Issue 2

[mmrmnhrm]

AHF has spent $16 million campaigning for this bill here. By comparison Big Pharma has spent $50 million here on issue #2 and $109million in California to try and defeat prop 61 - in both cases it is/was the most expensive ballot measure for either state in the state's history.

Then maybe we ought to vote it down, just to bring it up again next year. Then rinse and repeat across the nation to bleed big pharma dry?

[Geeto67]

Then maybe we ought to vote it down, just to bring it up again next year. Then rinse and repeat across the nation to bleed big pharma dry?

 

It gets voted down - it be dead. It won't come back next year. Also...Pharma is a money printing machine - it's impossible to bleed someone dry who's making it faster than they can spend it.

 

Big Pharma is pouring buckets of money into defeating this - something here has them rattled.

[Richard Cranium]

God I'm confused on this one. I don't think bog pharma is a friend to anyone but themselves, and I think the only thing they are interested in protecting is themselves and their profits. The fact they are against it leads me to vote yes.

 

So Wienstein runs a billion dollar organization that sells drugs. I don't get it, what's in it for him to lower drug costs? Maybe I'm just going down the conspiracy theory road here, but I can't help but think there is something bigger going on. The language sounds simple. I'm hearing a lot of "fears" about it, but I'm not seeing much that I would consider facts.

 

In truth I'm turned off by both sides. The unlimited legal fees is a turn off on the yes side. The support of big pharma is a turn off on the no side.

[Geeto67]

God I'm confused on this one. I don't think bog pharma is a friend to anyone but themselves, and I think the only thing they are interested in protecting is themselves and their profits. The fact they are against it leads me to vote yes.

 

If it makes you feel better, the Pharma industry throws burning piles of cash at literally every single pricing measure that is proposed. That's why almost none get passed at the state level and there are very few federal price restrictions on drugs. It doesn't matter the merit of it, they will fight literally every single attempt to reign them in.

 

So Wienstein runs a billion dollar organization that sells drugs. I don't get it, what's in it for him to lower drug costs? Maybe I'm just going down the conspiracy theory road here, but I can't help but think there is something bigger going on. The language sounds simple. I'm hearing a lot of "fears" about it, but I'm not seeing much that I would consider facts.

 

Nope, nothing bigger. remember they are a not for profit = charity. What's in it for them to lower drug costs is they can get reimbursed for handing out more drugs to people that can't afford them from medicaid if the price is cheaper. That's literally it - they want the state to get more drugs for the money.

 

In truth I'm turned off by both sides. The unlimited legal fees is a turn off on the yes side. The support of big pharma is a turn off on the no side.

 

Think of it not so much as unlimited legal fees but rather unlimited defense of the measure. If it passes - the drug companies will just continue to spend to repeal it. That means lawsuits, that means political contributions, dis-information campaigns, you name it. If the state isn't committed to fighting it in the courts then the first time the pharma industry funds litigation against it the measure will crumble.

 

I'm not super thrilled about the legal fee portion of it either, but I understand it is a necessary commitment to preserve the act.

[Furloaf]

Well guess Ohio didn't want this huh

[Mace1647545504]

The problem for me was the law suit issue and the pro 2 ads didn't really promote their side as much as they just degraded the anti 2 people. They just didn't explain themselves well enough

[zeitgeist57]