I'm sure it's not ok to the people that need those new medicines
Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
11–20 of 63 posts
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#12I'm sure it's not ok to the people that need those new medicines
That's a rather weak argument, since medicine development is speculative.
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#13That’s a pretty privileged view point. On the other hand I have a family member whose genetic makeup makes it so that they cannot use ~90% of the medications available for their condition. As a result every new medication in that area is of extreme interest to them and their doctors because it might be something they can use.
Given the choice between higher prices or not having treatment at all, I suspect those whose medications would be culled would gladly choose higher prices.
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#14Note that I had to trim the lengthy title: I think this issue is an interesting and an important one to discuss, and that the discussion doesn’t benefit from the political framing. I certainly did editorialize however and would appreciate a better short title if one is offered.
The current title answers a question, it should instead raise a question. [Currently: Developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it means lower prices] Suggestion: Congress debates if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it means lower prices
I both appreciate the pointer and the suggestion. Thank you.
The suggestion was sadly too long by 6. I’ve gone with “Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices”.
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#15That’s a pretty privileged view point. On the other hand I have a family member whose genetic makeup makes it so that they cannot use ~90% of the medications available for their condition. As a result every new medication in that area is of extreme interest to them and their doctors because it might be something they can use. Given the choice between higher prices or not having treatment at all, I suspect those whose…
And your point of view is also privileged by that standard. For people who can't afford the drugs for their conditions, reducing the price is "of extreme interest to them".
I'm not saying that your position is wrong--medical innovation is really important. I'm saying you're being reductionist. There are really hard questions here, and accusing others of privilege does nothing to make this discussion more productive.
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#16Well this is, in essence, the concern of the "ObamaCare Death Panel"! Only instead of determining by a board of doctors whether you are entitled to care, a bureaucratic measure to determine whether a company should investigate cures to what ails you. Better for society, worse for you as an individual.
I always assumed death panels were a tongue in cheek reference to what health insurance companies already do.
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#17NO! This inevitably will end up as slightly fewer medicines with no reduction in price.
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#18[flagged]
The "less capable"
Keep in mind, we're not all born with the same socio-economic advantages. The idea that you're more capable because you're successful is merely confirmation bias.
Furthermore, your comment necessarily implies that anyone not as "capable", whatever that means, is therefore deserving of poverty and hardship. That's a moral stance I cannot support.
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#19[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices
#20NO! This inevitably will end up as slightly fewer medicines with no reduction in price.
Why wouldn’t it lead to a reduction in price? Removing artificial barriers to competition lowers prices, that’s like the whole idea behind supply/demand in economics.