Libertarian introspection: Where the market fails

[SeanEdwards]

A central idea in free market theory is that people are willing to pay more for things that they want more. If the market values prevention/cures more than an ongoing diet of pills, then by definition, they should be willing to reward the company that provides the cure over the extended treatment.

It's funny you mention vaccinations because it's a perfect example of the market being proactive with illness. If it were more profitable to feed us never-ending pills for these illnesses, then why do *any* vaccinations exist at all? What epidemics is the market failing to find a vaccination for right now? Many of the health problems we're facing on large scales, cancer for example, is not as simple as a vaccination fix (see http://www.biotext.co.uk/YVvqGcI.html).

Someone already mentioned this, but I think it's an important point because you seem to be assuming that a one-time cure is somehow inherently less profitable. If you had cancer and could pay $50,000 for an immediate cure, would you do it? If people are willing to pay that, can we agree that would be a cash cow for that company? I'd be willing to bet insurance companies would partially or completely pay for such a cure to the extent that it would save them money on your bills.

I think you're being a bit cynical in your view of big business here. I'm not saying everyone's an angel, but remember that people working at these places have family and friends of their own, and I don't think most would choose to have those people die for a few more bucks (even if we assume your profit motive is correct). And if a company was holding onto a cure, wouldn't that be a huge risk to continue investing in an alternative that could be made obsolete if another company actually put out the cure?

I don't think you understand. The companies will not make the initial investment to even look for a cure. It's not as if they have a cure in a locked box somewhere, keeping it hidden from prying eyes. And that is a simple economic reality. Nobody is going to spend more to develop a product than they can earn from selling the product.

Some vaccines exist because they were developed in academia or by charities, and most of them were developed a long time ago. Compared to the money being invested in research for stuff like lipitor and viagra, the money going into vaccine research is a pittance. That's not because the companies are run by evil greedy people, it's because the marketplace doesn't reward the development of cures.

Oh and in regards to cancer, vaccination can be applicable in some cases.

 

[PeterWellington]

I don't think you understand. The companies will not make the initial investment to even look for a cure. It's not as if they have a cure in a locked box somewhere, keeping it hidden from prying eyes. And that is a simple economic reality. Nobody is going to spend more to develop a product than they can earn from selling the product.

You're acting as if I'm putting words in your mouth, but this is what you wrote in your initial post: "I can imagine a circumstance where one of these companies would actually bury a drug that cured or prevented cancer, in favor of drugs that just check the growth of a tumor."

Some vaccines exist because they were developed in academia or by charities, and most of them were developed a long time ago. Compared to the money being invested in research for stuff like lipitor and viagra, the money going into vaccine research is a pittance. That's not because the companies are run by evil greedy people, it's because the marketplace doesn't reward the development of cures.

Oh and in regards to cancer, vaccination can be applicable in some cases.

You haven't answered any of my questions. I've discussed a scenario where a company would turn a big profit from a cure and you haven't addressed that.

 

[SeanEdwards]

You're acting as if I'm putting words in your mouth, but this is what you wrote in your initial post: "I can imagine a circumstance where one of these companies would actually bury a drug that cured or prevented cancer, in favor of drugs that just check the growth of a tumor."

The point is that the marketplace naturally encourages this attitude by virtue of the way in which it rewards producers. It is not to imply that drug company executives are evil people.

You haven't answered any of my questions. I've discussed a scenario where a company would turn a big profit from a cure and you haven't addressed that.

Your scenario didn't make any sense. Nobody is going to pay $50,000/dose for a cancer vaccine. This is why vaccines are not as profitable to the drug companies as drugs that treat symptoms. The market does not adequately reward the development of one time cures.

Also, the market does not reward low-tech cures or treatments. The only stuff that earns money are relatively complex chemical formulations, or procedures that require specialized training or equipment. No medical research company is going to explore the efficacy of natural remedies, or remedies that they can not patent.

 

[qaxn]

Nobody is going to pay $50,000/dose for a cancer vaccine.

hahaha what.
plenty of people would.

of course it would be an amazingly small proportion of the global population. but in this free market model of medical care where success is defined as recouping costs involved and generating a profit rather than a model where success is defined as the preservation of physical health, it's a success.

 

[Fox McCloud]

You can get your money backed by gold and if society trusts the banks that back their money with gold then it will become the standard. I believe even if we did have competing currencies, the people would not want money backed by gold.

that's because the populace, at large, is not that intelligent (when it comes to economics), nor do they even understand the basic principles of it....like I said, I don't think a true Free Market would solve our monetary crisis.

I like the old model better--1/20th of an ounce of gold per dollar, and the death penalty to whoever counterfeits it (and this should be applied to banks, private people, the government, etc). Extreme? You bet, but without a sound monetary system, freedom is nearly useless.

 

[PeterWellington]

The point is that the marketplace naturally encourages this attitude by virtue of the way in which it rewards producers. It is not to imply that drug company executives are evil people.



Your scenario didn't make any sense. Nobody is going to pay $50,000/dose for a cancer vaccine. This is why vaccines are not as profitable to the drug companies as drugs that treat symptoms. The market does not adequately reward the development of one time cures.

Also, the market does not reward low-tech cures or treatments. The only stuff that earns money are relatively complex chemical formulations, or procedures that require specialized training or equipment. No medical research company is going to explore the efficacy of natural remedies, or remedies that they can not patent.

Are you kidding me?! You wouldn't pay $50,000 to eliminate your risk of the second most likely cause of your death? One that could potentially end your life fairly early? Millions of people seem to be buying houses and cars that are much more expensive but they couldn't come up with that money to potentially save their lives from something very real? Are you under the impression that this would have to be a lump payment, that people couldn't take out loans to pay for this?

And that's not even considering an insurance company's role. Under most major medical plans, insurance companies pay out huge amounts for cancer treatments. If there's a more cost effective way to do that, they'll be on board and you won't be stuck paying anywhere near that (hypothetical) $50,000.

As to your other argument about low-tech cures, if they're so low-tech then why does it take a giant corporation to find the cure? For example, it doesn't cost much to figure out how to get rid of scurvy.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

The point is that the marketplace naturally encourages this attitude by virtue of the way in which it rewards producers. It is not to imply that drug company executives are evil people.



Your scenario didn't make any sense. Nobody is going to pay $50,000/dose for a cancer vaccine. This is why vaccines are not as profitable to the drug companies as drugs that treat symptoms. The market does not adequately reward the development of one time cures.

Also, the market does not reward low-tech cures or treatments. The only stuff that earns money are relatively complex chemical formulations, or procedures that require specialized training or equipment. No medical research company is going to explore the efficacy of natural remedies, or remedies that they can not patent.

That is a joke right? Do you have any idea how much operations cost to remove cancer? Don't forget all the chemo treatments that can cost just over 80,000 a pop.

 

[qaxn]

to return to the spirit of the thread, television news media is an abject failure with the exception of the offerings of pbs.