Back to episode — Episode 591 Scott Adams - Antifa’s Diversity Problem, Equal pay for Soccer Players, Slaughter Meter
Context —
our screen with all your targets and I think the laser, maybe not version one but I think the laser can just go up up up up up and take out 300 drones in five seconds. I guess it depends how long the pulse lasts. But the other thing you could do is sort of like Babylon 5, the shadows, where you saw that the laser would just be continuous. So instead of firing bursts it would be like a sword in the…
← Previous segment →s almost a certainty that something big will change, but if nothing big did change it's a lock for the president to get re-elected.
I think a couple more stories I saw but I haven't seen much follow up in the press and I think there's a reason for that. Yeah I believe the administration is looking to require pharmaceutical companies, the drug manufacturers who sell stuff in this country, to give us the same price as the best price that they sell it anywhere else in the world. Now here's the catch. The United States has been subsidizing healthcare in the rest of the world. The fact that we pay too much for our drugs allows the pharmaceuticals to cover their fixed costs etc. And then since poor countries wouldn't be able to afford to pay a lot they can charge them less. And then the poor countries get better healthcare because they're paying less for the drugs but it's being subsidized by the United States.
Now apparently the Trump administration is going to require, and who knows if this will pass Supreme Court, who knows if there's a problem here, who knows who could sue, so this is by far not a done deal, but the Trump administration is saying to pharmaceuticals you have to offer in this country a price that's no worse than the lowest price in another country. A most favored nations clause in the contract.
Now you know what's amazing about this story? What's the most amazing thing about this story? Well I want to see if it's obvious to you. What's the amazing thing? The amazing thing about the story is that this is the first time anybody thought of that. Are you kidding me? I used to negotiate contracts for a living. So my job for several years in my corporate life was to deal with the vendors and negotiate contracts with mostly technology vendors. The most favored nations clause that says you're not going to charge us more than you charge other people is pretty basic contract discussion. In other words if you're a professional negotiator of contracts and you have not thought to ask for that, that nobody else gets a lower price. Now you can't always get that. You might not have enough power to get that into your contract. But if you're the United States and you're the biggest customer for these pharmaceutical companies and you're the government so you can just change the law, you absolutely can get that. It was laying there like free money on a table.
I said that exactly at the same time somebody put in the comments "free money on the table." I actually said it as the phrase was appearing in the comments. So yeah you got ahead of me. This president better than anybody ever has done it is the only person who will pick up free money that's laying on a table. And it's mind-boggling. This, I don't know what it's going to be, an executive order or some kind of a rule change, other than what it is, but if this administration gets away with it, meaning if they can cause the pharmaceuticals to raise their prices in other countries if that's necessary, I don't even know if that's necessary, or to at least give us those same prices, it will be an enormous change in the cost of your healthcare. It will come at the expense of the pharmaceutical companies which are in many cases also part of our economy. But I'll bet there are a lot of them that are not. There must be a lot of foreign pharmaceutical companies that are overcharging in the United States. Are you okay with that so that they can subsidize other countries?
Now the cruel part of this is that it absolutely will I would assume have an impact on other countries being able to afford their healthcare. But isn't that true for everything we do? A hundred percent of the money that we spend in the United States it could have been spent in another country where they needed it more, people were more poor, more desperate, have worse healthcare. That's true of everything. Every dollar we spend on ourselves could have been spent for somebody else. So the pharmaceutical stuff seems like it's just more of that. And so you've got President Trump saying hey looks like there's some money on that table. Why don't we just pick it up?
Now if he gets this done there's a very good chance given other free market changes that the administration is making for healthcare, other things about organizing across state lines
Context —
etc., if this stuff gets done and gets worked into the system by Election Day the president might be able to claim, just think about this, the president might be able to claim that he stopped the increase of healthcare expenses. Now that's not as good as universal healthcare insurance to people who have no insurance. They still would prefer that. But that's a really strong story if you're running…
Next segment → →