Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    Cycling Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,838

    Should we treat pharmaceuticals as a Public Utility?

    This article creates a pretty strong argument for treating Big Pharma as a Public Utility:

    Should We Treat Pharma as a Public Utility?


    "If pharmaceuticals were a public utility, they would be subject to the same kind of price review and approval process for prescription drugs that already exists throughout the country for goods like electricity, water and gas. Treating pharma as a utility already has the support of some US physicians and public health experts. Last fall, the National Academy for State Health Policy issued a "Call to Action" on drug prices, urging states to use their legal power to regulate the industry. "Prescription drugs are an essential good; they are as necessary to quality of life -- and life itself -- as water and sanitation," the National Academy insisted."


    more at the link
    Life is short... enjoy the ride.

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    66,346
    Quote Originally Posted by bradkay View Post
    This article creates a pretty strong argument for treating Big Pharma as a Public Utility:

    Should We Treat Pharma as a Public Utility?


    "If pharmaceuticals were a public utility, they would be subject to the same kind of price review and approval process for prescription drugs that already exists throughout the country for goods like electricity, water and gas. Treating pharma as a utility already has the support of some US physicians and public health experts. Last fall, the National Academy for State Health Policy issued a "Call to Action" on drug prices, urging states to use their legal power to regulate the industry. "Prescription drugs are an essential good; they are as necessary to quality of life -- and life itself -- as water and sanitation," the National Academy insisted."


    more at the link
    I think I vote yes. They should certainly be subject to price controls from some entity.

  3. #3
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    29,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    I think I vote yes. They should certainly be subject to price controls from some entity.
    Commie.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

  4. #4
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Reputation: old_fuji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    I think I vote yes. They should certainly be subject to price controls from some entity.
    So, healthcare in general as subsidized by the government is handouts, but pharmaceuticals as subsidized by the government is okay?

    https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url...re_pid=5151744
    I lost my phone number. Can I have yours?

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    66,346
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    Commie.
    I know, I'm surprised my own self.

  6. #6
    What the what???
    Reputation: Opus51569's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7,661
    If national defense is the purview of a federal government for the protection of its citizens, how is pharma (and the health-care system for that matter) not treated in a similar manner? It is literally a matter of life and death for Americans. Why do we leave it in the hands of for-profit corporations?
    Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - MLK

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Opus51569 View Post
    If national defense is the purview of a federal government for the protection of its citizens, how is pharma (and the health-care system for that matter) not treated in a similar manner? It is literally a matter of life and death for Americans. Why do we leave it in the hands of for-profit corporations?
    CDC et al is government.

    lockheed, boeing, is not.

  8. #8
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    29,474
    Quote Originally Posted by etane View Post
    CDC et al is government.

    lockheed, boeing, is not.
    What about Eli Lilly, Humana, et al.?
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,325
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    What about Eli Lilly, Humana, et al.?
    they would be analogue to ollie north.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,307
    Sadly yes they do at this point.
    They have shown they are unable to do public good and instead have started abusing their power to jack up the prices of drugs. Free Market has failed. They are buying up their competitors then just making it go prices go sky high. Great example is the Epinpen.

    Also they are refusing to research new antibiotics. This is becoming a huge problem as more and more of our drugs of last resort are failing. In those cases I fully believe it is governments job to step in. It will never be profitable to develop a new antibiotic because it will only be used as a last resort due to immunity fears so very few dose ever.

    Those case I fully believe government should pay for it.

  11. #11
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,063
    Quote Originally Posted by timeless View Post
    Sadly yes they do at this point.
    They have shown they are unable to do public good and instead have started abusing their power to jack up the prices of drugs. Free Market has failed. They are buying up their competitors then just making it go prices go sky high. Great example is the Epinpen.

    Also they are refusing to research new antibiotics. This is becoming a huge problem as more and more of our drugs of last resort are failing. In those cases I fully believe it is governments job to step in. It will never be profitable to develop a new antibiotic because it will only be used as a last resort due to immunity fears so very few dose ever.

    Those case I fully believe government should pay for it.
    The problem with prices is not free market or the companies, it's the government.

    In the case of the Epi Pen, there are no competitors, so they are free to charge whatever they want. And there are no competitors because the government hasn't allowed any due to the convoluted drug approval process and intellectual property laws.

    The argument for the FDA is, of course, safety. But if the government and the people want to have this long drawn out approval process, then everyone needs to realize that one of the consequences of that is the first to market will enjoy a government enforced monopoly for a period of time. Think of it as part of the cost of safe drugs.

    Also realize that it is not market failure. It's market meddling.
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    19,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post

    Also realize that it is not market failure. It's market meddling.
    so what? when the markets puts $$ before people it gets meddled with.
    always has, always will....thankfully.
    Not banned yet.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,158
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    Commie.
    Hey now, you have to pick your battles... For once we all might agree... Don't spoil it.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    The problem with prices is not free market or the companies, it's t onhe government.

    In the case of the Epi Pen, there are no competitors, so they are free to charge whatever they want. And there are no competitors because the government hasn't allowed any due to the convoluted drug approval process and intellectual property laws.

    The argument for the FDA is, of course, safety. But if the government and the people want to have this long drawn out approval process, then everyone needs to realize that one of the consequences of that is the first to market will enjoy a government enforced monopoly for a period of time. Think of it as part of the cost of safe drugs.

    Also realize that it is not market failure. It's market meddling.
    This is completely incorrect. The reason the epipens are so expensive is corporate ****ery and the way insurance companies and sales reps work. There is completion for the EpiPen from a product perspective, however Mylar pulled some seriously shady ****. They jacked the price up increasing the percentage that middle pharmaceutical reps who sell to insurance companies can take. Example, they sell to the pharmaceutical managers at 500 each, the rep gets to keep 200 and and mylar takes 200, the cost to the end user will depend on whatever pool their insurance policy is in. They sell for 600 and make their profit.

    The second company who I can't remember the name of, it's French, had a competitor, but they were much smaller. Even though they wanted to sell their EpiPen version for, 100 or 200, they could not give enough of a margin for the pharmaceutical reps who sell to the larger markets.

    So the pharmuetical managers went and pushed the more expensive option on the market because they make more. Mylar is being sued over that.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    66,346
    Quote Originally Posted by old_fuji View Post
    So, healthcare in general as subsidized by the government is handouts, but pharmaceuticals as subsidized by the government is okay?

    https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url...re_pid=5151744
    Hey, I'm for universal healthcare.

  16. #16
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Reputation: old_fuji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Hey, I'm for universal healthcare.
    So, in the discussion about universal healthcare, this post was just a random statement impertinent to the discussion at hand?
    I lost my phone number. Can I have yours?

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    6,163
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    Commie.

  18. #18
    Sweet Potato Kugel
    Reputation: Eretz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,851
    In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
    Ben Franklin -Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together




  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,035
    Interesting.

    So drugs/NCE introduced to populations increase life expectancy 2.93 weeks. From that link :

    We perform an econometric analysis of the effect of new drug launches on longevity, using data from the IMS Health Drug Launches database and the WHO Mortality Database. Our data cover virtually all of the diseases borne by people in 52 countries during the period 1982-2001, and enable us to control, to an unusually great extent, for the effects of other potential determinants of longevity, e.g. education, income, nutrition, the environment, and lifestyle'. We find that launches of new chemical entities (NCEs) have a strong positive impact on the probability of survival. Launches of (older) drugs that are not NCEs do not increase longevity. NCE launches account for a significant fraction of the long-run increase in longevity in the sample as a whole. Between 1986 and 2000, average life expectancy of the entire population of sample countries increased by almost two years. Our estimates imply that NCE launches accounted for 0.8 years (40%) of the 1986-2000 increase in longevity. The average annual increase in life expectancy of the entire population resulting from NCE launches is .056 years, or 2.93 weeks.

    So, lifestyle, education, nutrition and education account for 60% increase in longevity.

  20. #20
    Sweet Potato Kugel
    Reputation: Eretz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,851
    Quote Originally Posted by BacDoc View Post
    Interesting.
    So, lifestyle, education, nutrition and education account for 60% increase in longevity.
    And Michelle Obama's war on High School cafeteria food.

    Personally, loved the broccoli regime. And the carrots. also Non-anything-Pizza too.
    In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
    Ben Franklin -Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together




  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,307
    Quote Originally Posted by ljvb View Post
    This is completely incorrect. The reason the epipens are so expensive is corporate ****ery and the way insurance companies and sales reps work. There is completion for the EpiPen from a product perspective, however Mylar pulled some seriously shady ****. They jacked the price up increasing the percentage that middle pharmaceutical reps who sell to insurance companies can take. Example, they sell to the pharmaceutical managers at 500 each, the rep gets to keep 200 and and mylar takes 200, the cost to the end user will depend on whatever pool their insurance policy is in. They sell for 600 and make their profit.

    The second company who I can't remember the name of, it's French, had a competitor, but they were much smaller. Even though they wanted to sell their EpiPen version for, 100 or 200, they could not give enough of a margin for the pharmaceutical reps who sell to the larger markets.

    So the pharmuetical managers went and pushed the more expensive option on the market because they make more. Mylar is being sued over that.
    thank you for showing yet again Andy is full if it and lives in make believe land. Now watch him come back and say you are wrong. Completely going around the facts.

  22. #22
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Reputation: old_fuji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Eretz View Post
    And Michelle Obama's war on High School cafeteria food.

    Personally, loved the broccoli regime. And the carrots. also Non-anything-Pizza too.
    Pizza is a vegetable, though
    I lost my phone number. Can I have yours?

  23. #23
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    29,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Hey, I'm for universal healthcare.
    Me too.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

  24. #24
    Cycling Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    The problem with prices is not free market or the companies, it's the government.

    In the case of the Epi Pen, there are no competitors, so they are free to charge whatever they want. And there are no competitors because the government hasn't allowed any due to the convoluted drug approval process and intellectual property laws.

    The argument for the FDA is, of course, safety. But if the government and the people want to have this long drawn out approval process, then everyone needs to realize that one of the consequences of that is the first to market will enjoy a government enforced monopoly for a period of time. Think of it as part of the cost of safe drugs.

    Also realize that it is not market failure. It's market meddling.
    The Free Market has failed us in the pharmaceutical business is that companies have been buying up smaller, innovative companies and jacking up the price of the product by a ridiculous amount. The government has failed us in that it has not prevented this - our Congressional representatives, having all been purchased by the corporations, have failed to pass laws and regulations protecting the public from the excesses of greed. While this failure can be attributed to both parties, it is the GOP's mantra of "Less Regulation, more Free Market" that is the core of the issue and has allowed this sad state of affairs to flourish.
    Life is short... enjoy the ride.

Similar Threads

  1. Pharmaceuticals providing value
    By xxl in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-27-2015, 09:38 AM
  2. PHARMACEUTICALS: For rich westerners only
    By Fredke in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 09:59 PM
  3. Cost of Health Care in the US - Pharmaceuticals
    By Pirx in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 10-19-2013, 11:01 PM
  4. Ads for pharmaceuticals
    By MG537 in forum SiteFeedback/Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2009, 03:45 AM
  5. Public Power v. Private utility
    By PdxMark in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-19-2004, 09:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •