A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
Surely you jest? :eek:

It’s a rare condition. Nobody’s going to run into the breach and start making it.

Is there never a limit to profit levels? Or is capitalism our new religion?
Click to expand...
I think what some people are missing is the fact that, although the patent expired, this company purchased exclusive rights to market the drug. We’re not going to see a bunch of companies produce a product they aren’t legally allowed to sell to compete with this company. This is where “free-market” arguments fail.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I think what some people are missing is the fact that, although the patent expired, this company purchased exclusive rights to market the drug. We’re not going to see a bunch of companies produce a product they aren’t legally allowed to sell to compete with this company. This is where “free-market” arguments fail.
Click to expand...
Are you talking exclusive rights to market the drug or the name brand? I mean, someone could sell the exclusive right to market Tylenol, but I don’t see how they could buy the exclusive right to market acetaminophen.
 
seekerz said:
Surely you jest? :eek:

It’s a rare condition. Nobody’s going to run into the breach and start making it.

Is there never a limit to profit levels? Or is capitalism our new religion?
Click to expand...
They most certainly will if they can make $700 per pill. And that will cause a price war between suppliers and the price will plummet.

As to your snide and rude comment at the end, remember that socialism is condemned in the Christian faith.
 
zz912 said:
As to your snide and rude comment at the end, remember that socialism is condemned in the Christian faith.
Click to expand...
In what way is socialism condemned and who has condemned it? Is it condemned in Scripture?
 
Thorolfr said:
In what way is socialism condemned and who has condemned it? Is it condemned in Scripture?
Click to expand...
CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

Edit: Note that none of the proponents of capitalism on here are advocating unbridled or unregulated capitalism (despite others’ claims).
 
zz912 said:
If this is true, then there is the problem. Monopolies are created by govt, protected by govt, and their resulting harm should be laid at the feet of govt.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this is at least in part a reaction to the over-regulation of the medical field by the government.

Ordinarily, the price increase isn’t without some risk, because as price goes up, demand usually goes down.
 
SuperLuigi said:
I wonder if this is at least in part a reaction to the over-regulation of the medical field by the government.

Ordinarily, the price increase isn’t without some risk, because as price goes up, demand usually goes down.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it works that way in the medical field or that we can talk about supply and demand for medicines in the same way we would for random tchotchkes at your local outlet mall. It’s the difference between what people want and what people need to survive whether they want it or not.
 
SuperLuigi said:
I wonder if this is at least in part a reaction to the over-regulation of the medical field by the government.

Ordinarily, the price increase isn’t without some risk, because as price goes up, demand usually goes down.
Click to expand...
More likely, demand will not go down for things like necessary medications, but government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare and insurance companies will bear the increased costs which will all be passed on to the rest of us in higher taxes and higher insurance premiums, etc.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I think what some people are missing is the fact that, although the patent expired, this company purchased exclusive rights to market the drug. We’re not going to see a bunch of companies produce a product they aren’t legally allowed to sell to compete with this company. This is where “free-market” arguments fail.
Click to expand...
ROFL, generics are always sold under a different name than the original branded drug. All the FDA needs to do is approve 1-2 generic competitors and the “free-market” will solve the problem.
 
Theo520 said:
ROFL, generics are always sold under a different name than the original branded drug. All the FDA needs to do is approve 1-2 generic competitors and the “free-market” will solve the problem.
Click to expand...
As already pointed out, the medication in question is for a relatively rare disease. So it is not that likely that other companies will step forward to manufacture a generic at a significantly lower price since there would not be much profit in doing so.
 
Theo520 said:
ROFL, generics are always sold under a different name than the original branded drug. All the FDA needs to do is approve 1-2 generic competitors and the “free-market” will solve the problem.
Click to expand...
There is no generic version of Daraprim that passes FDA muster. It takes years of r&d and clinical trials to produce new drugs. What are patients supposed to do in the meantime? Die? Or are you suggesting that the FDA should put lives at risk by releasing a cascade of drugs that don’t meet minimum health and safety requirements? Why? All so one greedy punk can ravage the wallets of the sick and dying in the name of capitalism?
 
Inisfallen said:
I don’t see a conflict, as such, but more of an admonition. The Catechism says that “[p]olitical authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good,” and I think we could do with quite a bit more regulation.
Click to expand...
Where the catechism is wrong is that government has no rights. It has powers, granted to it only by the consent of those it governs. In the US, this power is enumerated in, and limited by the constitution.

Jon
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I don’t think it works that way in the medical field or that we can talk about supply and demand for medicines in the same way we would for random tchotchkes at your local outlet mall. It’s the difference between what people want and what people need to survive whether they want it or not.
Click to expand...
The basic principles are the same. The difference is that demand for the drug is probably higher than something at the mall.
 
zz912 said:
They most certainly will if they can make $700 per pill. And that will cause a price war between suppliers and the price will plummet.

As to your snide and rude comment at the end, remember that socialism is condemned in the Christian faith.
Click to expand...
I’m extremely pleased with the comment that you find “snide and rude”. The Pope is right now condemning the idolatory of Mammon - it’s not the time to add idolatory of man-made systems/ideologies.

And condemnation of capitalism’s excesses is NOT an endorsement of socialism or any other -ism. Apparently there’s*** no end ***to the costumes man can conjure up to dress up his greed in…
 
SuperLuigi said:
The basic principles are the same. The difference is that demand for the drug is probably higher than something at the mall.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the demand isn’t a choice and, in my view, that means the principles are not the same.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
There is no generic version of Daraprim that passes FDA muster. It takes years of r&d and clinical trials to produce new drugs. What are patients supposed to do in the meantime? Die? Or are you suggesting that the FDA should put lives at risk by releasing a cascade of drugs that don’t meet minimum health and safety requirements? Why? All so one greedy punk can ravage the wallets of the sick and dying in the name of capitalism?
Click to expand...
To answer these questions, I think government will inevitably screw it up even more for people.

For all I know, this alleged price gouging could a reaction to over-regulation in the first place.

And I’m not for getting rid of FDA standards, but I do wonder just how good of a job they really do.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The difference is that the demand isn’t a choice and, in my view, that means the principles are not the same.
Click to expand...
The free market is based on natural law and is a cornerstone for the success of the First World.

Big government = disaster.
 
SuperLuigi said:
The basic principles are the same. The difference is that demand for the drug is probably higher than something at the mall.
Click to expand...
No it is not. Demand and supply cannot work the same way in medicine for many reasons, not the least being that we don’t get to walk up to a booth somewhere and tap on which illness we get, when and where we get it, or how it is treated…We can exercise choice with food or clothes or housing - but not with sickness. That’s why it’s immoral to simply leave sick people to the mercy of market forces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top