Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#21

Post by EpicEng »

tpmoney wrote: post #13

That’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…

That works for your 1 in a million (10 million? 100 million?) family member, but how about the 85 million who need insulin? Talking about "privilege" seems silly here as you're just prioritizing one person's needs over another's in the opposite direction.

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#22

Post by elil17 »

StaticRedux wrote: post #11

I'm sure it's not ok to the people that need those new medicines

But the current system is not okay for people who need medications that exist and are cheap to manufacture (eg insulin) but can’t afford rates being charged

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#23

Post by tpmoney »

hyperpape wrote: post #15
tpmoney wrote: post #13

That’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.

Sure, being able to afford medications is also a privileged position. But too often I see these sorts of dismissals of “just a few less new medications a year” without an acknowledgement of the real human costs that will be paid. Further I posit that the problem of “some people cannot afford some medications” should and does have a solution other than “all people will lose access to otherwise viable medications”

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#24

Post by aantix »

LargeWu wrote: post #18
aantix wrote: post #6

[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.

We as society vote with our money as to what we value.

We make value judgements all of the time.

You probably walk by the homeless and druggies all of the time. You don't volunteer your time or money because you're making an unconscious decision that I am better than that, that is not worth spending my time or money on.

And that value judgement is important - it shows yourself what you don't want to become, what you do and don't want to spend your time on, the trajectory of your life.

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#25

Post by kaybe »

aantix wrote: post #6

[flagged]

The less capable might be my grandparents, my cousin, my neighbours, or my future friends, and whatever you call 'less capable' might be temporary.

I want to hold all of them up as much as I can. I don't need to fear for my own life either, because they do the same in turn.

I will never understand your stance on healthcare. (I'm in Germany. Comments like yours make me appreciate our system again and again.)

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#26

Post by mieseratte »

RaiseProfits wrote: post #16
mieseratte wrote: post #4

Well 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.

Well you have assumed wrong. It was a reference to giving the government, likely unelected bureaucracies, power to decide who receives what healthcare.

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#27

Post by frobozz »

aantix wrote: post #6

[flagged]

Capitalism at its core is to sacrifice everyone's humanity to maximise a few people's profits.

It means prioritising treatments that manage conditions over ones that cure or prevent them.

It means prioritising drugs to fix the problems of rich old men (e.g. erectile dysfunction and male pattern baldness) over those to fix the problems of poor people (e.g. malaria).

It means monopolising and overcharging for treatments that thousands of people need in order to stay alive, knowing that they have little choice but to carry on paying.

Socialism is equally as capable of innovation as capitalism, potentially more so, as capitalism is inherently wasteful.

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#28

Post by mieseratte »

nradov wrote: post #9
mieseratte wrote: post #4

Well 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.

Who is "you"? A public policy change along these lines would be better for some individuals and worse for others.

With an insurer, you at least have a backstop of changing insurers.

If the government makes this decision, your backstop becomes "move to a new polity."

This is the core of the argument, that the government should not have this power. Say what you will of the sad state of the US health situation, there are potential solutions not involving this level of "We choose who can have what."

I'm not one with exotic health problems, the kind that involve going to a hospital for a week for a batter of tests and analysis, but I know people for whom this is the case. I suppose those people are the ones this is writing off.

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#29

Post by tathougies »

elil17 wrote: post #22
StaticRedux wrote: post #11

I'm sure it's not ok to the people that need those new medicines

But the current system is not okay for people who need medications that exist and are cheap to manufacture (eg insulin) but can’t afford rates being charged

There are other means to achieve this though that do not hinder progress, such as covering such people with Medicaid.

Re: Congress asks if developing slightly fewer medicines is OK if it lowers prices

#30

Post by __s »

Surprised by the comments in this thread

US drug prices are not because of R&D. This title presents a false dichotomy

Drug companies have enough capital at this point that they don't need old drugs to fund new drugs. They can charge a high price for new drugs to recoup their development costs, & then charge closer to the cost of production once that development has been covered

Post reply on HN