can take their business elsewhere or pay the price that I set. I currently have some clients being charged triple for the same service. If they want the service, they pay it. If not they can do without.

---

If Phama doesn't want to give the US their best pricing, they don't have to. They just can't sell here. Just as in your case, Trump will take our market elsewhere and not do business with them.

This is no different that what you are saying.

---

Its completely different. But it's clear you can't see the difference.

Or let's try another exercise… if this isn't price controls, what do real price controls look like in your mind?

---

Gas costs $2.15 to make. Government says no gas will be sold under $2.00 per gallon.

It's not really that hard.

---

So the government sets a benchmark and won't allow a sale below that benchmark. How is this any different other than how the benchmark is defined?

Bulldog73 said:

---

"Free market" as a guiding principle, to paraphrase Churchill, is the best there is. "Free market" as an idol of worship, to be the highest of all philosophies, is a bad idea.

There are times and places where a free market discourages competition. There are situations where a free market harms the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised. There are places where the free market prevents the advancement of merit and equal opportunity, which are as important, if not moreso, as guiding principles in the American experiment. There are circumstances where the free market is, IMO, simply unChristian.

And in this matter, a pure free market argument in a market that is anything but free, is misguided.

---

Your statement is mostly untrue. This is almost exclusively true of young or emerging free markets. But, the longer a free market is in existence, those elements go away. Free markets have self corrections that tend to remove those issues over time. However, the longer and more extensive a market is interfered with, those elements are introduced and cemented into place by government decree, making more and more interference required to address the inefficiencies and harm done by the previous interference. Government interference starts a domino effect of failure that has to be managed from that point till the end of time.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Then negotiate with those countries.

---

You mean like Trump is doing with tariffs? Funny, you didn't like those either...

---

You're confusing me with other posters. I had no issue with using tariffs to protect US companies. It will raise prices on consumers because the cost will be passed along to them but I did not care about it. Tariffs have been used against foreigners since our nations inception.

This is doing the opposite. He is targeting US companies and setting their prices based on what they are charging other customers.

It would be the same as telling me that I have to charge every legal client the same rate, which I certainly do not. It is none of the government's business what I charge unless they are contracting my services for themselves and even then they do not get to mandate what I charge, they can obviously take their business elsewhere if they do not like my pricing.

---

Except that it was not you who determined that billing rate: certain clients demanded to be charged an unprofitable rate for your services, and you acquiesced, and raised rates for others in order to compensate. Now, those other clients are demanding they get the same deal.

---

I get to decide what my rate is for each client and whether it is profitable for me or not. Not the government. And hell, I provide a constitutionally mandated service. If I want to sell my service to the government, of course they can dictate that price, they are a large player in the market. But I do not have to do business with them at all and can set my price for private customers.l without interference from them other than they also provide the service but at a much lower performance. Hence, people pay the prices that I set rather than use to government option. The government shouldn't even be in my market as a competitor to begin with.

If other clients demand the same rate and I do not want to do so, they can take their business elsewhere or pay the price that I set. I currently have some clients being charged triple for the same service. If they want the service, they pay it. If not they can do without.

---

If Phama doesn't want to give the US their best pricing, they don't have to. They just can't sell here. Just as in your case, Trump will take our market elsewhere and not do business with them.

This is no different that what you are saying.

---

Its completely different. But it's clear you can't see the difference.

Or let's try another exercise… if this isn't price controls, what do real price controls look like in your mind?

---

Gas costs $2.15 to make. Government says no gas will be sold under $2.00 per gallon.

It's not really that hard.

---

So the government sets a benchmark and won't allow a sale below that benchmark. How is this any different other than how the benchmark is defined?

---

No, Pharma sets the benchmark. They can charge whatever they want for their product. We just have to get the best price. They want to sell a pill for $1,000, fine. Charge everyone that price.

Just like the case with Costco. Their vendors set the price. But the best price has to be given to Costco. That's all they ask. And, it doesn't have to be LOWER than anyone else. Just the lowest. A vendor can charge everyone $0.50 for a widget.

Teslag said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

mlb87 said:

---

My wife is in pharmaceutical research and the element driving up the costs are the FDA requirements. Folks outside the business have no idea how cumbersome and extensive these are. I do however agree that US consumers shouldn't be bearing the lion share of the costs.

---

Yep. And that's part of a conservative policy, removing said requirements (if not the entire dept).

Too bad Trump isn't in charge of that dept.

---

How far do you want to take this? Allow a free for all where drug companies can market however they want, claim whatever they want, test however they want, and sell whatever they want with no Rx needed? No government is no government. At all.

And the only recourse against harm is you trying to hire a lawyer to fight against a drug company and their endless ability to fund a legal team that is representing a client that was under no obligation to test and record keep under regulatory oversite?

---

And good luck with that when you're 6 feet under. We all agree that the government goes too far, but this libertarian stuff is whacked. Even with the FDA involved to the extent they are, we get bad results all the time. Just watch daytime TV with the law firms soliciting clients harmed by drugs.

This issue is a derivative of the free rider problem. Every other country with socialized medicine is getting a free ride courtesy of US citizens.

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Then negotiate with those countries.

---

You mean like Trump is doing with tariffs? Funny, you didn't like those either...

---

You're confusing me with other posters. I had no issue with using tariffs to protect US companies. It will raise prices on consumers because the cost will be passed along to them but I did not care about it. Tariffs have been used against foreigners since our nations inception.

This is doing the opposite. He is targeting US companies and setting their prices based on what they are charging other customers.

It would be the same as telling me that I have to charge every legal client the same rate, which I certainly do not. It is none of the government's business what I charge unless they are contracting my services for themselves and even then they do not get to mandate what I charge, they can obviously take their business elsewhere if they do not like my pricing.

---

Except that it was not you who determined that billing rate: certain clients demanded to be charged an unprofitable rate for your services, and you acquiesced, and raised rates for others in order to compensate. Now, those other clients are demanding they get the same deal.

---

I get to decide what my rate is for each client and whether it is profitable for me or not. Not the government. And hell, I provide a constitutionally mandated service. If I want to sell my service to the government, of course they can dictate that price, they are a large player in the market. But I do not have to do business with them at all and can set my price for private customers.l without interference from them other than they also provide the service but at a much lower performance. Hence, people pay the prices that I set rather than use to government option. The government shouldn't even be in my market as a competitor to begin with.

If other clients demand the same rate and I do not want to do so, they can take their business elsewhere or pay the price that I set. I currently have some clients being charged triple for the same service. If they want the service, they pay it. If not they can do without.

---

If Phama doesn't want to give the US their best pricing, they don't have to. They just can't sell here. Just as in your case, Trump will take our market elsewhere and not do business with them.

This is no different that what you are saying.

---

Its completely different. But it's clear you can't see the difference.

Or let's try another exercise… if this isn't price controls, what do real price controls look like in your mind?

---

Gas costs $2.15 to make. Government says no gas will be sold under $2.00 per gallon.

It's not really that hard.

---

So the government sets a benchmark and won't allow a sale below that benchmark. How is this any different other than how the benchmark is defined?

---

No, Pharma sets the benchmark. They can charge whatever they want for their product. We just have to get the best price. They want to sell a pill for $1,000, fine. Charge everyone that price.

---

The government is declaring that there's even a benchmark to begin with. You're looking for a loophole that isn't there. They're exerting control over price. It's a price control.

TRUMP: "A friend of mine who is a businessman... Highly neurotic. Brilliant businessman. Seriously overweight. And he takes the fat shot drug." pic.twitter.com/roEjCvlD0g

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 12, 2025

We're living in the best timeline.

LOL

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Then negotiate with those countries.

---

You mean like Trump is doing with tariffs? Funny, you didn't like those either...

---

You're confusing me with other posters. I had no issue with using tariffs to protect US companies. It will raise prices on consumers because the cost will be passed along to them but I did not care about it. Tariffs have been used against foreigners since our nations inception.

This is doing the opposite. He is targeting US companies and setting their prices based on what they are charging other customers.

It would be the same as telling me that I have to charge every legal client the same rate, which I certainly do not. It is none of the government's business what I charge unless they are contracting my services for themselves and even then they do not get to mandate what I charge, they can obviously take their business elsewhere if they do not like my pricing.

---

Except that it was not you who determined that billing rate: certain clients demanded to be charged an unprofitable rate for your services, and you acquiesced, and raised rates for others in order to compensate. Now, those other clients are demanding they get the same deal.

---

I get to decide what my rate is for each client and whether it is profitable for me or not. Not the government. And hell, I provide a constitutionally mandated service. If I want to sell my service to the government, of course they can dictate that price, they are a large player in the market. But I do not have to do business with them at all and can set my price for private customers.l without interference from them other than they also provide the service but at a much lower performance. Hence, people pay the prices that I set rather than use to government option. The government shouldn't even be in my market as a competitor to begin with.

If other clients demand the same rate and I do not want to do so, they can take their business elsewhere or pay the price that I set. I currently have some clients being charged triple for the same service. If they want the service, they pay it. If not they can do without.

---

If Phama doesn't want to give the US their best pricing, they don't have to. They just can't sell here. Just as in your case, Trump will take our market elsewhere and not do business with them.

This is no different that what you are saying.

---

Its completely different. But it's clear you can't see the difference.

Or let's try another exercise… if this isn't price controls, what do real price controls look like in your mind?

---

Gas costs $2.15 to make. Government says no gas will be sold under $2.00 per gallon.

It's not really that hard.

---

So the government sets a benchmark and won't allow a sale below that benchmark. How is this any different other than how the benchmark is defined?

---

No, Pharma sets the benchmark. They can charge whatever they want for their product. We just have to get the best price. They want to sell a pill for $1,000, fine. Charge everyone that price.

---

The government is declaring that there's even a benchmark to begin with. You're looking for a loophole that isn't there.

---

There is no loophole.
Trump:
Charge the US the lowest price you charge anyone.

Costco
Charge Costco the lowest price you charge anyone

Pretty simple.

Teslag said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

mlb87 said:

---

My wife is in pharmaceutical research and the element driving up the costs are the FDA requirements. Folks outside the business have no idea how cumbersome and extensive these are. I do however agree that US consumers shouldn't be bearing the lion share of the costs.

---

Yep. And that's part of a conservative policy, removing said requirements (if not the entire dept).

Too bad Trump isn't in charge of that dept.

---

How far do you want to take this? Allow a free for all where drug companies can market however they want, claim whatever they want, test however they want, and sell whatever they want with no Rx needed? No government is no government. At all.

And the only recourse against harm is you trying to hire a lawyer to fight against a drug company and their endless ability to fund a legal team that is representing a client that was under no obligation to test and record keep under regulatory oversite?

---

I'd want a UL sort of entity to do what the FDA is supposed to do. They suck at it, as shown by the failure of an injectable pre-therapeutic and so many others, and yet they skew the market via excessive regulations.

A private, non-profit entity like an Underwriters Laboratory would do well in this realm.

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Then negotiate with those countries.

---

You mean like Trump is doing with tariffs? Funny, you didn't like those either...

---

You're confusing me with other posters. I had no issue with using tariffs to protect US companies. It will raise prices on consumers because the cost will be passed along to them but I did not care about it. Tariffs have been used against foreigners since our nations inception.

This is doing the opposite. He is targeting US companies and setting their prices based on what they are charging other customers.

It would be the same as telling me that I have to charge every legal client the same rate, which I certainly do not. It is none of the government's business what I charge unless they are contracting my services for themselves and even then they do not get to mandate what I charge, they can obviously take their business elsewhere if they do not like my pricing.

---

Except that it was not you who determined that billing rate: certain clients demanded to be charged an unprofitable rate for your services, and you acquiesced, and raised rates for others in order to compensate. Now, those other clients are demanding they get the same deal.

---

I get to decide what my rate is for each client and whether it is profitable for me or not. Not the government. And hell, I provide a constitutionally mandated service. If I want to sell my service to the government, of course they can dictate that price, they are a large player in the market. But I do not have to do business with them at all and can set my price for private customers.l without interference from them other than they also provide the service but at a much lower performance. Hence, people pay the prices that I set rather than use to government option. The government shouldn't even be in my market as a competitor to begin with.

If other clients demand the same rate and I do not want to do so, they can take their business elsewhere or pay the price that I set. I currently have some clients being charged triple for the same service. If they want the service, they pay it. If not they can do without.

---

If Phama doesn't want to give the US their best pricing, they don't have to. They just can't sell here. Just as in your case, Trump will take our market elsewhere and not do business with them.

This is no different that what you are saying.

---

Its completely different. But it's clear you can't see the difference.

Or let's try another exercise… if this isn't price controls, what do real price controls look like in your mind?

---

Gas costs $2.15 to make. Government says no gas will be sold under $2.00 per gallon.

It's not really that hard.

---

So the government sets a benchmark and won't allow a sale below that benchmark. How is this any different other than how the benchmark is defined?

---

No, Pharma sets the benchmark. They can charge whatever they want for their product. We just have to get the best price. They want to sell a pill for $1,000, fine. Charge everyone that price.

---

The government is declaring that there's even a benchmark to begin with. You're looking for a loophole that isn't there.

---

There is no loophole.
Trump:
Charge the US the lowest price you charge anyone.

Costco
Charge Costco the lowest price you charge anyone

Pretty simple.

---

Ok let's try this again a little slower.

When Costco does it, they're using their freedom to negotiate a price they're willing to pay.

When the government does it, they are forcibly disallowing a sale above a certain price within the bounds of a geographical area.

The drug companies can just easily buy off that entity as well. And would. And many just wouldn't play along. When people are desperate they'll put anything in their body if they think it will help, despite not being approved by an independent testing lab. They won't do that when buying a light bulb or electrical device.

And under your rule of no rules, there'd be no guideline on what to call a vaccine. They could call it whatever they want. With no regard to testing, or emergency authorization, or anything else. The only limiting factor they'd have is their ability to market it to desperate people.

BigRobSA said:

---

***sigh***

more liberalism
get govt out of the way, not more in the way, which is what distorts the market in the first place.

---

It would be nice if foreign governments would get out of the business of price regulation of the pharmaceutical industry.
The primary reason foreign governments have price regulations is because of their idiotic socialistic bull**** free medical healthcare.
Citizens of the United States are tired of subsidizing all the nonsensical, ideologically, corrupt socialistic BS in foreign nations.
Most of the articles being written are claiming the US could learn something about lowering the prices of pharmaceuticals, which is ridiculous. US is the primary generator at new innovative pharmaceuticals primarily because of the American taxpayers.

US govt. through medicare and medicaid is the largest consumer of pharmaceutical products in the world. With that purchasing power, it makes perfect business sense to negotiate a favored nations agreement with their vendors (i.e. big pharma). These vendors are free to charge other customers (i.e. nations) whatever the Eff they can get away with, they just can't charge us more than the best deal provided to other customers.

This isn't price control, it's just good business...

SIAP - not reading through all this tripe.

Tom Fox said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

KillerAg21 said:

---

It by definition is not free market capitalism. Having the government tell the free market how it can sell its products and for how much is inherently a left policy.

---

Requiring drug companies to offer the same pricing to Americans it offers to the rest of the world a left policy? Are you kidding?

The US government is a yuge purchaser of prescription drugs. It is a customer demanding FAIR and COMPETITIVE pricing.

---

In a free market they take their business elsewhere and use their buying power to their advantage.

Not use the force of the government to mandate pricing. That is socialism.

---

Take their business where?

Jeeper79 said:

---

Ok let's try this again a little slower.

When Costco does it, they're using their freedom to negotiate a price they're willing to pay.

When the government does it, they are forcibly disallowing a sale above a certain price within the bounds of a geographical area.

---

See the post above...
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3542364/replies/70216851

This is a large customer demanding better pricing. Its unfortunate for your price control analogy that the US government happens to be the large customer.

They are not disallowing a sale above a certain price. They are saying you have to offer us the best price you offer on the open market. Else, we will seek alternatives.

Again, you first need to acknowledge that the US government is the largest buyer of many of the overpriced drugs.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Then negotiate with those countries.

---

You mean like Trump is doing with tariffs? Funny, you didn't like those either...

---

You're confusing me with other posters. I had no issue with using tariffs to protect US companies. It will raise prices on consumers because the cost will be passed along to them but I did not care about it. Tariffs have been used against foreigners since our nations inception.

This is doing the opposite. He is targeting US companies and setting their prices based on what they are charging other customers.

It would be the same as telling me that I have to charge every legal client the same rate, which I certainly do not. It is none of the government's business what I charge unless they are contracting my services for themselves and even then they do not get to mandate what I charge, they can obviously take their business elsewhere if they do not like my pricing.

---

Except that it was not you who determined that billing rate: certain clients demanded to be charged an unprofitable rate for your services, and you acquiesced, and raised rates for others in order to compensate. Now, those other clients are demanding they get the same deal.

---

I get to decide what my rate is for each client and whether it is profitable for me or not. Not the government. And hell, I provide a constitutionally mandated service. If I want to sell my service to the government, of course they can dictate that price, they are a large player in the market. But I do not have to do business with them at all and can set my price for private customers.l without interference from them other than they also provide the service but at a much lower performance. Hence, people pay the prices that I set rather than use to government option. The government shouldn't even be in my market as a competitor to begin with.

If other clients demand the same rate and I do not want to do so, they can take their business elsewhere or pay the price that I set. I currently have some clients being charged triple for the same service. If they want the service, they pay it. If not they can do without.

---

If Phama doesn't want to give the US their best pricing, they don't have to. They just can't sell here. Just as in your case, Trump will take our market elsewhere and not do business with them.

This is no different that what you are saying.

---

Its completely different. But it's clear you can't see the difference.

Or let's try another exercise… if this isn't price controls, what do real price controls look like in your mind?

---

Gas costs $2.15 to make. Government says no gas will be sold under $2.00 per gallon.

It's not really that hard.

---

So the government sets a benchmark and won't allow a sale below that benchmark. How is this any different other than how the benchmark is defined?

---

No, Pharma sets the benchmark. They can charge whatever they want for their product. We just have to get the best price. They want to sell a pill for $1,000, fine. Charge everyone that price.

---

The government is declaring that there's even a benchmark to begin with. You're looking for a loophole that isn't there.

---

There is no loophole.
Trump:
Charge the US the lowest price you charge anyone.

Costco
Charge Costco the lowest price you charge anyone

Pretty simple.

---

Ok let's try this again a little slower.

When Costco does it, they're using their freedom to negotiate a price they're willing to pay.

When the government does it, they are forcibly disallowing a sale above a certain price within the bounds of a geographical area.

---

So, in your mind:
1. A government using it's large market to get the lowest price is price fixing.
2. A private company using it's large market to get the lowest price is good market principles

Remember, nobody is telling anyone what price to charge. Just that they get the lowest price because they are the the largest buyer.

LMAO!!

No need to discuss further.

richardag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

KillerAg21 said:

---

It by definition is not free market capitalism. Having the government tell the free market how it can sell its products and for how much is inherently a left policy.

---

Requiring drug companies to offer the same pricing to Americans it offers to the rest of the world a left policy? Are you kidding?

The US government is a yuge purchaser of prescription drugs. It is a customer demanding FAIR and COMPETITIVE pricing.

---

In a free market they take their business elsewhere and use their buying power to their advantage.

Not use the force of the government to mandate pricing. That is socialism.

---

Take their business where?

---

Exactly! The pharmaceutical companies have essentially created monopolies and are the ones guilty of fixing prices.

I love that Trump has gotten progressives to come out in favor of...

1. Big Pharma
2. Monopolies
3. Corporate price gauging

Just on this issue alone. We need to get a running list of all of the positions progressives have taken now in response to Trump/MAGA policies.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Then negotiate with those countries.

---

You mean like Trump is doing with tariffs? Funny, you didn't like those either...

---

You're confusing me with other posters. I had no issue with using tariffs to protect US companies. It will raise prices on consumers because the cost will be passed along to them but I did not care about it. Tariffs have been used against foreigners since our nations inception.

This is doing the opposite. He is targeting US companies and setting their prices based on what they are charging other customers.

It would be the same as telling me that I have to charge every legal client the same rate, which I certainly do not. It is none of the government's business what I charge unless they are contracting my services for themselves and even then they do not get to mandate what I charge, they can obviously take their business elsewhere if they do not like my pricing.

---

Except that it was not you who determined that billing rate: certain clients demanded to be charged an unprofitable rate for your services, and you acquiesced, and raised rates for others in order to compensate. Now, those other clients are demanding they get the same deal.

---

I get to decide what my rate is for each client and whether it is profitable for me or not. Not the government. And hell, I provide a constitutionally mandated service. If I want to sell my service to the government, of course they can dictate that price, they are a large player in the market. But I do not have to do business with them at all and can set my price for private customers.l without interference from them other than they also provide the service but at a much lower performance. Hence, people pay the prices that I set rather than use to government option. The government shouldn't even be in my market as a competitor to begin with.

If other clients demand the same rate and I do not want to do so, they can take their business elsewhere or pay the price that I set. I currently have some clients being charged triple for the same service. If they want the service, they pay it. If not they can do without.

---

If Phama doesn't want to give the US their best pricing, they don't have to. They just can't sell here. Just as in your case, Trump will take our market elsewhere and not do business with them.

This is no different that what you are saying.

---

That is not and apples to apples comparison.

Trump cannot speak collectively for private American consumer. Period. If I want to but what Big Pharma is selling and subsidize research that is my prerogative.

He can certainly get Medicaid and Medicare to not buy those drugs however, but that is not what he is doing.

He is setting the price that an American business has to sell to American private consumers.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Ok let's try this again a little slower.

When Costco does it, they're using their freedom to negotiate a price they're willing to pay.

When the government does it, they are forcibly disallowing a sale above a certain price within the bounds of a geographical area.

---

See the post above...
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3542364/replies/70216851

This is a large customer demanding better pricing. Its unfortunate for your price control analogy that the US government happens to be the large customer.

They are not disallowing a sale above a certain price. They are saying you have to offer us the best price you offer on the open market. Else, we will seek alternatives.

Again, you first need to acknowledge that the US government is the largest buyer of many of the overpriced drugs.

---

If this is strictly within the bounds of the U.S. government being an individual pharma customer negotiating their own pricing, then sure. But that's not the impression that trump's post gives.

I think the Pharma companies are colluding. This is illegal and has to be broken.
Pharma corps are playing games with life saving drugs. This must be regulated.

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Then negotiate with those countries.

---

You mean like Trump is doing with tariffs? Funny, you didn't like those either...

---

You're confusing me with other posters. I had no issue with using tariffs to protect US companies. It will raise prices on consumers because the cost will be passed along to them but I did not care about it. Tariffs have been used against foreigners since our nations inception.

This is doing the opposite. He is targeting US companies and setting their prices based on what they are charging other customers.

It would be the same as telling me that I have to charge every legal client the same rate, which I certainly do not. It is none of the government's business what I charge unless they are contracting my services for themselves and even then they do not get to mandate what I charge, they can obviously take their business elsewhere if they do not like my pricing.

---

Except that it was not you who determined that billing rate: certain clients demanded to be charged an unprofitable rate for your services, and you acquiesced, and raised rates for others in order to compensate. Now, those other clients are demanding they get the same deal.

---

I get to decide what my rate is for each client and whether it is profitable for me or not. Not the government. And hell, I provide a constitutionally mandated service. If I want to sell my service to the government, of course they can dictate that price, they are a large player in the market. But I do not have to do business with them at all and can set my price for private customers.l without interference from them other than they also provide the service but at a much lower performance. Hence, people pay the prices that I set rather than use to government option. The government shouldn't even be in my market as a competitor to begin with.

If other clients demand the same rate and I do not want to do so, they can take their business elsewhere or pay the price that I set. I currently have some clients being charged triple for the same service. If they want the service, they pay it. If not they can do without.

---

If Phama doesn't want to give the US their best pricing, they don't have to. They just can't sell here. Just as in your case, Trump will take our market elsewhere and not do business with them.

This is no different that what you are saying.

---

Its completely different. But it's clear you can't see the difference.

Or let's try another exercise… if this isn't price controls, what do real price controls look like in your mind?

---

Gas costs $2.15 to make. Government says no gas will be sold under $2.00 per gallon.

It's not really that hard.

---

So the government sets a benchmark and won't allow a sale below that benchmark. How is this any different other than how the benchmark is defined?

---

No, Pharma sets the benchmark. They can charge whatever they want for their product. We just have to get the best price. They want to sell a pill for $1,000, fine. Charge everyone that price.

---

The government is declaring that there's even a benchmark to begin with. You're looking for a loophole that isn't there.

---

There is no loophole.
Trump:
Charge the US the lowest price you charge anyone.

Costco
Charge Costco the lowest price you charge anyone

Pretty simple.

---

Ok let's try this again a little slower.

When Costco does it, they're using their freedom to negotiate a price they're willing to pay.

When the government does it, they are forcibly disallowing a sale above a certain price within the bounds of a geographical area.

---

So, in your mind:
1. A government using it's large market to get the lowest price is price fixing.
2. A private company using it's large market to get the lowest price is good market principles

Remember, nobody is telling anyone what price to charge. Just that they get the lowest price because they are the the largest buyer.

LMAO!!

No need to discuss further.

---

In the free market you do that by refusing to buy from that vendor, not by telling that vendor which client gets what rate. If refusing to purchase as the largest buyer doesn't allow you to negotiate the best price, tough shlt.

You do not pass a law requiring a business to price anything to a particular consumer.

Prosperdick said:

---

TRUMP: "A friend of mine who is a businessman... Highly neurotic. Brilliant businessman. Seriously overweight. And he takes the fat shot drug." pic.twitter.com/roEjCvlD0g

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 12, 2025

We're living in the best timeline.

---

infinity ag said:

---

I think the Pharma companies are colluding. This is illegal and has to be broken.
Pharma corps are playing games with life saving drugs. This must be regulated.

---

Utilize anti-trust litigation to address this issue, not price controls.

Tom Fox said:

---

That is not and apples to apples comparison.

Trump cannot speak collectively for private American consumer. Period. If I want to but what Big Pharma is selling and subsidize research that is my prerogative.

He can certainly get Medicaid and Medicare to not buy those drugs however, but that is not what he is doing.

He is setting the price that an American business has to sell to American private consumers.

---

He is using the leverage of Medicaid and Medicare pricing to tell drug companies they must offer a price comparable to what is offered to other developed nations.

He is NOT, repeat NOT, and one more time NOT setting the price that an American business has to sell to American private consumers.

Did you watch the presser or read the EO? Or even the summary?

Quote:

---

REDUCING DRUG PRICES FOR AMERICANS AND TAXPAYERS:

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to bring the prices Americans and taxpayers pay for prescription drugs in line with those paid by similar nations.


The Order directs the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to take action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in practices that purposefully and unfairly undercut market prices and drive price hikes in the United States.

The Order instructs the Administration to communicate price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to establish that America, the largest purchaser and funder of prescription drugs in the world, gets the best deal.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish a mechanism through which American patients can buy their drugs directly from manufacturers who sell to Americans at a "Most-Favored-Nation" price, bypassing middlemen.

If drug manufacturers fail to offer most-favored-nation pricing, the Order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) propose rules that impose most-favored-nation pricing; and (2) take other aggressive measures to significantly reduce the cost of prescription drugs to the American consumer and end anticompetitive practices.

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

If this is strictly within the bounds of the U.S. government being an individual pharma customer negotiating their own pricing, then sure. But that's not the impression that trump's post gives.

---

So you developed a wrong impression of what Trump says, based undoubtedly on pre-conceived notion of what Trump is about, and its still Bad Trump because he didn't announce it in a manner to your liking?

Tramp96 said:

---

I love that Trump has gotten progressives to come out in favor of...

1. Big Pharma
2. Monopolies
3. Corporate price gauging

Just on this issue alone. We need to get a running list of all of the positions progressives have taken now in response to Trump/MAGA policies.

---

4. Illegal alien criminals.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

That is not and apples to apples comparison.

Trump cannot speak collectively for private American consumer. Period. If I want to but what Big Pharma is selling and subsidize research that is my prerogative.

He can certainly get Medicaid and Medicare to not buy those drugs however, but that is not what he is doing.

He is setting the price that an American business has to sell to American private consumers.

---

He is using the leverage of Medicaid and Medicare pricing to tell drug companies they must offer a price comparable to what is offered to other developed nations.

He is NOT, repeat NOT, and one more time NOT setting the price that an American business has to sell to American private consumers.

Did you watch the presser or read the EO? Or even the summary?

Quote:

---

REDUCING DRUG PRICES FOR AMERICANS AND TAXPAYERS:

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to bring the prices Americans and taxpayers pay for prescription drugs in line with those paid by similar nations.


The Order directs the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to take action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in practices that purposefully and unfairly undercut market prices and drive price hikes in the United States.

The Order instructs the Administration to communicate price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to establish that America, the largest purchaser and funder of prescription drugs in the world, gets the best deal.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish a mechanism through which American patients can buy their drugs directly from manufacturers who sell to Americans at a "Most-Favored-Nation" price, bypassing middlemen.

If drug manufacturers fail to offer most-favored-nation pricing, the Order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) propose rules that impose most-favored-nation pricing; and (2) take other aggressive measures to significantly reduce the cost of prescription drugs to the American consumer and end anticompetitive practices.

---

---

Oh. We're good then. I'll expect price increases for private American consumers then:

Tramp96 said:

---

I love that Trump has gotten progressives to come out in favor of...

1. Big Pharma
2. Monopolies
3. Corporate price gauging

Just on this issue alone. We need to get a running list of all of the positions progressives have taken now in response to Trump/MAGA policies.

---

Defending illegal alien gang bangers and allowing men in women sports/locker rooms/showers are #1 and #2 by a mile. This is nice and all but these two issues will sink Dems in the mid-terms if they don't reverse course. Spoiler alert, they won't reverse course.

BCG Disciple said:

---

KillerAg21 said:

---

Wow Trump is turning into a socialist commie. I wonder how MAGA is going to conform itself to being for free market capitalism yet rooting for socialist polices like this.

---

Hard for me, but I've become so anti Big Harma I have an eff em mentality.

---

This is where I'm at too.

I'd rather see pressure put on the pharma to quit selling drugs in countries that institute price controls, and pressure put on them to quit jacking up the price here to "make up the difference" or "R&D cost coverage" (which begs the question - when a shot is $10k per shot, what is the actual R&D cost - and the taxpayer subsidy provided to pharma shoudl be negated from that R&D cost) versus mandating lower prices.

But also, F big pharma for screwing us over on cost, which not only drives the out of pocket up on these drugs to stupid numbers, but it also increases insurance premiums because of the additional inflated cost. Also, F insurance companies too.

Good Trump. Congress should follow his lead and codify this into law.

JB99 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I can't wait to see the left defend Big Pharma.

I'm opposed to price controls, but I want something done about **** countries like Canada getting cheap drugs funded by US citizens.

Trump is going to war with drug companies over their pricing in this country. pic.twitter.com/uKx8pTxK4Z

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 11, 2025

---

I hate price controls, too.

But this is just making EVERYONE foot the cost instead of just the US.

Getting rid of them using us to subsidize THEIR drugs.

---

Pretty simple concept. American consumers are subsidizing drug companies in the US and the rest of the world gets a free ride.

---

IDK if that is the problem, our policies are. It takes over a billion dollars to bring a new drug to the market in the USA.

That is what we are paying extra for, because of our dumbass policies that I am sure both parties F***'d up.

While other countries say hey, thanks for curing that, yes you can sell here but it has to be this cost or this percentage of the cost that Americans are paying.

So they simply push it on the Americans, which is why we need to change policies.

Trump is fine here, it brings attention to a big problem, even if it is congress that needs to remedy the problem. Seems you have to put pressure on them to do anything these days. Doesn't surprise me to see people on here whining, that is all yall do, but he is getting s*** done, unlike the past morons. Reagan was the last President to get this much done, Hopefully we do not have another Perot to screw things up and we make a 16 year run

It's said that they spend almost as much, if not more, on advertising as they do r&d.

I would be in favor of a ban on pharmaceutical commercials and advertisements.

Let the doctor decide what you need for your health and quit convincing people they have problems that they don't and telling their doctors that they need it.

I'm aware that TV commercials are a subset of advertising costs (they likely pay out a significant amount as a kickback to doctors that prescribe their drug), but still