4 ms·

Can't a free market sort out the problems with drug use?

ksherlock 11y ago
As it is, there are too many distortions. You don't pay for your drugs, your insurance company does. You don't even pay for your insurance, your employer does. So once a year, maybe, you grumble that your insurance premiums (the part you pay, at least) are going up, then the next day ask your doctor about Scrotium.
- wooter 11y ago
  Also, tying health insurance to employment is a direct result of the Feds wage and price controls of the past. Business couldn't compete in cash, so they went for the next biggest benefit.
- sbov 11y ago
  Or that the exact same drug may be 1,000 times cheaper in another country but it is illegal for you to buy it there and bring it here.
littletimmy 11y ago
In the long run, yes. However, in the long run we're all dead.
- kansface 11y ago
  There is no free market for drugs or medicine. I also don't think markets converge on free over time.
pdeuchler 11y ago
No, because a free market gives its consumers what they want and even rational people will take opiates over a constructive life
- mindcrime 11y ago
  because a free market gives its consumers what they want and even rational people will take opiates over a constructive life And? If that's their preference who are you (or I, etc.) to say otherwise?
  - pdeuchler 11y ago
    See: tragedy of the commons, positive externalities, etc. etc. Even the most staunch libertarian has to agree that personal choices which negatively effect society must have some sort of curtailing policy to make whole those effected
    - tosseraccount 11y ago
      Imma thinkin a "staunch libertarian" would be okay with not regulating advertising and letting people pop pills.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    People with addictions don't have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice. If the principle we live by is maximizing total individual freedom, then I think freedom from addiction has to be part of that. For that matter, much of the point of advertising is also to subvert one's preferences. So as a believer in individual freedom, I'm in favor of ending corporate freedom to profitably manipulate individuals.
    - mindcrime 11y ago
      People with addictions don't have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice. It's an interesting point to discuss. Presumably they did (in most scenarios) have a choice when beginning the drug, but then once addicted, you have a good point. So should we argue that that initial choice was made freely, and that we have no right to use force to break you from that addiction (presuming you aren't hurting or posing a threat to anybody else)? Or should we say that since you aren't truly making willful decisions, then intervening isn't violating your personal notion of agency, and going "against your will"? I'd have to give this one some more thought to be honest. It strikes me that it isn't a simple question. OTOH, I still have no problem saying that anyone who is free to make conscious, willful decisions (whether we consider than rational or not) should be free to make the choice to put anything in their body that they want.
alkonaut 11y ago
Yes, the market works the buyers are the doctors (or organizations with medical expertise such as Surgeon general, Insurance company). They are informed enough to make a transaction with the producer of a drug. A patient will never be able to make a rational decision when buying a drug. So the market economy clearly breaks down if you ever consider patients to be the customers.
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  "A patient will never be able to make a rational decision when buying a drug. " Nonsense.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    "never" was the wrong choice of word. In general there are many cases when patients are not able to make a rational decision. And rarely, if ever, a better decision than a doctor will.
    - tosseraccount 11y ago
      I think people can be trusted to run their own lives without constant supervision by certified professionals. Britain for instance allows over the counter medicine that's illegal in the US. Is there some mass irrationality going on over there?
      - DanBC 11y ago
        To be fair those OTC meds are a significant cause of death in the UK.
      - alkonaut 11y ago
        > trusted to run their own lives Most of the time yes, but this is about creating a functioning market. I don't think people can be trusted to create a functioning market for products they sometimes can't set a monetary value on (if they are ill) and sometimes don't understand (because they aren't doctors). > Britain for instance allows over the counter medicine that's illegal in the US. I'd guess there is medicine that is allowed over the counter in the US that would be prescription in the US. But the bulk is probably the same. I fail to see how not being able to tell my doctor he should provide me with a specific prescription medication is detrimental to how I run my life. Healthcare costs need to be held down, most importantly in single payer systems, but it's quite important in insurance based systems too.

As it is, there are too many distortions. You don't pay for your drugs, your insurance company does. You don't even pay for your insurance, your employer does. So once a year, maybe, you grumble that your insurance premiums (the part you pay, at least) are going up, then the next day ask your doctor about Scrotium.

wooter 11y ago
Also, tying health insurance to employment is a direct result of the Feds wage and price controls of the past. Business couldn't compete in cash, so they went for the next biggest benefit.
sbov 11y ago
Or that the exact same drug may be 1,000 times cheaper in another country but it is illegal for you to buy it there and bring it here.

littletimmy 11y ago

In the long run, yes. However, in the long run we're all dead.

kansface 11y ago
There is no free market for drugs or medicine. I also don't think markets converge on free over time.

pdeuchler 11y ago

No, because a free market gives its consumers what they want and even rational people will take opiates over a constructive life

mindcrime 11y ago
because a free market gives its consumers what they want and even rational people will take opiates over a constructive life And? If that's their preference who are you (or I, etc.) to say otherwise?
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  See: tragedy of the commons, positive externalities, etc. etc. Even the most staunch libertarian has to agree that personal choices which negatively effect society must have some sort of curtailing policy to make whole those effected
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    Imma thinkin a "staunch libertarian" would be okay with not regulating advertising and letting people pop pills.
- wpietri 11y ago
  People with addictions don't have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice. If the principle we live by is maximizing total individual freedom, then I think freedom from addiction has to be part of that. For that matter, much of the point of advertising is also to subvert one's preferences. So as a believer in individual freedom, I'm in favor of ending corporate freedom to profitably manipulate individuals.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    People with addictions don't have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice. It's an interesting point to discuss. Presumably they did (in most scenarios) have a choice when beginning the drug, but then once addicted, you have a good point. So should we argue that that initial choice was made freely, and that we have no right to use force to break you from that addiction (presuming you aren't hurting or posing a threat to anybody else)? Or should we say that since you aren't truly making willful decisions, then intervening isn't violating your personal notion of agency, and going "against your will"? I'd have to give this one some more thought to be honest. It strikes me that it isn't a simple question. OTOH, I still have no problem saying that anyone who is free to make conscious, willful decisions (whether we consider than rational or not) should be free to make the choice to put anything in their body that they want.

alkonaut 11y ago

Yes, the market works the buyers are the doctors (or organizations with medical expertise such as Surgeon general, Insurance company). They are informed enough to make a transaction with the producer of a drug. A patient will never be able to make a rational decision when buying a drug. So the market economy clearly breaks down if you ever consider patients to be the customers.

tosseraccount 11y ago
"A patient will never be able to make a rational decision when buying a drug. " Nonsense.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  "never" was the wrong choice of word. In general there are many cases when patients are not able to make a rational decision. And rarely, if ever, a better decision than a doctor will.
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    I think people can be trusted to run their own lives without constant supervision by certified professionals. Britain for instance allows over the counter medicine that's illegal in the US. Is there some mass irrationality going on over there?
    - DanBC 11y ago
      To be fair those OTC meds are a significant cause of death in the UK.
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      > trusted to run their own lives Most of the time yes, but this is about creating a functioning market. I don't think people can be trusted to create a functioning market for products they sometimes can't set a monetary value on (if they are ill) and sometimes don't understand (because they aren't doctors). > Britain for instance allows over the counter medicine that's illegal in the US. I'd guess there is medicine that is allowed over the counter in the US that would be prescription in the US. But the bulk is probably the same. I fail to see how not being able to tell my doctor he should provide me with a specific prescription medication is detrimental to how I run my life. Healthcare costs need to be held down, most importantly in single payer systems, but it's quite important in insurance based systems too.