3 ms·

The problem isn't monopolized pharmaceuticals, other countries deal with that as well nor is it too much regulation, it's too little. Other countries simply ac

by DasIch 10y ago

The problem isn't monopolized pharmaceuticals, other countries deal with that as well nor is it too much regulation, it's too little. Other countries simply accept that there is a monopoly and that therefore the prices will be sky high, if they allow the companies to just set the prices to whatever they want, so these governments set prices and negotiate or empower consumers. The situation in the US would be very different, if you had nationwide insurance agencies and medicare negotiating drug prices and being able to say no to drugs that provide little to no benefit.

michaelkeenan 10y ago
> nor is it too much regulation, it's too little I think the framing of regulation as a spectrum of less to more is unhelpful. We don't need more regulation, we need better regulation. Some better is more; sometimes it's less.
pitaj 10y ago
> The problem isn't monopolized pharmaceuticals True. The problem is IP law. > nor is it too much regulation, it's too little IP law is a form of regulation > Other countries simply accept that there is a monopoly There wouldn't be, if not for IP law > that therefore the prices will be sky high, if they allow the companies to just set the prices to whatever they want They can only set the prices so high because they have a government-enforced monopoly on those products due to IP law The US needs to focus on further opening markets. Make the markets more easily accessible to competition. That means reducing the regulatory restrictions to something reasonable and, like you suggest, opening all markets for competition from everywhere. I would love to be able to just buy catastrophic healthcare insurance for unforeseen or accidental injuries or illnesses, and just paying for healthcare checkups out-of-pocket. But is that option open to me? Not really. I'm open to considering the idea of implementing a nationwide single payer system but I'd prefer it to be handled on a per-state basis first to test how it would work, and what kinds of unforeseen consequences it would have.

by DasIch 10y ago

michaelkeenan 10y ago

> nor is it too much regulation, it's too little I think the framing of regulation as a spectrum of less to more is unhelpful. We don't need more regulation, we need better regulation. Some better is more; sometimes it's less.

pitaj 10y ago

> The problem isn't monopolized pharmaceuticals True. The problem is IP law. > nor is it too much regulation, it's too little IP law is a form of regulation > Other countries simply accept that there is a monopoly There wouldn't be, if not for IP law > that therefore the prices will be sky high, if they allow the companies to just set the prices to whatever they want They can only set the prices so high because they have a government-enforced monopoly on those products due to IP law The US needs to focus on further opening markets. Make the markets more easily accessible to competition. That means reducing the regulatory restrictions to something reasonable and, like you suggest, opening all markets for competition from everywhere. I would love to be able to just buy catastrophic healthcare insurance for unforeseen or accidental injuries or illnesses, and just paying for healthcare checkups out-of-pocket. But is that option open to me? Not really. I'm open to considering the idea of implementing a nationwide single payer system but I'd prefer it to be handled on a per-state basis first to test how it would work, and what kinds of unforeseen consequences it would have.