Pharmaceuticals only have your best interests at heart

[Gredival]

EDIT: Split from Election thread as it's become an independent subject of discussion

----

Seeing no other place to discuss the continuing need for healthcare reform...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ex-h...-750-per-pill/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/bu...ttom-well&_r=0

$13.50 per pill to $750 per pill, says it's still underpriced cuz capitalism. Sanders relinked the story on his page.

[Talint]

Alternate article that doesn't immediately try to frame the guy as the world's largest douchebag

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/bu...=fb-share&_r=1

Don't worry. The guy confirms for us he is the world's largest douchebag anyway; incase price-gouging on life-saving medication wasn't a huge clue already.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/21/a-7...stop-tweeting/

A tweet from Shkreli saying that patients’ debt resulting from the price hike “aint my fault”

[Thunder]

Btw to the people saying this is capitalisms fault... (looking at you kuro) it isn't.

Capitalism wants nothing to do with the idea someone can buy the rights of a product and have the government enforce their exclusive right to price and sell it. It is the OPPOSITE of capitalism that causes something like this

Unfortunately, none of the candidates are strong on removing government oversight/control over these types of things so yep.

[zoobernut]

Btw to the people saying this is capitalisms fault... (looking at you kuro) it isn't.

Capitalism wants nothing to do with the idea someone can buy the rights of a product and have the government enforce their exclusive right to price and sell it. It is the OPPOSITE of capitalism that causes something like this

Unfortunately, none of the candidates are strong on removing government oversight/control over these types of things so yep.

Basically the entire copyright and patent systems need revamping so they benefit individual inventors not corporations like they were intended to do while also encouraging larger businesses to compete with each other.

[Thunder]

Basically the entire copyright and patent systems need revamping so they benefit individual inventors not corporations like they were intended to do while also encouraging larger businesses to compete with each other.

Would be better off having the government just tie their hands and let the market decide what to do. Revamping systems just sounds like the perfect never-gonna-get-done-keep-paying-me-though government work that causes problems. Plus, revamping systems would still have the government in place to decide things and any big pharma corp would be stupid not to lobby their opinion down the throats of the politicians in charge

Really, allowing so much government control over things forces us to have such dysfunctional practices. Don't think any politician has any positive stances on this, right? It's all Iran, flat taxes, or PP that I've heard about so far from republicans

[Waraji]

Then again, on the other hand, letting the "free market" handle their own regulations leads to price fixing. I mean this kind of shit already happens with Big Pharm no? Closed door meetings in dim lit rooms.

[Thunder]

Then again, on the other hand, letting the "free market" handle their own regulations leads to price fixing. I mean this kind of shit already happens with Big Pharm no? Closed door meetings in dim lit rooms.

Well, there's the argument that sort of stuff can only happen because of government regulation in the first place. But being specific to your point of big pharmaceutical companies coming together to mutually decide prices... that can't be helped with or without government intervention unless you're in favor of forced audits and having government officials decide on prices >.>;

I can guarantee it would happen a hell of a lot less if big pharma wasn't able to use lobbying to squash the shit out of new drugs going through the FDA's new "prove efficacy" in addition to the "prove it does not harm". I'm not in the medical field but I'm sure there are a dozen other government regulations in place that make it tough to privately start a drug business to compete with any sector of the pharmaceutical industry. If there were more competition, it wouldn't be as effective for bigger companies to come together to fix their price at X because some smaller guy will come by and butt blast them with a X- $1000 price

That specific case of price fixing happens in all domains. I'm pretty sure there's new news about steve jobs, year ago, colluding with other tech companies to make wages really low. That way, if someone wanted to leave they knew they wouldn't be paid more at any of the other big tech places

[Tyrath]

I don't see how government regulation can't fix that shit if the government worked properly. Obviously it doesn't, but still.

[Thunder]

I don't see how government regulation can't fix that shit if the government worked properly. Obviously it doesn't, but still.

Because that fundamentally means government has power over it. Which means if I were a gigantic pharmaceutical corporation I can buy influence.

In that sense.. it's impossible for it to "work properly" as you put it

[Tyrath]

I just don't see if you can't trust companies with government regulation, how you are supposed to be able to trust them without any oversight? It doesn't make any sense.

[Thunder]

I just don't see if you can't trust companies with government regulation, how you are supposed to be able to trust them without any oversight? It doesn't make any sense.

I thought I had just explained it, albeit in an edit.

Lowering government oversight lowers the barrier to entry for new companies. With the regulations of the FDA it takes several years for a new guy to come into the market and really hard to have any new drugs compete (have to prove it works, not just that it doesn't hurt people). Plus, because it's government operated, if I were a big pharmaceutical company I can just lobby to my buddies in position of power to make sure the new drugs get squashed and I keep operating smoothly. Kills innovation

Additionally, I have no idea what policy this is a part of, but buying the rights to a drug is absolutely retarded. What if I could buy the rights to baseball bats and sell those fuckers for 900 dollars. And the government is protecting my right to do so, so if you go out and whittle a bat out of wood I'm suing you. Government has no business protecting a company's monopoly over something.

There are a couple more angles on why government regulation in the medical field is bad that I'm familiar with, but they don't have anything to do with this guy being able to raise the price of a pill from like 14 dollars to 900

[kuronosan]

I thought I had just explained it, albeit in an edit.

Lowering government oversight lowers the barrier to entry for new companies. With the regulations of the FDA it takes several years for a new guy to come into the market and really hard to have any new drugs compete (have to prove it works, not just that it doesn't hurt people). Plus, because it's government operated, if I were a big pharmaceutical company I can just lobby to my buddies in position of power to make sure the new drugs get squashed and I keep operating smoothly. Kills innovation

Additionally, I have no idea what policy this is a part of, but buying the rights to a drug is absolutely retarded. What if I could buy the rights to baseball bats and sell those fuckers for 900 dollars. And the government is protecting my right to do so, so if you go out and whittle a bat out of wood I'm suing you. Government has no business protecting a company's monopoly over something.

There are a couple more angles on why government regulation in the medical field is bad that I'm familiar with, but they don't have anything to do with this guy being able to raise the price of a pill from like 14 dollars to 900

And yet hundreds of drugs go to market daily that require no oversight because of how they're branded.

Deregulation of pharmaceuticals is a very, very stupid thing to do.

[archibaldcrane]

Aren't many of these pills getting jacked up generics, and it just happens that only one company produces them because they are little-used niche products?

[Xno Kappa]

And yet hundreds of drugs go to market daily that require no oversight because of how they're branded.

Deregulation of pharmaceuticals is a very, very stupid thing to do.

This shit blew my mind when I saw the documentary Bigger, Stronger, Faster.



The guy makes pills filled with rice flour at about $1.40 a bottle and in turn can sell it for up to $60 hiding behind the term "proprietary blend."

[Rooney]

As one article explained it, these companies buy the rights to old generics (name brand? w/e). Most of these drugs are grandfathered into the current regulations, since they were developed prior to a lot of changes. In exchange for bringing the drugs into current regulation compliance the FDA grants market exclusivity (don't know for how long). Because of the exclusivity, other companies can't get a hold of samples to create a new competing generic.

Deregulating pharmaceuticals is a bad idea, but regulating them like this is also dumb.

[Pirian]

Btw to the people saying this is capitalisms fault... (looking at you kuro) it isn't.

Capitalism wants nothing to do with the idea someone can buy the rights of a product and have the government enforce their exclusive right to price and sell it. It is the OPPOSITE of capitalism that causes something like this

Unfortunately, none of the candidates are strong on removing government oversight/control over these types of things so yep.

Capitalism is dependent on an established set of rules that ensure property rights, and you need government regulation for that. That isn't to say that this system isn't broken, but without any system in place then capitalism says there is no incentive to innovate because your competition can wait until you do the heavy lifting and then pilfer the results.

[Thunder]

Capitalism is dependent on an established set of rules that ensure property rights, and you need government regulation for that. That isn't to say that this system isn't broken, but without any system in place then capitalism says there is no incentive to innovate because your competition can wait until you do the heavy lifting and then pilfer the results.

Not exactly that simple, brand & name is a valuable commodity that can't be pilfered. And property rights can be upheld without regulation, we only need courts and the justice system for that.

And yet hundreds of drugs go to market daily that require no oversight because of how they're branded.

Deregulation of pharmaceuticals is a very, very stupid thing to do.

Oh, is that under strict regulation? Yeah, it is. Don't really see how that'd be different under no regulation

How's it stupid?

&quick edit: I don't hear a lot about disruption in the pharmaceutical industry, which is why I don't see how "look at how easy it is to make a drug" plays into this because those drugs are not knocking out big competitors. But I do hear about a lot of potential drugs that could have disrupted the sale of certain pain killers and it get squashed after a couple years of FDA trails. It isn't fair when the competitor can influence with their money what new drugs will die in research.

Also, I watched the bigger stronger stuff, and the brother's follow up on pain medication addiction (he's falls into addiction like half way through making the bigger stronger documentary) is eye opening too. That, + some Dr. Carl Hart podcasts is great on how disgusting the pharmaceutical field is atm

[Andalusian girls]

Capitalism is dependent on an established set of rules that ensure property rights, and you need government regulation for that. That isn't to say that this system isn't broken, but without any system in place then capitalism says there is no incentive to innovate because your competition can wait until you do the heavy lifting and then pilfer the results.

well said, the government must act as rulemaker and umpire for capitalism to function and the protection of property rights, including intellectual property, must be foremost among their duties. that said the FDA is a cumbersome and intrusive body with a penchant for corporatism, monopoly enforcement, and injurious paternalism resulting in everyone from Forbes to fivethirtyeight calling for reformation

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougband...eir-medicines/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...pproves-drugs/

the issue in this particular case is not that the drug in question is a jacked up generic granted a government enforced monopoly (exclusivity rights for new drugs end after 20 years, though pharmaceutical companies jump through hoops to extend their patents), but rather that the demand for it is so minuscule (only 2000 Americans use this drug yearly) it is not profitable for another pharmaceutical corporation to undergo generic manufacturing for sake of undercutting prices and grabbing market share, as we would see in other markets where a price gauge of this nature occurred

[Pirian]

Not exactly that simple, brand & name is a valuable commodity that can't be pilfered. And property rights can be upheld without regulation, we only need courts and the justice system for that.

That is a form of government regulation.

&quick edit: I don't hear a lot about disruption in the pharmaceutical industry, which is why I don't see how "look at how easy it is to make a drug" plays into this because those drugs are not knocking out big competitors. But I do hear about a lot of potential drugs that could have disrupted the sale of certain pain killers and it get squashed after a couple years of FDA trails. It isn't fair when the competitor can influence with their money what new drugs will die in research.

Yeah, sounds like lobbyist should be better...regulated.

[kuronosan]

Thunder what in the hell are you even talking about dude....