3 ms·
They are negotiating with drug manufacturers. In the case there is only one, the negotiation just wouldn't go well.
by nitwit005 2y ago
They are negotiating with drug manufacturers. In the case there is only one, the negotiation just wouldn't go well.
- aqueueaqueue 2y agoTrump MO would be implement a 100% tax on pharma profits and unrealized capital gains next Monday, then reverse it once they agree. But only if Trump cares to die on that hill.
- adrr 2y agoHow can Trump change tax law?
- aqueueaqueue 2y agoSame way he created tariffs.
- arrosenberg 2y agoWrong. Congress granted the Presidency an almost limitless power to levy tariffs in the early 1900s. It has no such power to change the tax laws.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y agoHe can simply take all pharma manufacturer portfolio off the medicare schedule, for example. That's what I would do, and it would be the right lawful move. On the side, he may open the door for generic substitutes as well from CAN etc. A simple price directive would be set at the same time, without any negotiation: The price US medicare will pay will only be the average price for each drug, in all OECD countries.
- verandaguy 2y agoSame way he's getting the executive to (apparently) dismantle federal departments. With no legal precedent supporting him but absolutely no resistance from the branches of government meant to keep him in check.
- arrosenberg 2y agoAs WW2 was ramping up there was only 1 aluminum manufacturer - Alcoa (Aluminum Co of America). When they hemmed and hawed that they could not increase production to meet the US war demands, the FDR administration made an investment to start Reynolds, who would go on to supply all of the aluminum needed to create thousands of ships and airplanes. Today they make foil and plastic bags. Alcoa still exists too as a much smaller fish in a much larger pond. The government has all the cards, negotiation is really just a matter of will.
- nitwit005 2y agoSure, but that's not the law being discussed. It's literally a negotiation process.
- arrosenberg 2y agoThat ignores the point of the story and what I was responding to. If there is only 1 company to negotiate with, the government is really the only entity that can threaten to simply create a competitor and give them the IP rights (by legal fiat) to do so. If you tell the existing company that your alternative solution is to compete with them using taxpayer money, they might choose to take the lesson of history and accept the government's negotiating position.