The correct default position with this admin is bad faith and/or malice.
If you were developing this site wouldn’t you just develop a formula to calculate the discount? Hate to that’s a typo unless you didn’t do any testing.
The name of that website is interesting. I had heard of landmarks being named after politicians, laws being nicknamed after them (e.g. obamacare) or after judicial decisions, but it seems that it's usually, at least seemingly, by others. This one is directly named after the president launching it. I can't think of a precedent, was there one?
Incidentally, it was GOP who branded the Affordable Care Act as Obamacare in an effort to make it seem bad. Obama never asked for or wanted that name, although he later accepted it.
Trump, as we know, has an insatiable need for recognition and attempts to put his name on everything he can.
Costplus manufactures and sells drugs at a small markup over manufacturing cost.
TrumpRX appears to be more of a central clearinghouse where drug makers can offer discounts to consumers. And at least so far, they seem to be the same discounts that they already offer, when you look up a drug on the site, it redirects you to the manufacturer's website.
Maybe it's useful for people without insurance that don't know how to search look for discount programs to help them buy drugs and maybe some manufacturers will offer discounts on the site that aren't available otherwise, but it's not a competitor to Cuban's site.
I haven't heard of this but he must be pretty proud of it, the page title is literally, "Homepage of Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs", his name is in the logo, and the picture is on the front page.
The branding is... weird. I always thoughts it was just a campaigning tactic for Mark's upcoming presidential bid but given how things have played out, now I'm not so sure.
I’ve jumped on several threads where he’s discussing the product and it seems as though he enjoys the idea of putting PBMs out of the public’s misery and making it kind of personal.
then also it’s an invitation for debate or discussion, which he seems open to and approachable about… as scoldy and confrontational as that may be from what I’ve gathered …
the gist of that is “this sucks we want single payer”
and what I’ve surmised so far is, that’s great but until we’re there I’m taking on PBMs
im okay with either or both of those objectives , neither of which are advancing.
Not really on topic for “trumprx,” forgive me. I’m trying to avoid contempt before investigation.
All the damage that Trump caused, as it becomes unavoidably apparent and the propagandists pin it on the next administration. Remember the cries about price inflation during Biden's term, after Trump had turned the money printing press to 11 during Covid? Dumped interest rates, PPP handouts, and even mailing helicopter checks directly to everyone. Then when monetary velocity finally picked back up, the bill came due.
Republicans have been running this sabotage-then-criticize scam for decades now. Trump has just embraced it whole hog during his second term and it's an open question whether Democrats will even be able to stem the hemorrhaging after this one, especially as they're generally not effective at building things and so much has been wholesale destroyed.
He is desperate to come up with a grift with his name on it because he's jealous of Obamacare, which was even named by Republicans, even though they also somehow think the ACA isn't the exact same thing.
There’s already reason to be suspicious of conflicts of interest with TrumpRx, the senators note. There’s a “potential relationship between TrumpRx and an online dispensing company, BlinkRx, on whose Board the President’s son, Donald Trump, Jr., has sat since February 2025,” the senators write.
So playing "skeptic in a vacuum" for a minute—i.e., pretending that I don't know anything about this administration, and not having done any research beyond reading the linked article—this seems like a pretty good thing. Insurance companies negotiate tremendous discounts for pharmaceuticals, which means that people without insurance are often majorly screwed when trying to buy medicine. Having the government act as a negotiator with the drug companies to obtain similar discounts for the uninsured seems to be a positive move.
Happy to have someone explain to me why this is a bad take.
Assuming there's nothing wrong with it technically (scam, misleading, mishandling, whatever), then yeah, nothing wrong your take. It's just the obvious meta-problems: His name being on it creates trust issues and reluctance (and inversely: blind trust on the other side). Even just regarding image and principles: Most people justifiably hate the idea of a prideful asshole putting his name front and center on a government service - they want the comport of a president to be the opposite of a cartoonish car salesman. They might tolerate it if the guy in question doesn't cultivate that image (e.g. Obamacare), but even then, they don't want the guy to officially name it that (e.g. ACA) because that would again contribute to the image of petty self-advertisement. Of course this "normal" human psychology gets short-circuited with enough hate ("I don't like that behavior. Oh wait, my enemies also don't like? Now I like it.").
Can't tell if this is serious or a joke? This site he launched is literally like Groupon for drugs, for people who don't have health insurance. It's mostly nothing, but if anything it is a step toward normalizing not having health insurance.
There was a report this week that the current admin was destroying medical research, so yes there does seem to be a new intellectual dark age incoming.
https://imgur.com/a/XCQr5EP
$1,449 --> $252 is "93% off", apparently?