General Discussion

cui bono

(19,926 posts)

37. I think it has mostly to do with money in elections.

Wed Mar 19, 2014, 04:37 PM

Mar 2014

Did the Dem Party leaders fight for single-payer? No. They are afraid to. If they do that they lose campaign financing from the corporations that have all the money to give them.

Perhaps if they weren't beholden to corporations at the very least the Dem Party could come out fighting for the people again. The Republicans? I don't know. I don't think it would matter though because I think the people would flock to the Dem Party.

Secondly, the corporate controlled media still controls the message. Which leads into your take on what people fear. They are fed this fear by corporate controlled media, same people who are controlling our elected officials.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Healthline.com: Should Multiple Sclerosis Drugs Cost $62,000 a Year? [View all] theboss Mar 2014 OP

No. bravenak Mar 2014 #1

10 to 1 that the research that went into these drugs was mostly paid for by Federal grants kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #5

Yes!!! bravenak Mar 2014 #15

Socialize the drug companies and...... theboss Mar 2014 #19

Dream killer!!! bravenak Mar 2014 #23

There are ways to protect against that...there must be. One way is to keep Sen. Dogpatch from being kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #60

Drugs tend to cost less in countries with single payer health care. Gormy Cuss Mar 2014 #28

We will get there. bravenak Mar 2014 #32

I think it has mostly to do with money in elections. cui bono Mar 2014 #37

Single payer would not solve this problem. The same issue affects Medicare and countries pnwmom Mar 2014 #42

Yes, i agree there was fear of fighting too hard to get something that the right was against. bravenak Mar 2014 #43

Also government funded universities ... Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2014 #29

You said it!! I worked in that system so I really know what goes out of public view. nt kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #59

No, they should not. MineralMan Mar 2014 #2

This is not my area of expertise theboss Mar 2014 #3

I don't know. MineralMan Mar 2014 #6

Would shortening patent periods just make this worse in the short term? theboss Mar 2014 #13

I don't know that, either. MineralMan Mar 2014 #16

Another important thing to remember is ... Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2014 #33

Actually, research is working on some new classes MineralMan Mar 2014 #36

Absolutely not. Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #4

No warrior1 Mar 2014 #7

No, no one should get rich off of someone else's suffering. hamsterjill Mar 2014 #8

That's a rather broad statement theboss Mar 2014 #11

Perhaps it is broad, but I'll bet most DU'ers would know what I meant. hamsterjill Mar 2014 #31

I knew what you meant. Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2014 #35

Thank you. I have some real grief over drug companies advertising, too. hamsterjill Mar 2014 #49

The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries where direct to consumer advertising of smokey nj Mar 2014 #61

I agree with you on CEO pay theboss Mar 2014 #39

Yes ... 1000words Mar 2014 #9

No. No medication should cost... one_voice Mar 2014 #10

No fucking way it should cost that much. City Lights Mar 2014 #12

Nope nt steve2470 Mar 2014 #14

Aubagio, for MS, is $4,868.41 per month steve2470 Mar 2014 #17

I agree....but to be devil's advocate..... theboss Mar 2014 #20

Whatever is the actual cost of producing the drug plus 10% profit steve2470 Mar 2014 #22

That's actually a pretty good answer theboss Mar 2014 #25

a simplistic comparison is the way Florida regulates power companies steve2470 Mar 2014 #26

what if they cost $4,400 a month to produce? hfojvt Mar 2014 #41

my understanding is that Big Pharma incurs large R&D costs steve2470 Mar 2014 #44

The article talks about the secrecy theboss Mar 2014 #46

yes of course steve2470 Mar 2014 #48

secrecy indeed CountAllVotes Mar 2014 #51

According to all the literature blindersoff Mar 2014 #55

no two people are alike in symptoms or progression CountAllVotes Mar 2014 #66

What about developement costs? Travis_0004 Mar 2014 #57

see post 44 nt steve2470 Mar 2014 #58

Do you mean the actual cost of producing the physical medication? Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #62

I meant all of the costs, including research and development steve2470 Mar 2014 #63

No. eom uppityperson Mar 2014 #18

I first became aware of this problem in February 2013. Jenoch Mar 2014 #21

No. Period. truebrit71 Mar 2014 #24

Yes ... Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2014 #27

Time was that medicine was a vocation, its mission was to serve & to save lives. reformist2 Mar 2014 #30

no. nt magical thyme Mar 2014 #34

Invisible Hand! Invisible Hand! Maedhros Mar 2014 #38

No, they should not. But people should be aware that under the ACA, an insurer may NOT pnwmom Mar 2014 #40

I agree theboss Mar 2014 #45

No, but that said ... frazzled Mar 2014 #47

The question is why are there 10 treatments, but no cure? kristopher Mar 2014 #50

the cause of MS is UNKNOWN CountAllVotes Mar 2014 #52

My personal feelings passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #53

Luckily by the grace of god CFLDem Mar 2014 #68

So, I invent a drug....and then I don't control it? theboss Mar 2014 #69

Why do you need to control it? passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #72

I used to work in the biotechnology/pharmaceutical industry, and just FYI TrollBuster9090 Mar 2014 #54

I've had MS for 16 years. I have no idea what the drugs cost. mr blur Mar 2014 #56

Betaseron is available only to 1 in 8 UK MS patients under the NHS ("Postcode lottery") Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #64

New research indicates statin medications may help control MS LiberalEsto Mar 2014 #65

that's nothing new CountAllVotes Mar 2014 #67

Your Estimate Is Too High ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #70

According to the article, it is $5,809.69 at Walgreens theboss Mar 2014 #71

Saw That ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #73