We all know about the failed “War on Drugs,” a $1 trillion (and counting) federal boondoggle which has done absolutely nothing to suppress illegal drug use – but has succeeded in loading up our prisons with non-violent offenders while turning many local law enforcement agents into adrenaline junkie paramilitary “operators.”
No-knock raids … ya know?
Anyway, another war on drugs is currently raging in Washington, D.C. – a war on the generic prescription medications many Americans rely on.
At the behest of the powerful trial lawyer lobby, Democrats in the U.S. Congress are poised to pass legislation which will open the floodgates to lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers. This, of course, will make these drugs more expensive to purchase. Leading the charge? A pair of arch-liberals – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland).
According to NetRight Daily, a coalition has formed in opposition to Leahy and Van Hollen’s efforts. In fact this group sent a letter to U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner last week urging him to “oppose legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and line the pockets of trial lawyers by opening generic drug manufacturers to frivolous lawsuits.”
Led by Americans for Limited Government, this group is taking a stand against the trial lawyer lobby – which is trying to get Congress and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “pave a highway to state courthouses” for attorneys.
“The cost and burden of litigating these cases will result in increased pharmaceutical prices and force companies to spend monies that could otherwise be devoted to research and development, jobs and manufacturing,” the coalition’s letter states.
We agree …
With socialized medicine set to drive up health care costs for millions of Americans, steps must be taken wherever possible to keep costs low. Blocking Leahy and Van Hollen’s efforts seems like a logical step to us.
***
36 comments
After paying 4 to 10 bucks for a prescription for generics, I highly (was that alprazolam I just took) doubt the market would tolerate it. Just a hunch.
After paying 4 to 10 bucks for a prescription for generics, I highly (was that alprazolam I just took) doubt the market would tolerate it. Just a hunch.
Most of this nonsense would go away, if we would just adopt “loser pays.” You should see my lawyer cousin’s face turn purple every time I mention it. She makes me laugh so hard!
If you have ever been involved in a law suit you would know this is totally wrong. Because 95% of the time the sides are very unequal. You have Joe Blow who makes 60k a year and is feeding a family of four trying to sue Allstate insurance. They are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure Joe Blow loses, because they want to crush him and anyone else who might consider suing into the ground. Your system would mean only the wealthy could sue. The average person could no longer sue anyone.
Your system may work if we allowed companies to buy a stake in law suites. I.E. if I could put up 100k toward Joe Blows case in exchange for a percentage of the result, but that would not accomplish your goals of pricing people out of the law suit market, and Joe would not really be compensated for his damages because he would have to give a portion of his compensation to the investor.
Oh boo-hoo-hoo. I have been sued plenty of times, usually by Joe Blow, who is a lying jackwagon who has a vampire weasel for an attorney. If I hadn’t had a better vampire weasel, I’d be bankrupt. My system works, if you are allowed full disclosure and stringent appeal, which is not always the case in SC, thanks to some interesting laws put in place by our SC lawyer legislature.
Cases in point:
1. Tobacco does not cause cancer. It can exacerbate cancer in people who are allergic to it.
2. Mesothelioma is not caused by asbestos. It can exacerbate the condition in people who are allergic to it.
3. DDT does not cause bird eggs to thin. The studies were rigged to make it seem that way.
4. Doctors PRACTICE medicine – it is more of an art than a science. Some doctors are bad and should make good their mistakes, but pain and suffering is a coward’s free pass.
&cera.. yet in NONE of these cases, the science made NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
People can buy stakes in lawsuits. Its called insurance.
“I’ve been sued plenty of times.” Those are the most important words in your entire post. I know no one who has been sued plenty of times who is not doing something wrong. Your system would benefit you. You know what I said about such a system is true, and that is why you support such a system.
And no we do not allow people to buy stakes in lawsuits. Your statement makes no sense. You provide no method for a person without resources to fund litigation against a person with a lot of resources. You just want a system where rich people never have to answer to people who are not rich or backed by a large insurance company.
” You just want a system where rich people never have to answer to people who are not rich or backed by a large insurance company.” – Behold the socialist who owns nothing, proffers nothing, and lives at the whim of others.
Jan, you have given yourself over to the vile ideas of equal outcome. You obviously know nothing of people who have success, and so, feel entitled to pontificate about them.
We see evidence of this in your comment about insurance. What do you think insurance is?
We also see this in your statement about business people. Every successful business person gets sued on a regular basis, especially in this economy and this culture of entitlement. Why do you think doctors charge so much these days? Because people sue them all the time – BECAUSE THEY ARE PERCEIVED AS “RICH.” People in the political PR business get sued more than most, often by people on both sides, but usually, the opposition. If you’re not getting sued, you’re not winning.
I can’t help it if you have not navigated Erikson’s seventh stage of personal development, but don’t take it out on the rest of us.
Most of this nonsense would go away, if we would just adopt “loser pays.” You should see my lawyer cousin’s face turn purple every time I mention it. She makes me laugh so hard!
If you have ever been involved in a law suit you would know this is totally wrong. Because 95% of the time the sides are very unequal. You have Joe Blow who makes 60k a year and is feeding a family of four trying to sue Allstate insurance. They are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure Joe Blow loses, because they want to crush him and anyone else who might consider suing into the ground. Your system would mean only the wealthy could sue. The average person could no longer sue anyone.
Your system may work if we allowed companies to buy a stake in law suites. I.E. if I could put up 100k toward Joe Blows case in exchange for a percentage of the result, but that would not accomplish your goals of pricing people out of the law suit market, and Joe would not really be compensated for his damages because he would have to give a portion of his compensation to the investor.
Oh boo-hoo-hoo. I have been sued plenty of times, usually by Joe Blow, who is a lying jackwagon who has a vampire weasel for an attorney. If I hadn’t had a better vampire weasel, I’d be bankrupt. My system works, if you are allowed full disclosure and stringent appeal, which is not always the case in SC, thanks to some interesting laws put in place by our SC lawyer legislature.
Cases in point:
1. Tobacco does not cause cancer. It can exacerbate cancer in people who are allergic to it.
2. Mesothelioma is not caused by asbestos. It can exacerbate the condition in people who are allergic to it.
3. DDT does not cause bird eggs to thin. The studies were rigged to make it seem that way.
4. Doctors PRACTICE medicine – it is more of an art than a science. Some doctors are bad and should make good their mistakes, but pain and suffering is a coward’s free pass.
&cera.. yet in NONE of these cases, the science made NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
People can buy stakes in lawsuits. Its called insurance.
“I’ve been sued plenty of times.” Those are the most important words in your entire post. I know no one who has been sued plenty of times who is not doing something wrong. Your system would benefit you. You know what I said about such a system is true, and that is why you support such a system.
And no we do not allow people to buy stakes in lawsuits. Your statement makes no sense. You provide no method for a person without resources to fund litigation against a person with a lot of resources. You just want a system where rich people never have to answer to people who are not rich or backed by a large insurance company.
” You just want a system where rich people never have to answer to people who are not rich or backed by a large insurance company.” – Behold the socialist who owns nothing, proffers nothing, and lives at the whim of others.
Jan, you have given yourself over to the vile ideas of equal outcome. You obviously know nothing of people who have success, and so, feel entitled to pontificate about them.
We see evidence of this in your comment about insurance. What do you think insurance is?
We also see this in your statement about business people. Every successful business person gets sued on a regular basis, especially in this economy and this culture of entitlement. Why do you think doctors charge so much these days? Because people sue them all the time – BECAUSE THEY ARE PERCEIVED AS “RICH.” Their insurance rates are outrageous. People in the political PR business get sued more than most, often by people on both sides, but usually, the opposition. If you’re not getting sued, you’re not winning.
I can’t help it if you have not navigated Erikson’s sixth stage of personal development, but don’t take it out on the rest of us.
If your doctor tries to prescribe ,Nexium,tell him/her to eat shit…
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/01/09/why-no-one-should-take-nexium/
If your doctor tries to prescribe ,Nexium,tell him/her to eat shit…
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/01/09/why-no-one-should-take-nexium/
Greed Greed Greed and more Greed. Abuse and misuse of the legal system and legislative system to get rich.
I say to hell with them all. Declare war on these people. We easily out number them.
Greed Greed Greed and more Greed. Abuse and misuse of the legal system and legislative system to get rich.
I say to hell with them all. Declare war on these people. We easily out number them.
Exactly what “research and development” are generic manufacturers engaged in?
Exactly what “research and development” are generic manufacturers engaged in?
The slightest description of this bill is this tiny tiny piece here:
The proposed bill would give each generic manufacturer the ability to change their label in an effort to simply subject these manufacturers to state tort claims even if they have followed all current regulations and federal laws.
From my understanding of reading all of that, brand and generic companies must display the same warnings as approved by the FDA. Generics can’t be sued for not adding warnings if the FDA hasn’t allowed them to, primarily because they can’t legally do so. If the above is correct, the bill basically strips the protection from them, but it also frees them from government not allowing them to update their labels.
If my understanding is correct, it is hilarious that Americans for Limited Government would be advocating that the FDA still retain control over what warnings must be written for a generic drug, rather than the generic drug company being forced to update their own labels when necessary and be held responsible when they do not.
Let me link this blog:
http://www.physbiztech.com/blog/compliance/fda-proposal-revise-labeling-regulations-will-improve-drug-safety
Under current FDA regulations, generic manufacturers cannot update their products’ labeling, even if they become aware of a potential risk not stated in the labeling. In contrast, brand-name drug manufacturers can update warnings and precautions before getting FDA approval.?
So why is a limited government organization promoting government control over warning labels and therefore government-backed legal immunity? I wonder, does Bill Wilson and Howie Rich own stock in generic drug companies?
I think generic drug companies should be shielded to some degree, but by manufacturing someone else’s drug they should assume some liability from it as well. Ideally the law should give leniency to generic companies, most of which do not have the means of doing the vast amount of research that the larger brand companies are capable of, but the product they profit on still can harm patients unbeknownst to them. When a generic company becomes aware of a side effect or issue with the drug, it should have the ability and responsibility to report that problem immediately.
We should have fair laws. Allowing generic drug manufacturers to update their labels without direction from the FDA enables timely notification and is fair. Amend the law to ensure that the companies have some protection but don’t absolve them of the responsibility
The slightest description of this bill is this tiny tiny piece here:
The proposed bill would give each generic manufacturer the ability to change their label in an effort to simply subject these manufacturers to state tort claims even if they have followed all current regulations and federal laws.
From my understanding of reading all of that, brand and generic companies must display the same warnings as approved by the FDA. Generics can’t be sued for not adding warnings if the FDA hasn’t allowed them to, primarily because they can’t legally do so. If the above is correct, the bill basically strips the protection from them, but it also frees them from government not allowing them to update their labels.
If my understanding is correct, it is hilarious that Americans for Limited Government would be advocating that the FDA still retain control over what warnings must be written for a generic drug, rather than the generic drug company being forced to update their own labels when necessary and be held responsible when they do not.
Let me link this blog:
http://www.physbiztech.com/blog/compliance/fda-proposal-revise-labeling-regulations-will-improve-drug-safety
Under current FDA regulations, generic manufacturers cannot update their products’ labeling, even if they become aware of a potential risk not stated in the labeling. In contrast, brand-name drug manufacturers can update warnings and precautions before getting FDA approval.?
http://www.pharmalive.com/congress-offers-bills-change-generic-labels
Declaring that public health is being jeopardized, a pair of bills were introduced by Democrats in both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives that would allow generic drugmakers to change product labeling to reflect safety information under the same circumstances that permit brand-name drugmakers to alter their labels.
So why is a limited government organization promoting government control over warning labels and therefore government-backed legal immunity? Why should the law allow brand companies to change their label, but not generic companies? I wonder, does Bill Wilson and Howie Rich own stock in generic drug companies?
I think generic drug companies should be shielded to some degree, but by manufacturing someone else’s drug they should assume some liability from it as well. Ideally the law should give leniency to generic companies, most of which do not have the means of doing the vast amount of research that the larger brand companies are capable of, but the product they profit on still can harm patients unbeknownst to them. When a generic company becomes aware of a side effect or issue with the drug, it should have the ability and responsibility to report that problem immediately.
We should have fair laws. Allowing generic drug manufacturers to update their labels without direction from the FDA enables timely notification and is fair. Amend the law to ensure that the companies have some protection but don’t absolve them of the responsibility
I agree. I trust generic drug manufacturers to pull their drugs off of the market when they learn that the drugs cause harm to the general public. It’s silly to think that people can sue companies when they make products that hurt people. We all know that because they are ethical businessmen who do not put profits over people’s lives. I wholeheartedly trust the free market to protect my family and me and I will not cry foul if they accidentally harm me or my family. The Republican Party is looking out for my best interests.
We all know thalidomide is a good prenatal drug, right?
Nice piece of sarcasm. I’m still snickering. But if you weight the system too heavily on the side of any plaintiff, you destroy what little free market there is (and there isn’t any in the medical field). “Loser pays” is the fairest way to go in civil litigation. And by loser pays, I mean the ATTORNEY pays his fees and the opponent’s Attorney fees. Litigant pays litigant (parking fees, dinner, determined by the judge).
I agree. I trust generic drug manufacturers to pull their drugs off of the market when they learn that the drugs cause harm to the general public. It’s silly to think that people can sue companies when they make products that hurt people. We all know that because they are ethical businessmen who do not put profits over people’s lives. I wholeheartedly trust the free market to protect my family and me and I will not cry foul if they accidentally harm me or my family. The Republican Party is looking out for my best interests.
We all know thalidomide is a good prenatal drug, right?
Nice piece of sarcasm. I’m still snickering. But if you weight the system too heavily on the side of any plaintiff, you destroy what little free market there is (and there isn’t any in the medical field). “Loser pays” is the fairest way to go in civil litigation. And by loser pays, I mean the ATTORNEY pays his fees and the opponent’s Attorney fees. Litigant pays litigant (parking fees, dinner, determined by the judge).
Allowing companies to be sued for producing defective products is the free market. This is not big government, because there is no government involvement except the court system. Passing laws to prevent a person from suing a company that makes a defective product is big government involvement on behalf of the company that makes the product. Government is reducing the rights of the consumer. The GOP has done a great job in demonizing lawyers over the past 25 years. But lawyers don’t sue people. People sue people. The lawyer only file the papers and make the argument. The GOP seeks to demonize lawyers to further their effort to pass laws to eliminate the rights of the average person to seek compensation when they are injured by another person or company. Its easier to lie to constituents and say you are voting for a law to protect people from lawyers than it is to say, I am voting for a law to reduce your right to sue people who have injured you.
As for socialized medicine and cost, the US has no socialized medicine. We have government sponsored health insurance. All of the European Countries, Canada and Australian have socialized medicine and pay less for health care than we do.
Allowing companies to be sued for producing defective products is the free market. This is not big government, because there is no government involvement except the court system. Passing laws to prevent a person from suing a company that makes a defective product is big government involvement on behalf of the company that makes the product. Government is reducing the rights of the consumer. The GOP has done a great job in demonizing lawyers over the past 25 years. But lawyers don’t sue people. People sue people. The lawyer only file the papers and make the argument. The GOP seeks to demonize lawyers to further their effort to pass laws to eliminate the rights of the average person to seek compensation when they are injured by another person or company. Its easier to lie to constituents and say you are voting for a law to protect people from lawyers than it is to say, I am voting for a law to reduce your right to sue people who have injured you.
As for socialized medicine and cost, the US has no socialized medicine. We have government sponsored health insurance. All of the European Countries, Canada and Australian have socialized medicine and pay less for health care than we do.
This proposed law is an effort to undo the recent US Supreme Court decisions that say that generic drug producers can’t be held responsible even if they know of a dangerous side effect of the drug and don’t warn the doctors and patients of those side effects. The original drug makers are responsible for failing to warn but because of the way the statute is worded, the generic drug makers are not. Do you want to be warned if studies show that your prescription might hurt or kill you?
This proposed law is an effort to undo the recent US Supreme Court decisions that say that generic drug producers can’t be held responsible even if they know of a dangerous side effect of the drug and don’t warn the doctors and patients of those side effects. The original drug makers are responsible for failing to warn but because of the way the statute is worded, the generic drug makers are not. Do you want to be warned if studies show that your prescription might hurt or kill you?
Congressional legislation is simply a response to the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical, in which the majority overturned a New Hampshire court’s $21 million dollar verdict to a woman who contracted the flesh eating virus after taking a generic drug. The proponents of limiting lawsuits against these pharmaceutical companies, many who describe themselves as conservatives, rely on the doctrine of federal pre-emption, which as the Court now interprets it, completely prohibits states from enforcing their common law jurisprudence as has existed for decades. If you truly believed in the 10th Amendment, and truly believed in ending corporatism, then you would understand that this is a good thing.
Congressional legislation is simply a response to the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical, in which the majority overturned a New Hampshire court’s $21 million dollar verdict to a woman who contracted the flesh eating virus after taking a generic drug. The proponents of limiting lawsuits against these pharmaceutical companies, many who describe themselves as conservatives, rely on the doctrine of federal pre-emption, which as the Court now interprets it, completely prohibits states from enforcing their common law jurisprudence as has existed for decades. If you truly believed in the 10th Amendment, and truly believed in ending corporatism, then you would understand that this is a good thing.
The ‘war on generics’ has been going on for decades,and has little to do with politics.It won’t stop until,for-profit-,capitalized medicine is abolished.
Actually, the exact opposite is true.
The ‘war on generics’ has been going on for decades,and has little to do with politics.It won’t stop until,for-profit-,capitalized medicine is abolished.
Actually, the exact opposite is true.