Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Aug. 26, 2016 5:36 p.m. ET

To whom it may concern:

As the CEO of Mylan, maker of the world-famous EpiPen, it gives me great pleasure to address you, via email from an undisclosed location, concerning the pricing of our product.

As you may know, my father is a U.S. senator from West Virginia, where the state motto is “Montani semper liberi.� It means “mountaineers are always free.� Indeed, they are. But pharmaceuticals aren’t—especially EpiPen.

Sadly, thanks to a controversy fanned by the media, even my father, better known as Sen. Joe Manchin, issued a statement this week decrying the “skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs.� He didn’t mention EpiPen for good reason. He’s my dad.

Our health-care system is confusing. The public is understandably confused about why we have raised the price of a two-pack of EpiPens by 500% over the past decade—from $100 in 2007 to $600 today.

That sounds like a lot, especially since the active ingredient, epinephrine, has been around since 1901 and is cheap to make. Yes, we recently improved our injector, but guess what? The old injector worked fine. EpiPen, using the old injector, saved thousands of lives, especially children who are allergic to peanuts or bee stings.

The drug can be bought for 10 cents in many countries; the old injector design our would-be competitors are free to copy to their heart’s content. Our prices would surely be lower, then, if we actually had some competitors. Don’t blame me. The Food and Drug Administration has delayed the entry of one competitor and made noises that recently drove another from the market over product-quality snafus.

As I explained to the New York Times this week, “I am a for-profit business.� EpiPen sales have reached $1 billion a year on my watch, up from $200 million a decade ago. Guess how much of that growth is not increased volume but increased profit? A lot. That’s capitalism. I’m doing my job. Maybe the FDA should do theirs.*

(*Mylan employs lobbyists and lawyers to delay competitors from getting their products approved by the FDA.)

Newspaper and TV coverage of our pricing controversy has not been friendly to Mylan, but most reports at least mention the ways we strive to lower the out-of-pocket price for consumers with coupons and rebates to offset their copays and deductibles. We also provide free drugs to hardship cases. The Washington Post even alluded to these efforts in its headline: “Despite coupons, EpiPen’s virtual monopoly roils critics.�

Sadly, the media have proved unable to explain the finer points of pharmaceutical pricing. Not that we blame the media: health-care pricing is complicated and subject to Reporter Complexity Refusal Syndrome.

And yet the essential matter is not complicated. It can be explained in a sentence: Six hundred dollars is the price we want insurers to pay.

Insurers are not spending your money. They are spending everybody’s money. Look at it from the perspective of health-care providers, drugmakers or medical-device suppliers. All of us are competing for a common pot of loot. Naturally, each wants to maximize his share. That’s human nature. If 10 hungry people are sitting around a small bowl of jelly beans, each will eat more, and faster, than he otherwise would.

Notice something else: How much each provider takes out of the common pot has no natural, organic relationship to the value the provider brings to the patient. Why not? Well, in the rest of the economy, when a consumer is spending out of his pocket, he has incentive to judge whether the service he’s buying is worth the price he’s being asked to pay.

Now you know why we offer coupons and rebates to individual consumers. This is our way of trying to re-desensitize customers to the price of EpiPen in order to counter the efforts of insurers to re-sensitize them by hitting them with copays and deductibles.

Then why does getting our coupons and rebates involve rigmarole? Because certain consumers won’t make the effort, and then we get to keep the money that would otherwise go to defray their out-of-pocket costs.

It’s a great game and we have fun playing it. On average, however, it probably does not increase the health-care industry’s profit margins or the public’s health—but only the share of national income diverted to health care from everything else: beer nuts, wedding presents, automobiles. Our industry’s share of GDP is 17%, up from 13% two decades ago. Hooray, that’s $700 billion a year.

For decades, health-care reform as preached by knowledgeable experts has aimed at fixing this dynamic, and yet every law passed by Congress ends up doing the opposite, basically using taxpayer money to fill the pot with more jelly beans for providers to fight over.

So if you don’t like how much your EpiPen costs, elect different politicians (except for dad).

Sincerely,

Heather Bresch

Chief Executive Officer, Mylan

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Actually I hope this inspires competition.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."

One of my neighbors is diabetic and earlier this week when the Epipen
scandal broke, he mentioned that two insulin products he has used,
Novolog something or other and Humalog something or other, from two
competing manufacturers, had "list prices" of around $1100 for a one
month supply. He pays less because of his insurance, but he still pays a
lot. No competition in price. It's the American way for many products.
Competition is not the answer.

I doubt the Epipens cost more than $2 or $3 to manufacture, including
the drug and the injector. I read a report that in Canada, a Canadian in
need of an Epipen pays about $12.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:33:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."

One of my neighbors is diabetic and earlier this week when the Epipen
scandal broke, he mentioned that two insulin products he has used,
Novolog something or other and Humalog something or other, from two
competing manufacturers, had "list prices" of around $1100 for a one
month supply. He pays less because of his insurance, but he still pays a
lot. No competition in price. It's the American way for many products.
Competition is not the answer.

I doubt the Epipens cost more than $2 or $3 to manufacture, including
the drug and the injector. I read a report that in Canada, a Canadian in
need of an Epipen pays about $12.


Yeah those price gouging democrats.
This is not the "free market" it is a government imposed monopoly.
There are competitors out there but they are hung up in the FDA
process, something the Canadians are not burdened with in Canada where
there are other products on the market.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/28/16 10:28 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:33:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."

One of my neighbors is diabetic and earlier this week when the Epipen
scandal broke, he mentioned that two insulin products he has used,
Novolog something or other and Humalog something or other, from two
competing manufacturers, had "list prices" of around $1100 for a one
month supply. He pays less because of his insurance, but he still pays a
lot. No competition in price. It's the American way for many products.
Competition is not the answer.

I doubt the Epipens cost more than $2 or $3 to manufacture, including
the drug and the injector. I read a report that in Canada, a Canadian in
need of an Epipen pays about $12.


Yeah those price gouging democrats.
This is not the "free market" it is a government imposed monopoly.
There are competitors out there but they are hung up in the FDA
process, something the Canadians are not burdened with in Canada where
there are other products on the market.



So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

===

Is thalidomide what stunted your personal development?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 10:28 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:33:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."

One of my neighbors is diabetic and earlier this week when the Epipen
scandal broke, he mentioned that two insulin products he has used,
Novolog something or other and Humalog something or other, from two
competing manufacturers, had "list prices" of around $1100 for a one
month supply. He pays less because of his insurance, but he still pays a
lot. No competition in price. It's the American way for many products.
Competition is not the answer.

I doubt the Epipens cost more than $2 or $3 to manufacture, including
the drug and the injector. I read a report that in Canada, a Canadian in
need of an Epipen pays about $12.


Yeah those price gouging democrats.
This is not the "free market" it is a government imposed monopoly.
There are competitors out there but they are hung up in the FDA
process, something the Canadians are not burdened with in Canada where
there are other products on the market.



So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?


Thalidomide is still being used. Is Thalmud (sp) used for cancer
treatment. But FDA approved thalidomide for pregnant women. Government
screws up also. But Epipen competitors have been locked out. Maybe the
fact the CEO is the daughter of a Senator with a $16,000,000 raise has
something to do with government imposed monopoly?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free
market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.


How come a mostly Democrat controlled presidency has not fixed that in the
last 2 years? Maybe because they are controlled by Wall Street?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:48:53 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

===

Is thalidomide what stunted your personal development?

LOL!

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free
market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.


How come a mostly Democrat controlled presidency has not fixed that in the
last 2 years? Maybe because they are controlled by Wall Street?



20 years

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."

One of my neighbors is diabetic and earlier this week when the Epipen
scandal broke, he mentioned that two insulin products he has used,
Novolog something or other and Humalog something or other, from two
competing manufacturers, had "list prices" of around $1100 for a one
month supply. He pays less because of his insurance, but he still pays a
lot. No competition in price. It's the American way for many products.
Competition is not the answer.

I doubt the Epipens cost more than $2 or $3 to manufacture, including
the drug and the injector. I read a report that in Canada, a Canadian in
need of an Epipen pays about $12.




Rumor has it that the predecessor to the new improved pen is off
patent protection, .and at least one fella has figgered out how
to reuse the device. The drug itself is dirt cheap. Won't be long
before Epipens become the new Lipitor. Might be interesting to
find out profit margins figureing in development and other costs
to market the Epipen. Or you could go with your gut feelings
about how much profit YOU summise a company should make. How much
profit does your product produce? I'd bet around 99.5 percent.
How worthwhile is it? Talk about the king of ripoffs. You da
man.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/28/16 11:48 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

===

Is thalidomide what stunted your personal development?


What a singular honor to be insulted in junior high school fashion by so
distinguished a slimeball bankster who likely was the first Zika virus
baby. :)

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/28/16 12:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free
market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.


How come a mostly Democrat controlled presidency has not fixed that in the
last 2 years? Maybe because they are controlled by Wall Street?


The Repugnant-controlled Congress won't allow the proper legislation to
get anyway. Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill to remedy and reign in
the Big Pharma Banksters, but it isn't going to go anywhere until
Hillary takes over the White House.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:55:02 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 8/28/16 11:48 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

===

Is thalidomide what stunted your personal development?


What a singular honor to be insulted in junior high school fashion by so
distinguished a slimeball bankster who likely was the first Zika virus
baby. :)

This from one who's never hurled an insult to anyone in rec.boats, let alone the other groups he's
been kicked out of.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:45:14 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:55:02 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 8/28/16 11:48 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

===

Is thalidomide what stunted your personal development?


What a singular honor to be insulted in junior high school fashion by so
distinguished a slimeball bankster who likely was the first Zika virus
baby. :)

This from one who's never hurled an insult to anyone in rec.boats, let alone the other groups he's
been kicked out of.

===

Wasn't there a group that called him an asshat and then tossed him
out?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:10:39 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:45:14 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:55:02 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 8/28/16 11:48 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

===

Is thalidomide what stunted your personal development?


What a singular honor to be insulted in junior high school fashion by so
distinguished a slimeball bankster who likely was the first Zika virus
baby. :)

This from one who's never hurled an insult to anyone in rec.boats, let alone the other groups he's
been kicked out of.

===

Wasn't there a group that called him an asshat and then tossed him
out?

I believe so. But he's said they unfairly tossed him out. So, the folks in the group must have been
all bad.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Yeah those price gouging democrats.
This is not the "free market" it is a government imposed monopoly.
There are competitors out there but they are hung up in the FDA
process, something the Canadians are not burdened with in Canada where
there are other products on the market.



So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

A non responsive answer and not even relevant.
We are talking about the same drug and only arguing about the delivery
syringe. It has more to do with patents and the power of Joe Manchin
than patient safety.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:20:36 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:10:39 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:45:14 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:55:02 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 8/28/16 11:48 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

===

Is thalidomide what stunted your personal development?


What a singular honor to be insulted in junior high school fashion by so
distinguished a slimeball bankster who likely was the first Zika virus
baby. :)

This from one who's never hurled an insult to anyone in rec.boats, let alone the other groups he's
been kicked out of.

===

Wasn't there a group that called him an asshat and then tossed him
out?

I believe so. But he's said they unfairly tossed him out. So, the folks in the group must have been
all bad.

===

That's too bad if they unfairly tossed out an asshat.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/28/16 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

You mean, a free market doesn't mean those doing the marketing have the
freedom to do anything they wish? :)

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:19:26 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

You mean, a free market doesn't mean those doing the marketing have the
freedom to do anything they wish? :)

Perhaps that is the meaning to a socialist like you, Herr Krause.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:19:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

You mean, a free market doesn't mean those doing the marketing have the
freedom to do anything they wish? :)

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?
It is the FDA that says the competition can't enter new delivery
devices into the market ... or even old designs until they get
specifically accepted and that takes years.
Why are there only 2 companies selling that insulin device you talked
about? Insulin itself is a commodity item. pretty much selling for the
cost of production so it must be a proprietary delivery device.
The same is true of the Epi pen. The drug itself is generically
available dirt cheap. You are just paying for the syringe.
Who is holding up the approval of the 50 cent one?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 9:58:43 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:19:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

You mean, a free market doesn't mean those doing the marketing have the
freedom to do anything they wish? :)

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?
It is the FDA that says the competition can't enter new delivery
devices into the market ... or even old designs until they get
specifically accepted and that takes years.
Why are there only 2 companies selling that insulin device you talked
about? Insulin itself is a commodity item. pretty much selling for the
cost of production so it must be a proprietary delivery device.
The same is true of the Epi pen. The drug itself is generically
available dirt cheap. You are just paying for the syringe.
Who is holding up the approval of the 50 cent one?

Krause can't hold the talking point. He must attempt to derail the conversation at his convenience. He is a desperate thinker, that is, if you can call his MO as truly thinking.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."

One of my neighbors is diabetic and earlier this week when the Epipen
scandal broke, he mentioned that two insulin products he has used,
Novolog something or other and Humalog something or other, from two
competing manufacturers, had "list prices" of around $1100 for a one
month supply. He pays less because of his insurance, but he still pays a
lot. No competition in price. It's the American way for many products.
Competition is not the answer.

I doubt the Epipens cost more than $2 or $3 to manufacture, including
the drug and the injector. I read a report that in Canada, a Canadian in
need of an Epipen pays about $12.

This is a classic result of a monopoly, which in this case exists because the FDA(government) has blocked every attempt by other companies to produce a generic Epi-Pen! I wonder if it could have something to do with the CEO's father being a US Senator (a Democrat who undoubtedly hates big corporations!).....nah, just a coincidence, especially since CNBC also reported Mylan paid over $400 million to Teva (the generic producer of the drug) to keep it off the market for a set period of time to allow them this to reap in billions. Patents have expired for this drug and the US government (i.e. taxpayers=all of us) paid for the patent on the delivery system (the pen) in the 1960s.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 12:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free
market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.


How come a mostly Democrat controlled presidency has not fixed that in the
last 2 years? Maybe because they are controlled by Wall Street?


The Repugnant-controlled Congress won't allow the proper legislation to
get anyway. Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill to remedy and reign in
the Big Pharma Banksters, but it isn't going to go anywhere until
Hillary takes over the White House.


..yup, all republican fault. Not the fact a Democrat senator's daughter is
in charge of the ripoff.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:47:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/31/16 10:57 AM, wrote:

That still is not going to do anything about the Epi Pen that we are
talking about. The people and insurance companies paying $300-600 for
these are generally not on medicaid or medicare. S.2023 is just to cut
the government's exposure for the most part.
Also why do you think it is only republicans who are blocking this?
Hillary alone has taken over $20 million from "big medicine" and it is
still August. The idea that most democrats are going to shut down
their gravy train is ridiculous. Notice the only co-sponsor along with
Sanders was Franken. Most democrats are not Sanders and Franken. You
only had to watch the DNC convention and the roadblocks they threw in
front of Sanders in the primaries to see that.


No it isn't, because the Bill, because of the current GOP control of
Congress, isn't going anywhere. That's the same reason Social Security
why Medicare isn't able to negotiate drug prices, because of the GOP
control of Congress. That impediment has to be removed.

Also the Bill provides remedies to get around the raping of the public
being perpetrated by the drug manufacturers.


You still have not said why this is only the republicans.
When the democrats were ramming their health plan through the all
democrat congress, why wasn't drug reform part of it?
Could it possibly be that the democrats are bought by the people you
are blaming?

Your Republican Libertarians have nothing that will help...they're
against regulation.

Bear in mind, the abusive patent protection laws that make all of this
possible are "regulation" too.
Most of this is simply abuse of the patent law. It tends to reward the
person with the best lawyer, not the inventor.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:12:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I suggest you read for content and get back to us.

I read the "Canada" part and my first thought is I bet Canada might
ban exports to the US if this passes because it would make their
prices go up if they didn't. Their negotiations with the drug
companies will change if the companies realize this is not just the
small Canadian market but the much larger US market.
I don't think it is a secret that the US has always subsidized foreign
sales.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:12:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I suggest you read for content and get back to us.

I read the "Canada" part and my first thought is I bet Canada might
ban exports to the US if this passes because it would make their
prices go up if they didn't. Their negotiations with the drug
companies will change if the companies realize this is not just the
small Canadian market but the much larger US market.
I don't think it is a secret that the US has always subsidized foreign
sales.


Most foreign countries regulate the price per manufacturing cost plus a
reasonable profit. They do not figure in development costs. Therefore the
USA consumer pays for all development costs.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/31/16 1:15 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:12:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I suggest you read for content and get back to us.

I read the "Canada" part and my first thought is I bet Canada might
ban exports to the US if this passes because it would make their
prices go up if they didn't. Their negotiations with the drug
companies will change if the companies realize this is not just the
small Canadian market but the much larger US market.
I don't think it is a secret that the US has always subsidized foreign
sales.


Most foreign countries regulate the price per manufacturing cost plus a
reasonable profit. They do not figure in development costs. Therefore the
USA consumer pays for all development costs.


The current scandal over the epipen price gouging has nothing to do with
development of the product or the cost of the med, which has been
estimated at no more than $1.00. Coincidentally, that is about the same
cost as the current polio vaccine. The original Salk vaccine costs to
the public were kept very low because Jonas Salk was a humanitarian, not
a corporate goniff, and if memory serves, did not patent his medication.
I remember distinctly as a little kid lining up at the local elementary
school, where doctors and nurses had volunteered to inoculate every
schoolkid in New Haven at no cost to parents.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:40:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The current scandal over the epipen price gouging has nothing to do with
development of the product or the cost of the med, which has been
estimated at no more than $1.00. Coincidentally, that is about the same
cost as the current polio vaccine. The original Salk vaccine costs to
the public were kept very low because Jonas Salk was a humanitarian, not
a corporate goniff, and if memory serves, did not patent his medication.
I remember distinctly as a little kid lining up at the local elementary
school, where doctors and nurses had volunteered to inoculate every
schoolkid in New Haven at no cost to parents.

I agree that this EpiPen deal is highway robbery and if the government
wants to do something, they should streamline the process for someone
to knock this product off but that is cutting back on regulation so
you are automatically against it. The drug itself is generic and dirt
cheap. The patent is in the little bit of plastic that injects it.
This is not rocket science and if FDA would loosen it's grip, any
injection molding shop would be popping them out for a buck or less
each.
It would cost more to certify the shop that loads the drug than the
drug and the injector combined. Knocking off products in any other
industry is common if not the rule. It is not shocking to me that the
medical devices industry is the glaring exception. You only have to
look at the size of the bribes they send legislators here. They have
already sent the politicians over $161 million in this cycle alone
(15% of that to Hillary, by far the largest single benefactor) .
I know you think regulation is the panacea but, as long as the people
who write the regulation, are taking money from the regulated
industries, only the companies who can pony up that kind of money will
be served by that regulation. It is not the consumer who benefits and
it is not the small company that wants to compete. Regulation mainly
benefits the people who can pay to mold that regulation.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/31/16 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:40:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The current scandal over the epipen price gouging has nothing to do with
development of the product or the cost of the med, which has been
estimated at no more than $1.00. Coincidentally, that is about the same
cost as the current polio vaccine. The original Salk vaccine costs to
the public were kept very low because Jonas Salk was a humanitarian, not
a corporate goniff, and if memory serves, did not patent his medication.
I remember distinctly as a little kid lining up at the local elementary
school, where doctors and nurses had volunteered to inoculate every
schoolkid in New Haven at no cost to parents.

I agree that this EpiPen deal is highway robbery and if the government
wants to do something, they should streamline the process for someone
to knock this product off but that is cutting back on regulation so
you are automatically against it. The drug itself is generic and dirt
cheap. The patent is in the little bit of plastic that injects it.
This is not rocket science and if FDA would loosen it's grip, any
injection molding shop would be popping them out for a buck or less
each.
It would cost more to certify the shop that loads the drug than the
drug and the injector combined. Knocking off products in any other
industry is common if not the rule. It is not shocking to me that the
medical devices industry is the glaring exception. You only have to
look at the size of the bribes they send legislators here. They have
already sent the politicians over $161 million in this cycle alone
(15% of that to Hillary, by far the largest single benefactor) .
I know you think regulation is the panacea but, as long as the people
who write the regulation, are taking money from the regulated
industries, only the companies who can pony up that kind of money will
be served by that regulation. It is not the consumer who benefits and
it is not the small company that wants to compete. Regulation mainly
benefits the people who can pay to mold that regulation.


Sorry, but I don't buy your explanation for the epipen ripoff.
Competition isn't going to drive the price down to $10 where it belongs
for a minor drug that was developed decades ago and is dirt cheap to
produce. The cause is simple: corporate greed. I appreciate that a
company that develops a new and important drug is entitled to recover
its costs and make a profit, and that's what the patents provide. But
drug prices are just plain out of control and need reigning in by
whatever means are possible. Charging $300 for a drug that costs at most
$2 or $3 to product, and another $2 to market is insanity. There's more
to life and to a sane society than corporate profits. If the damned pens
cost $5 to make and distribute through the wholesale chain, and they
sold for $25 each, then a case could be made. Beyond that, there is just
plain old greed, and greed is what is destroying this country.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On 8/31/2016 3:12 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/31/16 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:40:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The current scandal over the epipen price gouging has nothing to do with
development of the product or the cost of the med, which has been
estimated at no more than $1.00. Coincidentally, that is about the same
cost as the current polio vaccine. The original Salk vaccine costs to
the public were kept very low because Jonas Salk was a humanitarian, not
a corporate goniff, and if memory serves, did not patent his medication.
I remember distinctly as a little kid lining up at the local elementary
school, where doctors and nurses had volunteered to inoculate every
schoolkid in New Haven at no cost to parents.

I agree that this EpiPen deal is highway robbery and if the government
wants to do something, they should streamline the process for someone
to knock this product off but that is cutting back on regulation so
you are automatically against it. The drug itself is generic and dirt
cheap. The patent is in the little bit of plastic that injects it.
This is not rocket science and if FDA would loosen it's grip, any
injection molding shop would be popping them out for a buck or less
each.
It would cost more to certify the shop that loads the drug than the
drug and the injector combined. Knocking off products in any other
industry is common if not the rule. It is not shocking to me that the
medical devices industry is the glaring exception. You only have to
look at the size of the bribes they send legislators here. They have
already sent the politicians over $161 million in this cycle alone
(15% of that to Hillary, by far the largest single benefactor) .
I know you think regulation is the panacea but, as long as the people
who write the regulation, are taking money from the regulated
industries, only the companies who can pony up that kind of money will
be served by that regulation. It is not the consumer who benefits and
it is not the small company that wants to compete. Regulation mainly
benefits the people who can pay to mold that regulation.


Sorry, but I don't buy your explanation for the epipen ripoff.
Competition isn't going to drive the price down to $10 where it belongs
for a minor drug that was developed decades ago and is dirt cheap to
produce. The cause is simple: corporate greed. I appreciate that a
company that develops a new and important drug is entitled to recover
its costs and make a profit, and that's what the patents provide. But
drug prices are just plain out of control and need reigning in by
whatever means are possible. Charging $300 for a drug that costs at most
$2 or $3 to product, and another $2 to market is insanity. There's more
to life and to a sane society than corporate profits. If the damned pens
cost $5 to make and distribute through the wholesale chain, and they
sold for $25 each, then a case could be made. Beyond that, there is just
plain old greed, and greed is what is destroying this country.

What does a former jingle writer know about running a successful business?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/31/16 1:15 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:12:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I suggest you read for content and get back to us.

I read the "Canada" part and my first thought is I bet Canada might
ban exports to the US if this passes because it would make their
prices go up if they didn't. Their negotiations with the drug
companies will change if the companies realize this is not just the
small Canadian market but the much larger US market.
I don't think it is a secret that the US has always subsidized foreign
sales.


Most foreign countries regulate the price per manufacturing cost plus a
reasonable profit. They do not figure in development costs. Therefore the
USA consumer pays for all development costs.


The current scandal over the epipen price gouging has nothing to do with
development of the product or the cost of the med, which has been
estimated at no more than $1.00. Coincidentally, that is about the same
cost as the current polio vaccine. The original Salk vaccine costs to
the public were kept very low because Jonas Salk was a humanitarian, not
a corporate goniff, and if memory serves, did not patent his medication.
I remember distinctly as a little kid lining up at the local elementary
school, where doctors and nurses had volunteered to inoculate every
schoolkid in New Haven at no cost to parents.


Read for content. Part of foreign pricing.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/31/16 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:40:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The current scandal over the epipen price gouging has nothing to do with
development of the product or the cost of the med, which has been
estimated at no more than $1.00. Coincidentally, that is about the same
cost as the current polio vaccine. The original Salk vaccine costs to
the public were kept very low because Jonas Salk was a humanitarian, not
a corporate goniff, and if memory serves, did not patent his medication.
I remember distinctly as a little kid lining up at the local elementary
school, where doctors and nurses had volunteered to inoculate every
schoolkid in New Haven at no cost to parents.

I agree that this EpiPen deal is highway robbery and if the government
wants to do something, they should streamline the process for someone
to knock this product off but that is cutting back on regulation so
you are automatically against it. The drug itself is generic and dirt
cheap. The patent is in the little bit of plastic that injects it.
This is not rocket science and if FDA would loosen it's grip, any
injection molding shop would be popping them out for a buck or less
each.
It would cost more to certify the shop that loads the drug than the
drug and the injector combined. Knocking off products in any other
industry is common if not the rule. It is not shocking to me that the
medical devices industry is the glaring exception. You only have to
look at the size of the bribes they send legislators here. They have
already sent the politicians over $161 million in this cycle alone
(15% of that to Hillary, by far the largest single benefactor) .
I know you think regulation is the panacea but, as long as the people
who write the regulation, are taking money from the regulated
industries, only the companies who can pony up that kind of money will
be served by that regulation. It is not the consumer who benefits and
it is not the small company that wants to compete. Regulation mainly
benefits the people who can pay to mold that regulation.


Sorry, but I don't buy your explanation for the epipen ripoff.
Competition isn't going to drive the price down to $10 where it belongs
for a minor drug that was developed decades ago and is dirt cheap to
produce. The cause is simple: corporate greed. I appreciate that a
company that develops a new and important drug is entitled to recover
its costs and make a profit, and that's what the patents provide. But
drug prices are just plain out of control and need reigning in by
whatever means are possible. Charging $300 for a drug that costs at most
$2 or $3 to product, and another $2 to market is insanity. There's more
to life and to a sane society than corporate profits. If the damned pens
cost $5 to make and distribute through the wholesale chain, and they
sold for $25 each, then a case could be made. Beyond that, there is just
plain old greed, and greed is what is destroying this country.



Why won't completion drive down the even $100 price?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Justan Olphart wrote:
On 8/31/2016 3:12 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/31/16 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:40:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The current scandal over the epipen price gouging has nothing to do with
development of the product or the cost of the med, which has been
estimated at no more than $1.00. Coincidentally, that is about the same
cost as the current polio vaccine. The original Salk vaccine costs to
the public were kept very low because Jonas Salk was a humanitarian, not
a corporate goniff, and if memory serves, did not patent his medication.
I remember distinctly as a little kid lining up at the local elementary
school, where doctors and nurses had volunteered to inoculate every
schoolkid in New Haven at no cost to parents.

I agree that this EpiPen deal is highway robbery and if the government
wants to do something, they should streamline the process for someone
to knock this product off but that is cutting back on regulation so
you are automatically against it. The drug itself is generic and dirt
cheap. The patent is in the little bit of plastic that injects it.
This is not rocket science and if FDA would loosen it's grip, any
injection molding shop would be popping them out for a buck or less
each.
It would cost more to certify the shop that loads the drug than the
drug and the injector combined. Knocking off products in any other
industry is common if not the rule. It is not shocking to me that the
medical devices industry is the glaring exception. You only have to
look at the size of the bribes they send legislators here. They have
already sent the politicians over $161 million in this cycle alone
(15% of that to Hillary, by far the largest single benefactor) .
I know you think regulation is the panacea but, as long as the people
who write the regulation, are taking money from the regulated
industries, only the companies who can pony up that kind of money will
be served by that regulation. It is not the consumer who benefits and
it is not the small company that wants to compete. Regulation mainly
benefits the people who can pay to mold that regulation.


Sorry, but I don't buy your explanation for the epipen ripoff.
Competition isn't going to drive the price down to $10 where it belongs
for a minor drug that was developed decades ago and is dirt cheap to
produce. The cause is simple: corporate greed. I appreciate that a
company that develops a new and important drug is entitled to recover
its costs and make a profit, and that's what the patents provide. But
drug prices are just plain out of control and need reigning in by
whatever means are possible. Charging $300 for a drug that costs at most
$2 or $3 to product, and another $2 to market is insanity. There's more
to life and to a sane society than corporate profits. If the damned pens
cost $5 to make and distribute through the wholesale chain, and they
sold for $25 each, then a case could be made. Beyond that, there is just
plain old greed, and greed is what is destroying this country.

What does a former jingle writer know about running a successful business?


Twice bankrupt is telling.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Keyser Soze wrote:

No it isn't, because the Bill, because of the current GOP control of
Congress, isn't going anywhere. That's the same reason Social Security
why Medicare isn't able to negotiate drug prices, because of the GOP
control of Congress. That impediment has to be removed.


Write much?

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

Justan Olphart wrote:
On 8/31/2016 3:12 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/31/16 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:40:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The current scandal over the epipen price gouging has nothing to do
with
development of the product or the cost of the med, which has been
estimated at no more than $1.00. Coincidentally, that is about the
same
cost as the current polio vaccine. The original Salk vaccine costs to
the public were kept very low because Jonas Salk was a
humanitarian, not
a corporate goniff, and if memory serves, did not patent his
medication.
I remember distinctly as a little kid lining up at the local
elementary
school, where doctors and nurses had volunteered to inoculate every
schoolkid in New Haven at no cost to parents.

I agree that this EpiPen deal is highway robbery and if the government
wants to do something, they should streamline the process for someone
to knock this product off but that is cutting back on regulation so
you are automatically against it. The drug itself is generic and dirt
cheap. The patent is in the little bit of plastic that injects it.
This is not rocket science and if FDA would loosen it's grip, any
injection molding shop would be popping them out for a buck or less
each.
It would cost more to certify the shop that loads the drug than the
drug and the injector combined. Knocking off products in any other
industry is common if not the rule. It is not shocking to me that the
medical devices industry is the glaring exception. You only have to
look at the size of the bribes they send legislators here. They have
already sent the politicians over $161 million in this cycle alone
(15% of that to Hillary, by far the largest single benefactor) .
I know you think regulation is the panacea but, as long as the people
who write the regulation, are taking money from the regulated
industries, only the companies who can pony up that kind of money will
be served by that regulation. It is not the consumer who benefits and
it is not the small company that wants to compete. Regulation mainly
benefits the people who can pay to mold that regulation.


Sorry, but I don't buy your explanation for the epipen ripoff.
Competition isn't going to drive the price down to $10 where it belongs
for a minor drug that was developed decades ago and is dirt cheap to
produce. The cause is simple: corporate greed. I appreciate that a
company that develops a new and important drug is entitled to recover
its costs and make a profit, and that's what the patents provide. But
drug prices are just plain out of control and need reigning in by
whatever means are possible. Charging $300 for a drug that costs at most
$2 or $3 to product, and another $2 to market is insanity. There's more
to life and to a sane society than corporate profits. If the damned pens
cost $5 to make and distribute through the wholesale chain, and they
sold for $25 each, then a case could be made. Beyond that, there is just
plain old greed, and greed is what is destroying this country.

What does a former jingle writer know about running a successful
business?
Zero. He can't handle his own finances.

Dear EpiPen Customers . . .
 

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:45:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:11:30 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:

The Repugnant-controlled Congress won't allow the proper legislation to
get anyway. Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill to remedy and reign in
the Big Pharma Banksters, but it isn't going to go anywhere until
Hillary takes over the White House.


.yup, all republican fault. Not the fact a Democrat senator's daughter is
in charge of the ripoff.

Harry is full of **** as usual.

Yes. As usual. No explanation necessary.