(08-18-2019, 03:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Genuine question: why are prescription drugs so much cheaper in Canada?
Government price caps, as with other countries that do the same thing they depend on our subsidization to ensure they have cheap access to the latest breakthroughs. Socialism is a great thing as long as you have the United States' money to cover your shortfall.
(08-18-2019, 07:23 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2019, 03:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Genuine question: why are prescription drugs so much cheaper in Canada?
Government price caps, as with other countries that do the same thing they depend on our subsidization to ensure they have cheap access to the latest breakthroughs. Socialism is a great thing as long as you have the United States' money to cover your shortfall.
Stated differently, the US has Free Market Drug Prices which allows the Phama Company to name it's own price. The real problem is that most of these companies have hundreds, if not thousands of patents, on a single drug, virtually taking any potential competition out of developing a competitive drug.
The one unique case in which the US Gov did get involved was the Martin Shkreli case in which he bought a company and marked the drug up from $13.30 to $750 per capsule. Even then, however, the Gov did not indict him on charges related to price gauging but rather on securities fraud when he scammed investors (in a ponzi-like scheme) on a prior business deal in which the former company lost money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli
(08-18-2019, 08:25 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2019, 07:23 PM)flsprtsgodbios Wrote: [ -> ]Government price caps, as with other countries that do the same thing they depend on our subsidization to ensure they have cheap access to the latest breakthroughs. Socialism is a great thing as long as you have the United States' money to cover your shortfall.
Stated differently, the US has Free Market Drug Prices which allows the Phama Company to name it's own price. The real problem is that most of these companies have hundreds, if not thousands of patents, on a single drug, virtually taking any potential competition out of developing a competitive drug.
The one unique case in which the US Gov did get involved was the Martin Shkreli case in which he bought a company and marked the drug up from $13.30 to $750 per capsule. Even then, however, the Gov did not indict him on charges related to price gauging but rather on securities fraud when he scammed investors (in a ponzi-like scheme) on a prior business deal in which the former company lost money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli
There's little that's free market about the USA. Patent law, Biosimilar production restrictions, Pay for Delay, and Price Fixing all contribute and the government interferes far more than it enables. In the Shkreli case, why didn't another company begin manufacturing the drug and undercut him? Because Uncle Sam forbade it. And price "gouging" should never be illegal though I agree that monopolization should.
(08-18-2019, 08:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2019, 08:25 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Stated differently, the US has Free Market Drug Prices which allows the Phama Company to name it's own price. The real problem is that most of these companies have hundreds, if not thousands of patents, on a single drug, virtually taking any potential competition out of developing a competitive drug.
The one unique case in which the US Gov did get involved was the Martin Shkreli case in which he bought a company and marked the drug up from $13.30 to $750 per capsule. Even then, however, the Gov did not indict him on charges related to price gauging but rather on securities fraud when he scammed investors (in a ponzi-like scheme) on a prior business deal in which the former company lost money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli
There's little that's free market about the USA. Patent law, Biosimilar production restrictions, Pay for Delay, and Price Fixing all contribute and the government interferes far more than it enables. In the Shkreli case, why didn't another company begin manufacturing the drug and undercut him? Because Uncle Sam forbade it. And price "gouging" should never be illegal though I agree that monopolization should.
If it were truly a free market a company would be making a drug that their competitor is selling for $13.30 and sell it for $9.99
Then the price war would begin.. all the better for the consumer.
Another genuine question: Is there a soul on Earth that cares what Beta O’Rourke has to say? Seriously. Stick a campaign dollar up his butt, pull his string and he’ll say anything you want.
(08-19-2019, 11:30 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2019, 10:08 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Another genuine question: Is there a soul on Earth that cares what Beta O’Rourke has to say? Seriously. Stick a campaign dollar up his butt, pull his string and he’ll say anything you want.
All of those souls sticking dollars up his butt care.
His wife probably does too.
She cares, or sticks dollar bills up his butt? Maybe both. Who am I to judge?
(08-19-2019, 11:42 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2019, 11:30 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
All of those souls sticking dollars up his butt care.
His wife probably does too.
She cares, or sticks dollar bills up his butt? Maybe both. Who am I to judge?
I thought that was Mayor Pete?
(08-19-2019, 09:00 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2019, 08:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]There's little that's free market about the USA. Patent law, Biosimilar production restrictions, Pay for Delay, and Price Fixing all contribute and the government interferes far more than it enables. In the Shkreli case, why didn't another company begin manufacturing the drug and undercut him? Because Uncle Sam forbade it. And price "gouging" should never be illegal though I agree that monopolization should.
If it were truly a free market a company would be making a drug that their competitor is selling for $13.30 and sell it for $9.99
Then the price war would begin.. all the better for the consumer.
We have a free market to invent something then set the price on that product. However, the inventing company usually obtains a patent which prevents competition for a certain period of time.
pat·ent
noun
/ˈpatnt/
- 1.
a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.
(08-19-2019, 07:43 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2019, 09:00 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]If it were truly a free market a company would be making a drug that their competitor is selling for $13.30 and sell it for $9.99
Then the price war would begin.. all the better for the consumer.
We have a free market to invent something then set the price on that product. However, the inventing company usually obtains a patent which prevents competition for a certain period of time.
pat·ent
noun
/ˈpatnt/
- 1.
a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.
Yes, pharmaceutical companies are colluding to abuse patent law, something the government should but does not prevent.
(08-19-2019, 11:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2019, 07:43 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]We have a free market to invent something then set the price on that product. However, the inventing company usually obtains a patent which prevents competition for a certain period of time.
pat·ent
noun
/ˈpatnt/
- 1.
a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.
Yes, pharmaceutical companies are colluding to abuse patent law, something the government should but does not prevent.
Or the even better trick where a generic comes out and they make a claim of non-equilvelance to the FDA based on a study on a side-effect that they held back. Generic goes away for years (or maybe forever if they don't have the money to do the study to prove whatever they are accused of not having) and the brand name keeps rolling.
(08-19-2019, 07:43 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2019, 09:00 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]If it were truly a free market a company would be making a drug that their competitor is selling for $13.30 and sell it for $9.99
Then the price war would begin.. all the better for the consumer.
We have a free market to invent something then set the price on that product. However, the inventing company usually obtains a patent which prevents competition for a certain period of time.
pat·ent
noun
/ˈpatnt/
- 1.
a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.
A patent is one way to reward research and innovation, but not the only way. The government could instead offer one time cash prizes to anyone who creates a medicine that gains FDA approval as being effective. The prize amount would be based on how serious or prevalent the disease is.
You may remember that presidential candidate John McCain proposed a prize scheme for battery developers in 2008.
(08-20-2019, 03:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2019, 07:43 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]We have a free market to invent something then set the price on that product. However, the inventing company usually obtains a patent which prevents competition for a certain period of time.
pat·ent
noun
/ˈpatnt/
- 1.
a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.
A patent is one way to reward research and innovation, but not the only way. The government could instead offer one time cash prizes to anyone who creates a medicine that gains FDA approval as being effective. The prize amount would be based on how serious or prevalent the disease is.
You may remember that presidential candidate John McCain proposed a prize scheme for battery developers in 2008.
Except the government shouldn't have "cash" to offer "prizes" for innovation no matter the industry.
(08-20-2019, 04:18 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2019, 03:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A patent is one way to reward research and innovation, but not the only way. The government could instead offer one time cash prizes to anyone who creates a medicine that gains FDA approval as being effective. The prize amount would be based on how serious or prevalent the disease is.
You may remember that presidential candidate John McCain proposed a prize scheme for battery developers in 2008.
Except the government shouldn't have "cash" to offer "prizes" for innovation no matter the industry.
Part of the definition of a sovereign government is "the power which defines money and creates new money."
As we went over in a previous thread, one of the reasons our forefathers the colonists revolted was that the British decided to prevent them from printing money on their terms. In fact, while an ordinary British citizen trading in England could use pound notes for most transactions, the British were demanding that the colonists use only silver and gold coins. As soon as Independence had been declared, new paper money started getting printed.
(08-19-2019, 12:07 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2019, 11:42 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]She cares, or sticks dollar bills up his butt? Maybe both. Who am I to judge?
I thought that was Mayor Pete?
It's pretty much the whole lot. Same Santa Claus message built on historically failed policy.
There's absolutely no substance or personality in the entire lot.
Birds of a feather, I suppose.
(08-20-2019, 10:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2019, 04:18 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Except the government shouldn't have "cash" to offer "prizes" for innovation no matter the industry.
Part of the definition of a sovereign government is "the power which defines money and creates new money."
As we went over in a previous thread, one of the reasons our forefathers the colonists revolted was that the British decided to prevent them from printing money on their terms. In fact, while an ordinary British citizen trading in England could use pound notes for most transactions, the British were demanding that the colonists use only silver and gold coins. As soon as Independence had been declared, new paper money started getting printed.
Wow, you wouldn't know his point if he smacked you in the face with it.
(08-21-2019, 07:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2019, 10:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Part of the definition of a sovereign government is "the power which defines money and creates new money."
As we went over in a previous thread, one of the reasons our forefathers the colonists revolted was that the British decided to prevent them from printing money on their terms. In fact, while an ordinary British citizen trading in England could use pound notes for most transactions, the British were demanding that the colonists use only silver and gold coins. As soon as Independence had been declared, new paper money started getting printed.
Wow, you wouldn't know his point if he smacked you in the face with it.
His point is that he doesn't think the government should have extra money lying around.
Right?
How does the fact that government is what creates money the first place comport with that sentiment?
(08-21-2019, 10:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2019, 07:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, you wouldn't know his point if he smacked you in the face with it.
His point is that he doesn't think the government should have extra money lying around.
Right?
How does the fact that government is what creates money the first place comport with that sentiment?
Government prints money, people's effort gives it value.
(08-21-2019, 10:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2019, 07:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, you wouldn't know his point if he smacked you in the face with it.
His point is that he doesn't think the government should have extra money lying around.
Right?
How does the fact that government is what creates money the first place comport with that sentiment?
That wasn't my point at all.
The government should not have any excess cash that they confiscate from us.
The government isn't in the business of "giving out prizes". The government should not be picking winners and losers no matter the industry.
The government needs to let the free market innovate and set prices.