Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

A lot of it comes down to tribalism: "I'd rather pay higher drug prices than lower drug prices your way."

Another line of research would be PBMs (Pharmacy Benefit Managers). These are another primary means through which drug prices are manipulated by Big Pharma, away from public scrutiny. Some Big Pharma companies have actually formed their own PBMs to provide better secrecy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy_benefit_management

Understanding what's really going on, i.e., exactly how it works, would require reading and understanding a significant amount of case law or working for Big Pharma. Note that understanding how it all works will not necessarily lead to change, unfortunately. PhRMA does a reliable job of making sure things stay the same year after year. These problems with gaming Hatch-Waxman have been around since the 90's. IMO, Big Pharma's lobbyists are far more skilled than Big Tech's lobbysists. Time will tell.

There is no single factor that is wholly responsible for higher drug prices. It is many factors. This is probably why it is such a difficult problem to solve.

Here is one example of one Hatch-Waxman "loophole." This is the one with antitrust issues that I had in mind when making that comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_payment_patent_settlem...

You have to qualify your statement with "if you have an accountant" because I don't have to have an accountant, it is an optional service I can seek if I want. In my case, I do my own taxes, and if I don't get as big a tax return as I could've back, it hurts nobody but me.

The requirement for you to do regular tasks for the privilege of practicing your profession is forced upon you because the the consequences of any lapse in your knowledge are borne by others, not you. I too have professional requirements, but I can choose a different profession and be absolved of all of them.

A chronic condition is not a choice. Dealing with your pain is not a privilege, it is a right. The idea that people should be forced to forego their right based on the idea that some others will benefit (a dubious claim for which I can find no evidence supporting) is absurd.

Anecdotally, a co-worker told me he had moved here from Canada so he could bring his father here to be treated for some form of cancer. He was not going to get that particular treatment in Canada, no matter what he was willing to pay. I am in no way saying that this treatment was necessary or helpful, though it might have been. But my friend perceived that he had more options for treatment here.

Second anecdote, a friend died of pancreatic cancer last year. Her doctor told here it was inoperable, and she had 8 months to live. She went to two other doctors and found one who was willing to put her through intensive chemo; she wanted to fight it. She still only lived 8 months.

In another country, she would not have that option, and maybe she shouldn't have had, because it was very expensive and it had less than zero benefit.

People can get more treatment options here, at a higher cost, for better or worse.

I only deduce it happens.

I mean the lobbying happens in ordinary conversations like these, where people with a vested interest in gatekeeping argue it's in the public interest. I'm deducing it happens based simply on the incentives that exist for concentrated interests, in the form of insiders, to engage in it.

It also manifests as major political representatives legitimizing said licensure, and rationalizing the principle behind it to the public, in exchange for support from insiders within the regulated industry.

>>If they are just gullible like you claim, then do you think these incapable people will have the capacity to choose well after removing license requirements for providers?

Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life.

>>That would be nice in many ways, but I can see a downside too. Once someone is found to be incompetent, fraudulent, and harmful, how would they be barred from the profession to prevent the issue from happening to others?

I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevert courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct.

The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be. That is what the principles of a free society demand.