Biden on drug prices: ‘We will set the prices’

 

Otherwise known as a totalitarian government point of view. Cloaked in wolf’s clothes. . Something that sounds good. Biden is the so called ‘Moderate’? All we need to know about one Joe Biden and his healthcare plan.

Companies that develop drugs will have to go to the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to be told what they’ll be allowed to charge for their products if Joe Biden is elected president, the former vice president declared Wednesday during the Democrat presidential debate.

I managed to get through the debate to this point. Considering it takes about one Billion buckeroos to develop a new drug and years and years, this should work out swell. The simple answer is that foreign countries need to pay their fair share of the price of drugs including development. We need to stop subsidizing.

Biden made the claim while defending his health care plan against the charge that it would not cover everyone in America, adding that his administration would also dictate any price increases:

“My plan does cover everyone, number one. Number two, the fact is that my plan also calls for controlling drug prices. The biopharma is now where things are going to go. It’s no longer chemicals.

“It’s about all the breakthroughs we have with the whole — excuse me, immune system.

“And, what we have to do now is we have to have a form that sits in the HHS and says: as you develop a drug, you got to come to us and decide what you can sell it for.

“We will set the price. And, secondly, it says that you cannot raise that price beyond the cost of inflation from this point on.”

Keep reading

Let’s make sure we remember what Obama had in mind.Do we really want Obama 2.0 in the form of Joe Biden? Government controlled healthcare? Back in 2011-

Drug Shortages in Great Britain – Coming soon with Obamacare?

Patients are being forced to wait for vital drugs – including treatments for cancer – because of desperate shortages of medicines across Britain.

Stocks of 56 drugs, including treatments for cancer, Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, depression, kidney disease, high blood pressure, and epilepsy have now run low.

Other than that, all is well in the swamp. For the best in conservative news, and so much better than Drudge. Click below.

 

The Cures Act – No longer is ‘Informed Consent’ required for some medical experiments

The Cures Act was passed in the tail end of 2016. Today I focus on Section 3023, 2024 regarding Informed Consent and why you should care. No longer is the Gold Standard of “Informed Consent” required if there are “no more of minimal risks to participants.” And who decides this? Yesterday I posted Trump hogties the EPA, will he stop their illegal human medical experiments? This is why you should care. But let me not get ahead of myself. I include a video.

A year and a half after the original bill left the House of Representatives, the much-discussed and highly anticipated 21st Century Cures Act became law on December 13, 2016. The legislation went through more than a few changes in those seventeen months; it expanded from four sections to twenty-five and from 362 pages to 966. Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations

The Cures Act introduces the possibility of waiving or altering informed consent for some FDA-governed research. This decision could mark a major step in the required harmonization of regulations; the rules around waivers of informed consent are some of the significant differences between FDA and Common Rule requirements.

The law sets two requirements for waiving or altering informed consent:

  1. The research must pose no more than minimal risk to participants; and
  2. Other measures to protect study volunteers must be in place.

The bill does not specify who will confirm decisions about minimal risk or appropriate safeguards, but the requirements seem consistent with determinations that IRBs already make. From Quorum Review

From Science Blogs:

Worse, the bill undermines informed consent, as I discussed before. The provision is still there that would add another category of research for which it is acceptable to forego informed consent. Normally, it is only acceptable to skip informed consent when it is not feasible or it is contrary to the best interests of the subject. Add to that now that it would be acceptable to forego informed consent when “the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.” As Merrill Goozner put it and I agreed, even if the risk is minimal, why would the authors of this legislation waive a central tenet of international agreements designed to protect the rights of human subjects in clinical trials? I didn’t understand either (and still don’t), particularly since the act doesn’t define “minimal risk” or specify who determines whether a study is minimal risk.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: