The Price of This Drug Went Up 100,000 Percent Since 2001 for No Good Reason

Would the drug in the OP be cheap without any government regulations? Would the free market force them to lower it? The key here is the demand. Is there enough to spur competition for more sources?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/mal...d-after-60-minutes-report-on-drug-prices.html

The drug is used to treat a rare and potentially fatal condition affecting 2,000 babies each year.
Click to expand...

2000 a year is a pretty small demand for a drug. That does not encourage suppliers to come up with cheaper alternatives. Especially given the costs of developing a drug.

The other factor is is the demand elastic? Will it rise and fall with the price- even though the demand is already pretty small? Given that the disease is possibly fatal, parents will be willing to pay what they can to get the medicine rather than watch their child die. In a free market, it would likely not be only the $30 a dose Canadian government has been able to negotiate to buy it at.
 
Zippyjuan said:
As I have said, every system has its pluses and its minuses. Insurance helps more people access care but raises costs on average. National insurance lowers costs but lowers choices. No insurance means that those at low income can't afford healthcare.
Click to expand...

"Can't afford" is not the same as "won't have access to." The advent and rise of insurance, as well as government involvement, has led to the demise of fraternal and religious organizations which provided healthcare to those unable to afford it.
 
Zippyjuan said:
As I have said, every system has its pluses and its minuses. Insurance helps more people access care but raises costs on average. National insurance lowers costs but lowers choices. No insurance means that those at low income can't afford healthcare.
Click to expand...

Insurance does nothing more than deprive more people of more money without providing service in return. In fact, that is exactly the point of insurance, to take money without providing something of equal value in return.
 
DamianTV said:
Insurance does nothing more than deprive more people of more money without providing service in return. In fact, that is exactly the point of insurance, to take money without providing something of equal value in return.
Click to expand...

Insurance is placing a bet. You are betting you will need money for something in the future and the insurance company is betting you won't. Ideally, you should only insure what you would not be able to pay for yourself. Insurance to cover a cracked screen on your phone? A waste of money. Catastrophic health insurance? Maybe not a bad idea though you hope you never need to use it. And yes, the odds do favor the house. Or they won't be in business.
 
Last edited:
Zippyjuan said:
You are right, there are other factors as well. But just consider the paperwork issue. In Canada, you have one payer so when a doctor give you a treatment and another patient the same treatment, he can send the exact same form with the same supporting documents to a single place. In the US, each patient the same doctor sees may have a completely different plan. That means each patient requires a completely different form with a completely different set of supporting documents each sent to a completely different place to try to get paid. That takes a lot more time and money.

Interesting interview:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/why-does-health-care-cost-so-m
Click to expand...

Just imagine how efficient our country could be if the government paid for everything
 
Zippyjuan said:
Insurance is placing a bet. You are betting you will need money for something in the future and the insurance company is betting you won't. Ideally, you should only insure what you would not be able to pay for yourself. Insurance to cover a cracked screen on your phone? A waste of money. Catastrophic health insurance? Maybe not a bad idea though you hope you never need to use it. And yes, the odds do favor the house. Or they won't be in business.
Click to expand...

That is really not a good way to look at it. When you buy life insurance, you are not 'betting' that you are going to die.

A better way is to look at it like savings account that a bunch of people are putting a little bit of money into that only a few people will end up needing to draw from. But the problem is, one month of premiums won't be enough money in case there is a large payout right away so instead of just getting a bunch of people together and putting money into a savings account, you have someone loan the reserves to create a savings account large enough in case payouts are needed right away, and then the premiums go to paying back the loan that was created to make the reserves plus interest.

Putting $5,000 away each month in order to save up $500k after 8.3 years in case you die and your family needs money to survive is not only incredibly burdensome but if you die after 6 months you will only have $30k saved up. In addition, the probability is that you won't die and so those funds may have been better spent investing in property or something else. With insurance, you can spend $80/month which is not very burdensome a long with many other people into a fund which your family could draw $500k from if you die.. in 6 months, 4 years, whenever it happens.
 
Let me see. So the article claims:

"As for Mallinckrodt, that company will continue to charge $40,000 for a drug that’s been out of patent for decades. And they’ve even expanded the marketing for the drug to treat things like rheumatoid arthritis. As you can see from the episode, there’s no real evidence that Acthar is effective in treating arthritis."

If it is out of patent, then why is anybody paying $40,000 for it? Oh yeah. Stupid people and/or government regulation.
 
Zippyjuan said:
"Whatever the market will bear". Or should the government determine what a "fair price" may be?



Canada and Europe have nationalized healthcare programs. (and much lower overall healthcare costs)
Click to expand...

In England you have the government telling parents their babies must die for the greater good (lower healthcare costs).

Tell me Zip, what do you think of this video?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Why the Drug War?
Replies
1
Views
96
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
Hayek for the 21st Century—Our New 100,000 Book Giveaway
Replies
0
Views
294
PAF
PAF
PAF
Are Tariffs Good for American Workers?
Replies
11
Views
251
69360
6
PAF
The Wearables Trap: How the Government Plans to Monitor, Score, and Control You
Replies
4
Views
102
Working Poor
Working Poor
PAF
Libertarianism vs. Microlibertarianism
Replies
0
Views
323
PAF
PAF
Back
Top