3 ms·

The only way to properly do this would then be to have the government become the only R&D and pharma company. Doable. But I think you put too much faith in the

The only way to properly do this would then be to have the government become the only R&D and pharma company. Doable. But I think you put too much faith in the government. The government is a natural monopoly itself. If they're doing a shitty job you don't get any other options.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Doable. But I think you put too much faith in the government. The government is a natural monopoly itself. If they're doing a shitty job you don't get any other options. Disagree. A government can be held accountable. Some asshole ex-hedge fund manager attempting to corner the market on a drug can't be.
- randyrand 11y ago
  > A government can be held accountable. Accountability is not really the main measure we care about (though it's related to it). It's efficiency. We only really care about accountability because its supposed to increase efficiency. People are supposed to get punished when things are running poorly. The problem is, no one really gets punished when large government organizations are running inefficiently. The business does not go out of business. There is no competition. There is no real incentive to innovate and beat your competitors. I think we need to reevaluate pharma law. But I don't think replacing the current monopoly with a government one will do much good of anything. I've long held the belief that whenever there is a supposed failing of private enterprise- it's almost always actually a failing of government. I've yet to be proved wrong. Government makes the barriers of entry too high in the drug market. It's way too easy to have a monopoly because the government basically grants you one.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I am willing to trade some efficiency/cost effectiveness for price and availability stability.
    - randyrand 11y ago
      In the longer term you'll get the worst of all worlds. Why not get the best of the short term and long term? Fix pharma competition.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> Doable. But I think you put too much faith in the government. The government is a natural monopoly itself. If they're doing a shitty job you don't get any other options. Disagree. A government can be held accountable. Some asshole ex-hedge fund manager attempting to corner the market on a drug can't be.

randyrand 11y ago
> A government can be held accountable. Accountability is not really the main measure we care about (though it's related to it). It's efficiency. We only really care about accountability because its supposed to increase efficiency. People are supposed to get punished when things are running poorly. The problem is, no one really gets punished when large government organizations are running inefficiently. The business does not go out of business. There is no competition. There is no real incentive to innovate and beat your competitors. I think we need to reevaluate pharma law. But I don't think replacing the current monopoly with a government one will do much good of anything. I've long held the belief that whenever there is a supposed failing of private enterprise- it's almost always actually a failing of government. I've yet to be proved wrong. Government makes the barriers of entry too high in the drug market. It's way too easy to have a monopoly because the government basically grants you one.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I am willing to trade some efficiency/cost effectiveness for price and availability stability.
  - randyrand 11y ago
    In the longer term you'll get the worst of all worlds. Why not get the best of the short term and long term? Fix pharma competition.