4 ms·

Sure. But if they demanded a trillion dollars per pill, the government shouldn't have to pay for it. It would bankrupt the country. They shouldn't be able to se

Sure. But if they demanded a trillion dollars per pill, the government shouldn't have to pay for it. It would bankrupt the country. They shouldn't be able to set a price and force the government to pay it. The only reason we have this crazy system is because people refuse to put an economic value on life.

WalterBright 11y ago
> if they demanded a trillion dollars per pill Then nobody would buy it and they would lose their investment. > force the government to pay it They can't force the government to do anything. Of course, the government can just take the pills from them, but if they did that, then no more cures would be developed. > people refuse to put an economic value on life People do all the time. Every time you (and everyone else) make a decision of risk vs cost vs utility, you do. For example, some cars are safer than others. How does that influence what you'll pay for a car?
- cheriot 11y ago
  >Of course, the government can just take the pills from them, but if they did that, then no more cures would be developed. There seems to be a common misunderstanding of how eminent domain works. The Constitution requires "just compensation", which the courts interpret as fair market value.
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    The investors and the courts may have very different notions of the fair market value. If it's much less than the investors expect, expect no more cures. Consider that the whole point of the government taking it is the idea that the fair market price is too high. Also, there are many, many ways the government can take things without just compensation. For example, civil asset forfeiture. They could get the patent declared invalid. Laws and regulations are very complex, there are a lot of levers the government can pull.
    - cheriot 11y ago
      The point of the government taking it is that when there's only one seller people get greedy. That's why both sides have recourse of the courts. Considering the lives at stake, intentionally paying 20% more than the estimated value would be a better deal than the current system.
      - WalterBright 11y ago
        Price controls have a very long history of unintended negative consequences. Keep in mind that the cure was developed with the expectation of high profits, and with no cure all the lives at stake would have died. Suppose a cure for Alzheimer's never happens because price controls were put on the Hep C cure? Are you willing to risk it? The price will come down after the patent expires. People are better off with a high priced cure than no cure.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  You missed the part where insurance companies and government programs are obligated to pay for treatment regardless of costs. A limit needs to be put on this. E.g. spending a million dollars on a treatment that is only decreases the risk of death by 5% puts a $20 mil value on life, which is too high. I don't know what the number should be, but it's something we need to decide.
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    > regardless of costs Anything with that phrase in it inevitably leads to major problems, along with other phrases like "zero tolerance" and "safety always comes first".

WalterBright 11y ago

> if they demanded a trillion dollars per pill Then nobody would buy it and they would lose their investment. > force the government to pay it They can't force the government to do anything. Of course, the government can just take the pills from them, but if they did that, then no more cures would be developed. > people refuse to put an economic value on life People do all the time. Every time you (and everyone else) make a decision of risk vs cost vs utility, you do. For example, some cars are safer than others. How does that influence what you'll pay for a car?

cheriot 11y ago
>Of course, the government can just take the pills from them, but if they did that, then no more cures would be developed. There seems to be a common misunderstanding of how eminent domain works. The Constitution requires "just compensation", which the courts interpret as fair market value.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  The investors and the courts may have very different notions of the fair market value. If it's much less than the investors expect, expect no more cures. Consider that the whole point of the government taking it is the idea that the fair market price is too high. Also, there are many, many ways the government can take things without just compensation. For example, civil asset forfeiture. They could get the patent declared invalid. Laws and regulations are very complex, there are a lot of levers the government can pull.
  - cheriot 11y ago
    The point of the government taking it is that when there's only one seller people get greedy. That's why both sides have recourse of the courts. Considering the lives at stake, intentionally paying 20% more than the estimated value would be a better deal than the current system.
    - WalterBright 11y ago
      Price controls have a very long history of unintended negative consequences. Keep in mind that the cure was developed with the expectation of high profits, and with no cure all the lives at stake would have died. Suppose a cure for Alzheimer's never happens because price controls were put on the Hep C cure? Are you willing to risk it? The price will come down after the patent expires. People are better off with a high priced cure than no cure.
Houshalter 11y ago
You missed the part where insurance companies and government programs are obligated to pay for treatment regardless of costs. A limit needs to be put on this. E.g. spending a million dollars on a treatment that is only decreases the risk of death by 5% puts a $20 mil value on life, which is too high. I don't know what the number should be, but it's something we need to decide.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  > regardless of costs Anything with that phrase in it inevitably leads to major problems, along with other phrases like "zero tolerance" and "safety always comes first".