3 ms·

The thing that I think many people are ignoring is the positive effect that high drug prices (& profits) leads to in the economy. Economic resources such as en

The thing that I think many people are ignoring is the positive effect that high drug prices (& profits) leads to in the economy. Economic resources such as entrepeneurs, capital, equipment and scientists follow the money. If there's money to be made on Wall street, resources go there. If there's money to be made in mobile apps, resources go there. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the price being so high now shows that the people buying it at that price truly value it that much. When it comes down to it, many people are willing to spend almost anything to stay alive and healthy. The extremely high prices (and therefore profits) for specific drugs simply leads more resources to go into the development of additional similar money-making and life saving drugs. It would be a shame if we capped drug prices at some artificially low level, as that lowers the incentive for additional resources to develop additional drugs.

foxhill 11y ago
i'm sorry, i'm all for market incentives to drive product development, but this is people's lives you're incentivising here. previously affordable treatment will be out of reach for many. there is a human cost to this (i'm sure otherwise sound) decision. this must not be forgotten.
thrownaway2424 11y ago
I can't tell if your post is satire or not. Extorting people over their own deaths is not useful economic activity.
dijit 11y ago
No offence to you, but you're so capitalist it's to the detriment of human health and you should be ashamed. I'm asthmatic, My life can cease in a pretty painful way if I'm denied access to drugs- my illness is an easily preventable one, so why should I die gasping? You're right I'll pay anything to keep living.. I'll literally starve before I stop paying for my medication. But why would you wish that upon me? Because drug companies can have an extra slice of pie?-- forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't private healthcare mostly about making shareholders rich and -not- about significant R&D on preventable diseases (which would then be a tax on the ill for their life). I come from a country with social healthcare, I grew up the product of a bottle of whiskey and a bad decision, thus, poor.. I'm currently putting more money into my government through taxes than I ever could have possibly taken out- but given the draconian practises you seem to favour, I would have died as a child because there is no way my mother could have afforded to buy my medication -and- keep me fed.
- kbenson 11y ago
  There's nothing capitalist about allowing market manipulation. Real capitalism is about allowing markets to find efficient and effective agents through the use of money. Manipulating a market to arbitrarily increase wealth by reducing choices and information is not a feature of capitalism itself, it's a byproduct of markets that aren't incentivized (including mitigating negative incentives, as in this case) correctly.
- tuna-piano 11y ago
  I definitely understand where you're coming from. And to clarify, I definitely do not want a system where anyone dies from a disease that could be treated. The argument about pricing really is separate from any argument about how the high prices can be paid for (state vs personal). For example, state funded insurance could cover the cost of expensive treatments. The question is really a macro one as much as a micro one. What percent of our resources should we spend on healthcare? That question is simply a sum of all the prices paid. I actually think that it's possible that in much of the developed world, economies may not be spending enough on healthcare, due to state intervention. Like much of the developed world, I already have a car, a TV, a computer, enough food, leisure activities, and live a comfortable life. Why would I not spend any of my truly expendable income to live a long and healthy life?
- dang 11y ago
  > you should be ashamed I know this is an internet convention of sorts, but please don't do it here, even when someone advocates bad policy. HN comments should be free of personal swipes, especially otherwise decent comments like this one.
  - dijit 11y ago
    You're quite right, I apologise. I was rather dumbfounded when I wrote it and I should have taken the time to calm down and proof before submitting.
    - dang 11y ago
      It happens to all of us!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 11y ago
The thing that I think you may be ignoring is the negative effect that high drug prices (and lack of affordability) has on the economy. Health insurance, mandated as it is now in the US, is really a secondary tax we all pay to ensure people get a minimum level of care in the case of required medical care. Increased costs in medical treatment affect everyone that has health insurance to a small degree. This being a "life-threatening parasitic infection" means that normal rules of supply and demand don't quite fit (as well as the fact that health insurance already makes this an inefficient market). There isn't always a price at which people will be unwilling to pay, beyond their inability to pay. More profits for companies that develop drugs are only good in their eventual outcome, which is new drugs that are either better or cheaper than the existing ones. Manipulating a market to keep prices high on a drug may result in a development of a new drug which is either better or cheaper, but we have to keep in the ind the actual effects on the market right now, which is a more expensive and less available drug. It would be a shame if we allowed a company to manipulate a market in the hopes that the extra money led to a positive outcome and that resulted in real deaths and pain in the meantime. I would tend to think that if they need to manipulate the market in that way to get the money they need for research, perhaps their past research efforts have not been as beneficial as some other companies, and that money would be better going to the companies that provide real benefit.
asdfologist 11y ago
The parent's getting downvoted to oblivion, but I dare say the argument makes sense. In the long run, more lives will be saved if there's a greater economic incentive for entrepreneurs to make new and better drugs. Or to put it another way - the government can instantly save many lives in the short run by forcing all drug companies and hospitals to make all their products and services $1 each, but this would have disastrous consequences in the long run, as every single one of those companies would quickly exit the market.
- refurb 11y ago
  There may be a better system, but I haven't seen it. Look at some of the new cancer companies (CAR-T technology). These companies are raising hundreds of millions of dollars in Series A. Why? Because investors think they'll be a handsome return on the other end.
  - tuna-piano 11y ago
    Yep, exactly. When the entire economy is market-based, if you lower profit incentives in one industry, capital/talent/resources will simply flow into other industries. Maybe we should cap doctors pay at $15 an hour too. But I suspect when you are on the operating table, you want to pay top dollar for the person about to cut you open.

foxhill 11y ago

i'm sorry, i'm all for market incentives to drive product development, but this is people's lives you're incentivising here. previously affordable treatment will be out of reach for many. there is a human cost to this (i'm sure otherwise sound) decision. this must not be forgotten.

thrownaway2424 11y ago

I can't tell if your post is satire or not. Extorting people over their own deaths is not useful economic activity.

dijit 11y ago

No offence to you, but you're so capitalist it's to the detriment of human health and you should be ashamed. I'm asthmatic, My life can cease in a pretty painful way if I'm denied access to drugs- my illness is an easily preventable one, so why should I die gasping? You're right I'll pay anything to keep living.. I'll literally starve before I stop paying for my medication. But why would you wish that upon me? Because drug companies can have an extra slice of pie?-- forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't private healthcare mostly about making shareholders rich and -not- about significant R&D on preventable diseases (which would then be a tax on the ill for their life). I come from a country with social healthcare, I grew up the product of a bottle of whiskey and a bad decision, thus, poor.. I'm currently putting more money into my government through taxes than I ever could have possibly taken out- but given the draconian practises you seem to favour, I would have died as a child because there is no way my mother could have afforded to buy my medication -and- keep me fed.

kbenson 11y ago
There's nothing capitalist about allowing market manipulation. Real capitalism is about allowing markets to find efficient and effective agents through the use of money. Manipulating a market to arbitrarily increase wealth by reducing choices and information is not a feature of capitalism itself, it's a byproduct of markets that aren't incentivized (including mitigating negative incentives, as in this case) correctly.
tuna-piano 11y ago
I definitely understand where you're coming from. And to clarify, I definitely do not want a system where anyone dies from a disease that could be treated. The argument about pricing really is separate from any argument about how the high prices can be paid for (state vs personal). For example, state funded insurance could cover the cost of expensive treatments. The question is really a macro one as much as a micro one. What percent of our resources should we spend on healthcare? That question is simply a sum of all the prices paid. I actually think that it's possible that in much of the developed world, economies may not be spending enough on healthcare, due to state intervention. Like much of the developed world, I already have a car, a TV, a computer, enough food, leisure activities, and live a comfortable life. Why would I not spend any of my truly expendable income to live a long and healthy life?
dang 11y ago
> you should be ashamed I know this is an internet convention of sorts, but please don't do it here, even when someone advocates bad policy. HN comments should be free of personal swipes, especially otherwise decent comments like this one.
- dijit 11y ago
  You're quite right, I apologise. I was rather dumbfounded when I wrote it and I should have taken the time to calm down and proof before submitting.
  - dang 11y ago
    It happens to all of us!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kbenson 11y ago

The thing that I think you may be ignoring is the negative effect that high drug prices (and lack of affordability) has on the economy. Health insurance, mandated as it is now in the US, is really a secondary tax we all pay to ensure people get a minimum level of care in the case of required medical care. Increased costs in medical treatment affect everyone that has health insurance to a small degree. This being a "life-threatening parasitic infection" means that normal rules of supply and demand don't quite fit (as well as the fact that health insurance already makes this an inefficient market). There isn't always a price at which people will be unwilling to pay, beyond their inability to pay. More profits for companies that develop drugs are only good in their eventual outcome, which is new drugs that are either better or cheaper than the existing ones. Manipulating a market to keep prices high on a drug may result in a development of a new drug which is either better or cheaper, but we have to keep in the ind the actual effects on the market right now, which is a more expensive and less available drug. It would be a shame if we allowed a company to manipulate a market in the hopes that the extra money led to a positive outcome and that resulted in real deaths and pain in the meantime. I would tend to think that if they need to manipulate the market in that way to get the money they need for research, perhaps their past research efforts have not been as beneficial as some other companies, and that money would be better going to the companies that provide real benefit.

asdfologist 11y ago

The parent's getting downvoted to oblivion, but I dare say the argument makes sense. In the long run, more lives will be saved if there's a greater economic incentive for entrepreneurs to make new and better drugs. Or to put it another way - the government can instantly save many lives in the short run by forcing all drug companies and hospitals to make all their products and services $1 each, but this would have disastrous consequences in the long run, as every single one of those companies would quickly exit the market.

refurb 11y ago
There may be a better system, but I haven't seen it. Look at some of the new cancer companies (CAR-T technology). These companies are raising hundreds of millions of dollars in Series A. Why? Because investors think they'll be a handsome return on the other end.
- tuna-piano 11y ago
  Yep, exactly. When the entire economy is market-based, if you lower profit incentives in one industry, capital/talent/resources will simply flow into other industries. Maybe we should cap doctors pay at $15 an hour too. But I suspect when you are on the operating table, you want to pay top dollar for the person about to cut you open.