Drug Lobby Promises No Price Rises.

[Matilda]

We've had our little holiday, and now it's time to get serious again. Wonderful how the government
loves to spring little surprises when it thinks nobody's looking. Half the country is still on
holidays, and we get this:

"The body representing Australia's pharmaceutical companies has rejected claims that prices will
rise if the Federal Government removes a Labor amendment to the US Free Trade Agreement.

"The Government is considering scrapping Labor's anti-evergreening clause, which was aimed at
protecting access to cheaper generic drugs."

(snip)

"In 2004, Labor demanded that a clause was included in the deal that it said would ensure the
availability of cheaper, generic drugs.

"Powerful US drug companies are now pushing for its removal."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1541241.htm


No prices rises if the amendment goes? Poses the obvious question - so why remove it?

It was only a matter of time once Howard got his majority.

He's certainly not the first politician to fall over himself trying to please big business, but
he's the first I can recall who really seems to get his jollies by putting the boot into the
workers.

[foreigncorrespondent]

1. Ya know...

...what is Howard trying to do? The more he does, the worse he is making it for his party. Is he trying to sign a death warrant for the Liberals?

[no safe haven]

2. I was wondering how long it would be before big pharma

... took another shot at the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. If Howard and the Libs give in on this one, it will end up costing us more than our access to generic drugs. Next round – getting rid of govt. subsidies on all our pharmaceuticals. After all, that was a major platform of the US during the FTA negotiations (along with flooding our TV screens with more gawd awful sit coms).

Howard will pretend to be appalled at any suggestion of us giving up the PBS, but I’m betting it’s a done deal already, or at least it’s in the pipeline. He can wring his hands in anguish at the mere suggestion of disbanding the PBS, just to keep the voters on side, but I would put nothing past that slimy little bastard. He’ll sell us all down the river to the mega-corporations for a few dollars more. He’s been doing it since 1996.

[Matilda]

3. You'd think that dismantling Medicare or the PBS scheme

would be death for the Libs, however much it might suit Howard's ideaology. But perhaps he's
looking ahead to some nice fat directorships on corporate boards, and when the heat gets turned
up, he'll get out and leave Costello to stew.

[PinkUnicorn]

4. Usual story for jackboot

He's like the Chimp in his own way. Never take responsibility for anything (I didn't know, no one told me, I was given bad info, etc) and if the heat gets bad, run off and leave the bag for someone else to hold (remember Treasurer Howard?). Still it could prove interesting if it has to go through the senate. The liberals currently sitting would have to be completely stupid or completely gutless to not know that they would be crucified if Medicare or the PBS were sold out and they would cop a very large backlash against them.

I expect Backdown Barnaby to screech and howl, do some tricks for the media and then fold. Family first will try to use it for more leverage for their religion agenda (ie: subsidise everything but RU486 and the like), Beasley will talk the talk but be as effective as a wet noodle...

[Djinn]

5. more optimistic than my view

I've resigned myself to the fact that Howard can do pretty much anything and as long as he throws in a scapegoat (asian immigrant, kooris wanting to take your land, terrorists, refugees) and a few dollars in tax relief before the next election the morons that apparently make up the majority of the voting public will continue to ignore their own interests and vote for him.

more expensive medicines will obvioulsy be hard for many people but most people don't need ongoing treatment and will only notice the sting a few times a year, and if they've never taken that particular medicine before might not associate the high cost with any government action/lack of action. there will be a minority who do need constant medication but they're not a big enough group to sway an election, not unless we spread them out over a few marginal seats anyway.

either way, what's the option at the ballot box, the ALP? they wont be recinding the FTA and thanks to our slavish devotion to "free trade" we'll have little option but to nueter the PBS

[oscarmitre]

6. I take six tablets per day

I have high cholesterol and diabetes type 2 (yes, I'm a bloody physical wreck) and I run out of most of my drugs about the same time every couple of months. It costs me a couple of hundred dollars to renew everything.

I would say that I'm not alone in my situation.

Howard's interfering/degradation of the PBS won't change my vote but I would suggest that there are a lot of swinging voters out there who would be crapping themselves right now at the thought of paying much more for medicines for chronic conditions. However Howard is a cunning little devil and will find some way of obfuscating the situation when the sellout to US interests begins to affect Australia even more adversely than it already has.