Trump Promises To Slash Regulation For Pharmaceutical Companies By ‘up To 80 Per Cent’

[hairblues]

Not good for the consumer maybe. But I think unchecked capitalism is likely better for development and innovation.

Still though I know nothing of these regulations, not even from the US. We probably have 10 times more here.

I found it weird in the US when I saw ads for prescription drugs.

no its ultimately bad for the economy look at 2008 from Bush.

that came from no regulations on mortgages.

so people who could not afford mortgages were buying houses...eventually that imploded. Effected everyone.

 

[thomps1523]

no its ultimately bad for the economy look at 2008 from Bush.

that came from no regulations on mortgages.

so people who could not afford mortgages were buying houses...eventually that imploded. Effected everyone.

Ok let's at least be reasonable here, yeah bush allowed it to continue but Clinton started the "affordable housing goals" that allowed banks to take on the awful sub prime loans... I get not liking trump, but you're acting like a total dem homer!

Agreed there needs to be some regulation, more than what trump wants to allow. We can also agree that a replacement for healthcare should have been proposed before killing off obama care, but healthcare is a service not a right. I'm not on my mom's healthcare, and I pay $250/month to insure myself with a $5k deductible which is utterly useless to me unless I get cancer... Obamacare wasn't without flaws!

 

[inham123]

Actually that's because banks were forced by anti-discrimination laws to give mortgages and complex financial instruments to blacks and latinos who have terrible credit score.

Oh and the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 which was made after the Great Depression crash to prevent any future gigantic economic crash in the US by Bill Clinton in the late 90's.

 

[hairblues]

Ok let's at least be reasonable here, yeah bush allowed it to continue but Clinton started the "affordable housing goals" that allowed banks to take on the awful sub prime loans... I get not liking trump, but you're acting like a total dem homer!
!

i swear to God some of you were raised by wolves

if you want to have a political discussion with me don't talk to me like that.

 

[champpy]

Just curious how old are you?
are you still on your moms insurance plan?

Haha no. im 41

 

[thomps1523]

i swear to God some of you were raised by wolves

if you want to have a political discussion with me don't talk to me like that.

Uh.... you just blamed republicans for the collapse of the United States...

 

[hairblues]

Uh.... you just blamed republicans for the collapse of the United States...

Is that calling them a 'homer"?

and not what i wrote..

try going back and reading WHOLE thread. it was a conversation about unchecked capitalism not being harmless.

don't be so defensive and offensive.

 

[thomps1523]

Is that calling them a 'homer"?

and not what i wrote..

try going back and reading WHOLE thread. it was a conversation about unchecked capitalism not being harmless.

don't be so defensive and offensive.

I did, and if you read my comment I agreed that regulation is needed. I also see you saying that bush was responsible for the financial collapse, which just isn't true.

 

[rupture]

I personally don't mind paying a little bit higher price on anything it's made in the USA. I don't understand why any American would be opposed to this.
Yeah we pay a little bit more on products but more citizens have jobs they can afford better places to live and nicer things OR less people have jobs, they live off the government and can't afford to have the things they want in life.

And really it comes down to me paying a little more for products that I want or me being forced to pay more in taxes to cover people that don't have jobs. I choose the first option

We should not pay more for drugs made in the USA. Every other country should. We should reap the benefits and not the cost of development . And I'm not talking about very poor nations, everyone should have access to life changing meds. In other words don't sh*t where you eat

 

[hairblues]

I did, and if you read my comment I agreed that regulation is needed. I also see you saying that bush was responsible for the financial collapse, which just isn't true.

correct Clinton deregulated and democrats are not blameless
BUT Bush had 8 years to do something about it and did not..and it is the republican philosophy of free markets and less/no regulation ( depending on who you talk to)

I'm not a great political debater because people get nasty about it and i don't like that but here are some quotes i pulled to support what i am talking about.

William Donaldson, a former Wall Street executive with respected Republican credentials who became chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Bush, quit in 2005 after facing resistance from the White House and Republican members of the panel, who criticized his support for stiffer regulations on mutual funds and hedge funds

the White House, in the view of critics, fostered a free-market hothouse in which these excesses were able to flower. It avoided regulation of banks and mortgage brokers, leaving much of that work to the Federal Reserve, which, under Alan Greenspan, showed little appetite for regulation. By the time Bush's current Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., proposed an overhaul of regulations governing the financial sector in April, the storm was already brewing.

Beyond its deregulatory bent, some economists argue that the administration's fiscal and tax policies made the United States more dependent on foreign capital, which fueled the bubble in housing prices

The White House and Congress wanted to make housing affordable to more Americans, and freeing up the lending markets was a way to do that. As Rogoff said, "It was a market-based way to help poor people. There was an incredible belief in free markets."

For all that faith, Bush's first two Treasury secretaries, Paul O'Neill and John Snow, came from top jobs in industry, not Wall Street. They were viewed in Washington as advocating the interests of business, and being less comfortable with the mysteries of the markets.

The primary agency responsible for keeping an eye on these things is, and should be, the Treasury Department, and I think the president erred in the first place by appointing two secretaries who had no background in finance," said Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist who was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan and an official in the Treasury Department under President George H.W. Bush.

Critics, including McCain, say the SEC has been less active under its current chairman, Christopher Cox, a former Republican congressman from California. It has spent less on enforcement and levied less in fines on wrongdoers, according to the Government Accountability Office.

"You can't overestimate what happens when you encourage regulators to believe that the goal of regulation is not to regulate," said Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University.

 

[itsover]

Great news, we need to cut regulation as much as possible, time is running out and there is nothing worse than slowing down research.

 

[thomps1523]

correct Clinton deregulated and democrats are not blameless
BUT Bush had 8 years to do something about it and did not..and it is the republican philosophy of free markets and less/no regulation ( depending on who you talk to)

I'm not a great political debater because people get nasty about it and i don't like that but here are some quotes i pulled to support what i am talking about.

William Donaldson, a former Wall Street executive with respected Republican credentials who became chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Bush, quit in 2005 after facing resistance from the White House and Republican members of the panel, who criticized his support for stiffer regulations on mutual funds and hedge funds

the White House, in the view of critics, fostered a free-market hothouse in which these excesses were able to flower. It avoided regulation of banks and mortgage brokers, leaving much of that work to the Federal Reserve, which, under Alan Greenspan, showed little appetite for regulation. By the time Bush's current Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., proposed an overhaul of regulations governing the financial sector in April, the storm was already brewing.

Beyond its deregulatory bent, some economists argue that the administration's fiscal and tax policies made the United States more dependent on foreign capital, which fueled the bubble in housing prices

The White House and Congress wanted to make housing affordable to more Americans, and freeing up the lending markets was a way to do that. As Rogoff said, "It was a market-based way to help poor people. There was an incredible belief in free markets."

For all that faith, Bush's first two Treasury secretaries, Paul O'Neill and John Snow, came from top jobs in industry, not Wall Street. They were viewed in Washington as advocating the interests of business, and being less comfortable with the mysteries of the markets.

The primary agency responsible for keeping an eye on these things is, and should be, the Treasury Department, and I think the president erred in the first place by appointing two secretaries who had no background in finance," said Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist who was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan and an official in the Treasury Department under President George H.W. Bush.

Critics, including McCain, say the SEC has been less active under its current chairman, Christopher Cox, a former Republican congressman from California. It has spent less on enforcement and levied less in fines on wrongdoers, according to the Government Accountability Office.

"You can't overestimate what happens when you encourage regulators to believe that the goal of regulation is not to regulate," said Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University.

I'm a strong advocate for regulation in certain areas, and I'm not a republican, so I'm not defensive about your comments. I just found them misleading, and somewhat one-sided. Is deregulation good with regards to our health? I think it's obvious that it puts us more at risk. Is deregulation good for innovation, and bringing things to the market more quickly? Certainly! It really just depends on the person's agenda. While for the most part I do agree with you, I do think it's important to be open, and at this point all we can do is hope for the best!

 

[Roberto_72]

Does finasteride 5 mg still cost less than finasteride 1 mg just because the latter is for hair loss?
Because this already seems to me as a non indifferent price deregulation.

 

[champpy]

We should not pay more for drugs made in the USA. Every other country should. We should reap the benefits and not the cost of development . And I'm not talking about very poor nations, everyone should have access to life changing meds. In other words don't sh*t where you eat

Would be nice, but I dont see how an american made product wouldnt cost everyone more.
Id still rather give that extra buck to workers that earned it rather than those that didnt.
And if a new med was created without going through 15 years of trials and i decided to use it, then any consequences should be on me. Id at least like the choice to use it or not rather than having the drug tied up in red tape for two decades.

 

[hellouser]

So... Setipiprant, Histogen and Follica this year?

 

[thomps1523]

So... Setipiprant, Histogen and Follica this year?

I'm praying follica/histogen combined can bring back a Norwood... that a transplant and replicel would be a cure for me!

 

[tzt]

Make our hair grow again !!!

 

[hairblues]

Lol, I see a lot of people drank the coolaid of the media concerning Martin.

Watch this

okay this is a highly debatable interview but i am not going to debate it because its irrelevant to my original point.

and you are rude by saying I'm drinking the 'kool' aid when you provide ONE video interview that is him mostly talking about himself and not much fact checked from what i can tell... if she is fact checking him shes not making that clear in her voice overs with sources.
him making the drug available for free AFTER he got into trouble is not impressive to me.

regardless even if this guy is innocent victim (which he's not)

my main message remains.

Trump is NOT going to be good for health care across the board.

i will go so far as to predict more people will be dying or diagnosed with a serious preventable illnesses in the next 4-8 years then under Obama.

if he is great for hair loss that can be a silver lining...but he's not going to be good for most Americans health in my opinion.

 

[g.i joey]

Trump is sh*t, that is all.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

There's never been a rich country that practiced "pure capitalism", and there never will be, it's just not a useful concept as it doesn't describe anything in the real world.

Regulations are inevitable given the existence of other countries (trade deals), strategic industries that must be prioritized (such as anything involved in the military supply chain), environmental regulations, enforcing property rights, and labour.

You cannot have capitalism without labour, as there needs to be people building things, and people consuming things. As we speak, immigration rules are being modified, that's an intrinsic regulation.

Shkreli "gamed" the system, aka fcked the insurance companies by raising the price of the drug. People who can't afford insurance get it free. And where is your source that he made it free after he got in "trouble"?

And there are more interviews of him on youtube.

He's a victim of character assasination by media and insurance companies . Next time, do your research before parotting media propaganda.

And deregulation has its pros and cons. Japan did it too and a lot of smaller pharma companies are going to the east because of it

Do you have additional sources?

I personally hate Shkrelu, but the media is totally untrustworthy so it may well be that I've been misled.