this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
2136 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59148 readers
2260 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I don't think he meant to the consumer. EU countries can negotiate for the price with pharmaceutical companies, so they can lower the price.

In the US insurance companies can try to negotiate, but their weight is quite low, and the federal government (medicaid, medicare) is forbidden by law to negotiate. Whichever price pharma sets, it's that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

... forbidden by law to negotiate.

Is that true? Is there a legitimate reason why they shouldn't be able to?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's a constitutional thing, government has to guarantee the companies' freedom to set the price they want or something totally moronic like that...

In fact it's the first time the government will be able to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies!

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-judge-refuses-block-medicare-negotiating-drug-prices-2023-09-29/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about updating the constitution to solve this specific problem, which is quite significant for the populace? After all, it's the constitution's job to serve the people.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

That would require a constitutional amendment, which would require being ratified by 38 or more states. Which would require at least 38 states without significant corruption/obstruction, and a population not braindead/brainwashed enough to vote against their own interests.

So the chances of that happening are abysmally low.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)