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

1) I'm not convinced that no one is interested to create the drug. Numerous people in this very discussion list issues to create a 'replacement' drug, even if the patent is expired. If they are correct (see disclaimer above) that might be a reason why others haven't tried it - or why they haven't succeeded yet.

2) 'Right' price is ambiguous, I agree. In my world, drug prices are ethic problems and have no connection to the so-called free market. No, a working, helping, proven drug cannot cost hundreds of $currency. We can discuss about the need to offset the R&D costs and I'm fine with drugs that costs my health insurance a ~largish~ sum, as long as the end user can get instant and easy access to the drug.

Your comments about putting a price on a person's life and your opinions on drug prices - as far as I can follow! - are impossible to understand from this person's pov. The lack of empathy and the trust in random business/market theoretical stuff to find a reasonable solution for the access to drugs that might very well save lives - that just doesn't compute, doesn't make sense in my world.

I don't believe in free markets. I certainly don't believe in free markets when we're talking about the basic needs of each and every human (for the sake of the argument let's limit this to nutrition and health for now). Health care should be free. Drugs should be affordable. Changing the price of a drug that was obviously doing okay (it was on the 'free market', right?) and multiplying the price by 65, because .. why not? .. is immoral and should be illegal. There's no 'value' to 'capture'. We're talking about a product that the company obviously produced with some sort of margin for ~13.5~ and that benefits the population at large - or at least the subset of the population that requires the drug. There is _no_ reason to increase the price, especially by that ridiculous value, other than inhuman greed. But maybe (see disclaimer) that's what a 'free market' is about - I wouldn't know.

>"However, in my comment I meant more in terms of general care, which is something that is sorely neglected in today's world where we all expect the state to foot the bill. I.e. Food, basic healthcare, education and safety."

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate? Not my native language and so far I read this as 'we expect the state to provide food/healthcare/education/safety' and .. I'm not sure if you agree with that or not - and how 'general care' comes into play or what general care is, actually.

>"But we both know there is no place for us to go "across the border"."

While I understand your argument, I do think that you have options here. I'm from Europe and I do consider 'state-hopping' very seriously. I lived abroad for some time and I can imagine doing it again/elsewhere, and certainly for quality of life related reasons. Admittedly I'm already in a ~decent~ position here, and get most of the social benefits that I expect [1]. My point is: While no state is perfect, I seriously do believe that you have a choice and can switch. Especially today, especially if you speak English well/natively, especially if you happen to work in IT. But it's certainly a big leap of faith..

1: Or .. I expect all these benefits, because I was raised right here?

Replace interested with "no one is interested and able". The reasons don't matter (insofar as they cannot be changed), the fact is that no one else is making them.

The lack of empathy and the trust in random business/market theoretical stuff to find a reasonable solution for the access to drugs that might very well save lives - that just doesn't compute, doesn't make sense in my world.

This doesn't come from a lack of empathy. I am (or try to emulate) a utilitarianist. To my mind, the question to ask is "which system will produce better outcomes overall"?

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, this particular example has them covering the cost of the drug for anyone who can't afford it; so the value of a life is irrelevant. The question is "is it better for a health insurance company or the drug manufacturer to have the money?" This doesn't seem obvious.

On the other hand, any claims of "fairness" fail to compute. If doing X improves the world, who cares if it makes things less fair?

Health care should be free.

The world should be perfect. I agree. Now, do you have any way of bringing the world to perfection? Saying "Health care should be free" while ignoring the fact that currently, health care needs to be rationed, does nobody any good.

Who pays for health care, if it's free? Who becomes a doctor, a researcher, if the prices are driven down by politicians with similar arguments to yours?

There's no 'value' to 'capture'.

That sounds to me like saying that every drug company should be selling at cost or close to cost. The problem with that is that there's then much less incentive for investors to fund pharmaceutical startups, which leads to less new drugs being developed, and so on.

You can't ignore economics when building your utopia.

The question is really a macro one as much as a micro one. What percent of our resources should we spend on healthcare? That question is simply a sum of all the prices paid.

I actually think that it's possible that in much of the developed world, economies may not be spending enough on healthcare, due to state intervention. Like much of the developed world, I already have a car, a TV, a computer, enough food, leisure activities, and live a comfortable life. Why would I not spend any of my truly expendable income to live a long and healthy life?