Donald, This I Will Tell You

[viruscore1]

I think you are missing the real cause. There's a third party paying for the drug. If not for that, two things would happen. #1 the pharma would have to price the drug at a point where the patient could afford it, without insurance picking up the cost. Or #2 the drug would not be developed due to risk of not getting a return, since their pricing leverage would disappear...no insurance to spread cost, no new drug.

Why do you same drug cost less in Canada vs USA?

 

[CaptainObvious]

I've struggled a lot with this, personally. As a Libertarian (a real one, not a Piezoe half made-up classification from 150 years ago), I am adamantly against the government enforcing any price controls or restrictions on the free market in price. But this is a special circumstance.

When there is a drug someone must take or else they will die, they will pay anything for it. There's no free market actions to protect the consumer. Normal demand/supply and pricing mechanics don't come into play. A pharmaceutical company with patent protections for 10 years and demand any price and be paid for it. As a result, I believe the government is the only entity that can protect consumers here. Of course, when the government is in bed with the very same pharma companies, then these protections aren't applied until the outcry gets loud.

I share your concern as do most people I would think. Why? We're concerned because of the gross incompetence and corruption shown by government. We simply don't trust them, and with good reason. That said, we are stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Some government regulation is needed in this space. Now let us hear some brave republican say that, and then some brave democrat say it's okay to turn a profit. And if we can ever hear that then we can wait for the usual wailing from the corporate boardrooms about how they'll have to cut services and people.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I share your concern as do most people I would think. Why? We're concerned because of the gross incompetence and corruption shown by government. We simply don't trust them, and with good reason. That said, we are stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Some government regulation is needed in this space. Now let us hear some brave republican say that, and then some brave democrat say it's okay to turn a profit. And if we can ever hear that then we can wait for the usual wailing from the corporate boardrooms about how they'll have to cut services and people.

Chances are that the high profits that health insurers have come to expect will come at the expense of the vulnerable. The Right has yet to propose a "free market" plan that can actually work. Chances are that only a single payer system would achieve the most obvious objective of providing adequate cover for everyone. And there is little chance that the Right will acquiesce any time soon. Round and round she goes...

 

[CaptainObvious]

Chances are that the high profits that health insurers have come to expect will come at the expense of the vulnerable. The Right has yet to propose a "free market" plan that can actually work. Chances are that only a single payer system would achieve the most obvious objective of providing adequate cover for everyone. And there is little chance that the Right will acquiesce any time soon. Round and round she goes...

Everyone needs a lesson in acquiescence, the right, the left, the boardroom boyz, and maybe the American people as well. Isn't going to be a free ride to medical shangrila. There will be concessions to be made by all.

 

[java]

Chances are that the high profits that health insurers have come to expect will come at the expense of the vulnerable. The Right has yet to propose a "free market" plan that can actually work. Chances are that only a single payer system would achieve the most obvious objective of providing adequate cover for everyone. And there is little chance that the Right will acquiesce any time soon. Round and round she goes...

We have a single payer system for the poor and the elderly, what more do you want?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

We have a single payer system for the poor and the elderly, what more do you want?

So it's all roses?

 

[java]

If you made auto insurance illegal, there would be more dented cars on the road, but body shop rates would go way down.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I think you are missing the real cause. There's a third party paying for the drug. If not for that, two things would happen. #1 the pharma would have to price the drug at a point where the patient could afford it, without insurance picking up the cost. Or #2 the drug would not be developed due to risk of not getting a return, since their pricing leverage would disappear...no insurance to spread cost, no new drug.

Yeah, I get it. Just saying that it's not a true demand-supply model that a free market person could argue should remain free market, because the necessity of the item is life or death.

If Coke raised doubled their prices overnight, a good deal of people would switch to Pepsi or an alternative. The elasticity of price changes is significant with Coke. With a drug that is exclusive and patented, and saves your life, you have to have it at any cost. Elasticity is zero.

 

[Tsing Tao]

If you made auto insurance illegal, there would be more dented cars on the road, but body shop rates would go way down.

This is a careless analogy. There would be a whole host of unintended consequences, including fatalities, lawsuits and the like.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

If you made auto insurance illegal, there would be more dented cars on the road, but body shop rates would go way down.

Because demand for their services would go way up?

Meanwhile, people's cars would spend more time in the shop and they'd have to make alternative arrangements for suitable transport at personal expense.

Yeah, you got a real winner idea there.

 

[java]

Because demand for their services would go way up?

Meanwhile, people's cars would spend more time in the shop and they'd have to make alternative arrangements for suitable transport at personal expense.

Yeah, you got a real winner idea there.

I'm not advocating it dumbass. It is a true analogy, people would not spend more time in the hospital, they would spend less time and only go when necessary and the rates would be lower because people would hesitate rather than shrug because it's all paid for by insurance. You forgot to mention how many people would just flat out declare bankruptcy, which should be the true purpose of and what insurance is to provide, insurance against total loss of net worth, not day to day repairs.