161–170 of 367 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is government protecting a monopoly free market exactly?
Why is it protecting a monopoly? Why doesn't it say "this EpiPen can't cost more than $30"?
In any case, the current high price is the result of regulatory/legislative actions and so the current price is evidence of regulatory failure, not market failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a copay on epipens, but I do have a deductible. This actually can help me but the max is $100 off of full price (a few years ago I got $75 off with a similar card).
Oh, I didn't think you would be terribly concerned about the savings, I thought the company helping patients use their insurance was a nice addendum to your comment about the agency problem. Edit: The way I read it, if you give the card to the pharmacy, the company will pay the $25 on your wife's plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, The FDA, because they require drug and device makers to demonstrate efficacy and safety by going through a rigorous clinical trial process, are evil? Really? I also find your comment pretty uninformed considering that the FDA just paved the way for generic drug makers to basically "knock-off" super expensive biologic drugs like Humira and Enbrel which were previously covered by similar patents. The FDA has it's p…
The workers ("staffed") in the FDA are (mostly, probably) people who want to help but the bureaucrats in charge are part of the political system (e.g. lobbyists, political insiders, etc.). I think you're conflating the workers of the FDA with the people who, ultimately, guide it and make decisions. This isn't to say the leadership of the FDA is compromised by or somehow beholden to "Big Pharma" or some such. I certai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are really two villains here, Mylan, of course, but more importantly, the FDA. FDA regulations make the cost of bringing a new medical device to the market absurd. There are no competitors because the time and effort to bring a competing device is so ridiculously high that it doesn't pay to do so. I have a child with a peanut allergy. I am worried every damn day of my life. I see articles about people who die e…
I'm sure the FDA could be more efficient, but isn't a large part of the difficulty intrinsic to bringing a safe and effective device to the market? The flip side of people dying from not having an Epipen is people dying because their generic Epipen didn't work.
If no one purchases the non-evaluated product then the market will have spoken and the non-evaluated products will disappear. On the other hand if the non-evaluated products are successful then the market will have provided a better product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If corporations don't have an obligation to maximize profits for shareholders, then you'd better try and take that argument to shareholders rather than believe someone's opinion piece on the matter. I didn't say corporations are legally required to seek profits, but they do have profit-seeking obligations in most cases. Without investors' expectations of future profits, those companies wouldn't exist in the first pla…
There is no inherent obligation to maximize profits. Most companies have that as their goal because that's what their shareholders want. But then saying that the manufacturer is obligated to maximize profits is a really bizarre and rather disingenuous way of saying that the people who actually own the manufacturer prioritize profits over lives. They don't have to do that, they just do. There's no "obligation" anywher…
I can hope my neighbor is a decent human being and that he'll be a good neighbor when people around him are in need, but I personally won't blame him if he doesn't. Similarly, if he's being a nuisance - without breaking any laws - I still can't really expect him to stop (just because I value my peace more than he does) unless I do something to change the law. I can whine about it all day long and tell him it's "not OK", but if I don't do something to change the law (or move), then the only person I can really blame is myself. Blame is only useful so far as it actually has any "teeth" to improve the situation.
It comes down to this: we all want the world to be a better place. We can hope and expect everyone else to live up to our ideals (and complain when they don't), or just do our best to live that ideal ourselves. Anything serious enough to warrant restrictions or mandates on the behavior of others is probably within the realm of legislation.
This seems less damming to me considering the medicine naturally occurs inside your body. What reason is there that nobody else can make a competing product for cheaper?
The rest of your question is great, but it's a legal one, I'm no help there...
This is a simple example of how health care systems should be nationalized. Or that the profit motive in health care is corrosive to health.
We have VERY GOOD medicine in the US, for anyone who can pay. It's not corrosive to 'The System'
That said: I wish I could afford a bit more healthcare
The US is subsidizing the rest of the world. When Canada decrees that the price of something will by X, then guess who pays?
Let's not pretend that there's a properly functioning market here. The only reason for the price hike is to line pockets, not because demand fell or it suddenly became that much more expensive to produce.
So in that sense there is not a properly functioning market.
Comments in this discussion seem to fall into two categories: 1) free market has failed, lower the price via administrative fiat 2) free market doesn't exist, adjust regulations to encourage competition
One suggestion I have is to simply allow non-FDA approved devices to be sold but to be clearly labeled as not having been evaluated by the FDA. This would allow the market mechanism to put pressure on the FDA approved vendor. Re-thinking the FDA approval process is also a possibility, or even providing different types of FDA labeling (e.g., experimental, provisional, approved) based on different stages of the FDA process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is government protecting a monopoly free market exactly?
Why is it protecting a monopoly? Why doesn't it say "this EpiPen can't cost more than $30"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no inherent obligation to maximize profits. Most companies have that as their goal because that's what their shareholders want. But then saying that the manufacturer is obligated to maximize profits is a really bizarre and rather disingenuous way of saying that the people who actually own the manufacturer prioritize profits over lives. They don't have to do that, they just do. There's no "obligation" anywher…
If not for laws and government-mandated standards, how would you go about making sure companies put the "correct" value on lives vs profits? I can hope my neighbor is a decent human being and that he'll be a good neighbor when people around him are in need, but I personally won't blame him if he doesn't. Similarly, if he's being a nuisance - without breaking any laws - I still can't really expect him to stop (just be…
If your neighbor is being a nuisance, it may be more effective to gather up some of the other neighbors and all go over to the fellow and tell him to knock it off.
I don't have any actual solutions to propose here. Maybe it merits legislation, maybe it merits consumer action, maybe it's just an opportunity for some other business to create a competing product. I just don't like criticism of people trying to work around a life threatening problem without also acknowledging the source of the problem, and I especially don't like justifying bad corporate behavior on the mistaken principle that corporations must prioritize profits above all else.