E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Natural law? You must be referring to the survival of the fittest aka the rich. It certainly isn’t based on any moral law since, as in this case, it is bereft of any scruples whatsoever.
A Huge Overnight Increase in a Drug’s Price Raises Protests
- Status
S
seekerz
Guest
Exactly: pay or die. We can make it that way if we choose. We just cannot call that a moral choice with any shred of credibility.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Market forces work along supply and demand curves for any product. To suggest it does not is just another excuse to throw up the hands and get the government to come in on it’s white horse and mess things up even more.
So then why don’t rich liberals take care of them without using the force of the government? I mean, I don’t see them offering to buy people these pills…
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Life, which is the real product being bought and sold in the medical industry, is always in demand and I don’t see what anyone’s political persuasion has to do with this. This isn’t just about chemicals in a tablet; it’s about setting a price on the life of a person.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
So how does the free market without government regulation insure that people with pre-existing medical conditions can buy affordable healthcare coverage or even any healthcare coverage at all?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Well, if one is worried about, one can always offer to buy it for the people who can’t afford it.
So why stop there? Why not make all medicine free?
I saw a bumper sticker once that said “Jesus didn’t heal for money”.
True, and He also didn’t teach for money either. Should teacher’s not be paid either? That would also further eliminate the need for education unions.
And if we can’t pay them, I guess kids may not learn as much.
Still want to go down this road?
To deny the free market is to deny natural law and human incentive, the same incentive that drives most every liberal, socialist, Marxist and American Democrat.
It seems to me that underneath this issue is a desire to grow government, when it could be that government is part of the problem here.
I can’t say whether or not this price increase is justified because I don’t know enough about it, and I doubt most folks talking about it do.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Competition drives down prices. I don’t think anyone wants a market with no regulation, but America has the opposite problem right now.
S
seekerz
Guest
For any product? So tell me how it would work for this one…
Also, are you saying that rich conservatives are by definition, likely to pay for the drug for those who need it? Hmm, I wonder how they’d do that without requiring people to reveal their private medical records? Could patients just walk up with a hat and say, “I need that drug”?
S
seekerz
Guest
I happen to know quite a lot about the drug, and no, I have no desire to see government grow. How about a price that the regular Joe on the street can meet with the help of his insurance - how on earth does that = big government?
My main aim in economic debates, is to take the stance that will not require me to dismiss the existence of every alternative to the unrestrained “free market” and “big government”. At heart, I tend to favor the middle ground as opposed to the extremes.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
The principle is generally the same. There may be more demand since it is important medicine, but competition should mitigate that.
Last I read, in American conservatives give four times as much to charity than liberals, despite the fact that liberals have greater income.
There’s some pretty organized charities out there, so this can be done. Really, it can.
PS—charities may also run on free market principles.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
So there are charities that would pay $750 per pill for someone’s medicine or say $100,000 or more per year?There’s some pretty organized charities out there, so this can be done. Really, it can.
PS—charities may also run on free market principles.
S
seekerz
Guest
I have to come to the conclusion, respectfully, that you do not understand much about this drug, the people who need it, or how hospitals and charities work.The principle is generally the same. There may be more demand since it is important medicine, but competition should mitigate that.
Last I read, in American conservatives give four times as much to charity than liberals, despite the fact that liberals have greater income.
There’s some pretty organized charities out there, so this can be done. Really, it can.
PS—charities may also run on free market principles.
American conservatives may give as much as they like, but how does a charity get the drug for a person who comes in to the ICU in critical condition at 3 am? Do they leave a stock of the drug? Who decides the criteria to qualify for free drug - the overburdened doctor working to actually save a life here? Or would the drug be free for everyone - in which case, how is this a free market solution?
You seem to be speaking from an ideological perspective that says: it must work somehow because there is always a free market solution.
I’m speaking from a practical perspective, as in: there’s already waaay too much bureaucracy in medicine to add another layer in the form of a charity that someone (not sure exactly who) has to justify the use of a particular drug to.
Demand and supply will not solve this one because, if you read more about this drug, there is very little demand - as in, few people need it but those who do really need it. So let’s see your practical model for the free market bringing down the price of this drug - not simply your personal conviction that it MUST bring it down somehow!
If they see a market place, they will. The expense in medications is the R & D. If the generics have little invested in R & D, their cost of production may be far less, owing to a much lower price per unit.
Jon
And this is another way the market place works in a free society.
Jon
Public opinion also has a big influence on how companies behave.
Jon
T
Theo520
Guest
I did a quick check and there are over 30 Indian pharma companies that make the generic drug. This is 100% a monopoly of the FDA making and can be readily solved by approving other manufacturers in the US market. The FDA has a fast track policy for generics, they do not have to repeat the expensive testing and approval process of the original Pharma.
fda.gov/Training/ForHealthProfessionals/ucm090320.htm
G
gamewell45
Guest
Agreed; in some aspects the pharmacies can be compared to the so-called death panels since many will not be able to afford the medication(s) whose price the pharmacy companies have jacked up.
J
JimG
Guest
It seems that there really is a rather limited demand for this drug. It’s possible that due to the limited demand, no company would be willing to market it. However, another poster mentioned that it is manufactured in India as a generic, so it ought to be able to be licensed to a U.S. company. Even generic drug manufacturers, however, sometimes drop drugs for which the demand is limited.
Stunning. Comparing the companies that R&D then provide life saving and extending drugs to government bureaucrats that do virtually nothing, other than spend tax dollars.
The article I posted quotes this “greedy” guy as stating that many patients get the drug without charge because they can’t afford it.
Jon
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The big problem here is government regulation. There are about 30 companies in India that make this drug, but they are not approved to sell the drug in the US. If we believed in consumer sovereignty, we would let them sell their drug here and let consumers decide whether to pay $750 to the local company or get it cheaper from India. If safety is a concern, the Indian companies could partner with American companies would would certify the safety of the drug.
Clearly, the CEO was being opportunistic. It would be nice to see him run out of business, but the government would not allow that.
Clearly, the CEO was being opportunistic. It would be nice to see him run out of business, but the government would not allow that.
- Status