I'd like to know why people would consider giving their children a drug named Absurd in the first place!
2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'
71–74 of 74 posts
Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, the government granting monopoly rights in 2015 to a naturally occurring chemical discovered in 1933 is "capitalism". Nobody has been granted monopoly rights on anything. The GP's article (from 2012) is referring to a situation where there is only one FDA-approved supplier of a product (naturally-derived ACTH). Nothing except lack of motivation is stopping someone else from entering the market. The OP is discu…
> "Nothing except lack of motivation is stopping someone else from entering the market." Have you ever looked at the cost of getting a new manufacturer of a drug approved by the FDA? FDA approval requires a lot more than motivation; if you disagree, I invite you to start manufacturing the drugs yourself (or even contracting it out).
"Motivation" in the business sense of "can make sufficient return on investment", not the trivially reductionist sense of "I feel like making a new drug today". So regulatory costs affect the motivation.
Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not likely; insurance companies have no incentive or motivation to reduce the cost of healthcare. The more money that moves through the healthcare system, the more money that passes through the insurance company. That gives them power, giant transient account balances, and "too big to fail" status.
I agree in part. It seems like in practice it looks like insurance companies have little interest or capability to reduce healthcare costs. However, I don't understand your reasoning as to why. The high cost of drugs puts the health insurance companies in competition with drug companies for actually ending up with money in hand flowing through healthcare.
The health insurance companies collect money monthly from all enrolled participants. That money sits on their books until it has to be paid out for claims. Higher healthcare costs means that the insurance company can raise the monthly premiums, which means that it's got more money sitting in it's accounts before the claims get paid. That money isn't under a mattress; the insurance company has it invested in something that's earning interest. So higher healthcare costs == more interest earned on the premiums as they pass through the insurance company on the way to paying claims.
Re: 2,000% price hike for infant seizure drug called 'absurd'
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could apply that to so many things. It's just an appeal to emotion. People also needlessly lack education because they can't pay, but we'd be fucked if the government jumped to guarantee more loans and grants.
If you were begging the question any harder, you'd be one of the people tech guys hate on in the Tenderloin. And at the same time you're teetering on the edge of an epiphany that strikes at the heart of techno-fetishistic free-market worship. Because the government guaranteeing loans and grants isn't a good way to provide education, no--but plenty of countries make education a state function and charge a very managea…
I don't understand - are you saying I was wrong? If so please tell me why or recommend me some reading. I do know that other countries are able state-fund education, but I don't concretely know why they're different. I just assumed that "jumping to guarantee more loans" is an obviously bad idea.