41–50 of 461 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The drugs might end up being cheaper, but there will be much less research for drugs (aka less drugs in the future). Greed is a good motivator.
Keeping voters in good health is a good motivator too.
I used to work for a generics manufacturer, and indeed this was their MO. Seek out old drugs that sill have a very viable market but are under the radar of the big guys, undersell until they're the only supplier left, then jack up the price when patients have no choice. It's despicable and seems inevitable with the current regulation model.
This is not specifically in reply to the parent, but the point fits here: I'd observe that calling for more regulation or even outright nationalization to fix this, when it's probably already illegal, is not thinking very clearly. Regulations are already failing to prevent this... how is enacting more things that make illegal things illegalier going to actually solve the problem? How is doing the same, but more, actually going to help?
Its obvious that this a great economic move in the short run.
What are the things that we can do so that companies aren't motivated by this type of business model? What are the long term actions people can do so that there are long term consequences for companies that do these types of price jacking?
[1] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/93142/1/EML_18_eng....
Drug creation needs to be nationalized, 100% tax funded all the way from researcher to trials to manufacture, and the drugs sold at cost thereafter. And the pharmaceuticals industry needs to just go away.
I want my goverment helping people avoid health issues, rather than subsidising costs that could have been prevented. I've yet to see any one industry that has been nationalised and is performing better (in every sense) than the private sector.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc...
And roads, electricity, emergency services, internet service...
> performing better (in every sense)
Oh, I see, you didn't really want a fair comparison. No matter how far you separate the means of two gaussians their tails will always overlap, and therefore you are tautologically correct. I'll try to remember that next time I go to pay 2x what I would pay in a contemporary social system for health insurance, I'm sure it will make me feel better.
When I see "treating a life-threatening disease" and $750 a pill, formerly $14, I think people need long prison sentences to solve that. If we can put food processors who knowingly ship tainted food in prison in this country for endangering or even killing people, we can certainly imprison people for endangering lives by preventing the reception of medication.
It's disheartening, but I think the logic in your first example is that the manufacturer did not give the consumer a choice; in the second, the consumer can choose not to pay, and die instead. It's a horrid way to think about it, and it's a horrid ethical system that gets developed when it all comes down to money.
The problem there is ZERO risk for them to make a pill $750, let's give them a little motivation to do the right thing.
I mean why not even $75, why go directly to $750? Because insurance, that's why. What about people in the medicaid-gap who cannot get insurance in this country? There are millions of people who cannot get insurance in the USA to this very day.
I'm a libertarian and completely in favor of private property and an open, informed marketplace. Having said that, this is out of control. If you know you're selling me a life-or-death product which has no peer, and the government protects your property such that others can't make it cheaper? It's not a market. It's rent-seeking, highway robbery. Bad actors are going to cause an overreaction that is going to seriousl…
Price shenanigans like this is prima facie evidence that the marketplace has become closed or uninformed. I still say the best solution is to correct that, not to try to make this illegal, especially when it probably already is.
The surprise voiced in this article is suprising. Now that the NY Times has told me about it, this idea of buying the one company that makes a particular generic drug and then raising the price ridiculously high makes a lot of sense. I wonder if they thought they'd lower the price as sales dropped and were themselves surprised when this didn't happen. I gotta agree with jug5: "Breaking News: America doesn't understan…
There is a special place in hell for people like Martin Shkreli.
I'm a libertarian and completely in favor of private property and an open, informed marketplace. Having said that, this is out of control. If you know you're selling me a life-or-death product which has no peer, and the government protects your property such that others can't make it cheaper? It's not a market. It's rent-seeking, highway robbery. Bad actors are going to cause an overreaction that is going to seriousl…
It sounds like you're well on your way to realising the flaw in straight-ahead libertarianism and joining those in the mainstream who want just enough market regulation to allow free markets without a huge social cost.
I get the feel that most reasonable souls are in agreement on this. We merely differ in how much we think is 'just enough' and the point at which social benefits should trigger an intervention.
Both the right and left are also probably in agreement that historically speaking - intervention has been problematic and flawed.
Drug creation needs to be nationalized, 100% tax funded all the way from researcher to trials to manufacture, and the drugs sold at cost thereafter. And the pharmaceuticals industry needs to just go away.
I want my goverment helping people avoid health issues, rather than subsidising costs that could have been prevented. I've yet to see any one industry that has been nationalised and is performing better (in every sense) than the private sector.