3 ms·

>Government is where we come together as a people and say "yes, this is the cost that we have decided is worth paying in order to have the society that we want"

by thatcat 10y ago

>Government is where we come together as a people and say "yes, this is the cost that we have decided is worth paying in order to have the society that we want". In this way, it is the largest form of organized labor. When something is decried for 'inefficiency' we should examine what we are trying to do efficiently. For example, reducing costs of health care by negotiating drug price ceilings as a group in UK/Canada compared to much higher US drug prices as a result of rejecting these policies due to perceived inefficiency. This perception is ideological, in the mind of many Americans market equillibrium is always the most efficient pricing, this measure of efficiency is not related to the amount of healthcare delivered per dollar spent.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> This perception is ideological, in the mind of many Americans market equillibrium is always the most efficient pricing, this measure of efficiency is not related to the amount of healthcare delivered per dollar spent. The "market is efficient" assumption is voided by the bastardized healthcare system in the US. In theory the reason we have drug patents is that if you create an important drug, you get a temporary monopoly that you can use to make a lot of money, so people will have the incentive to create important drugs. The benefit is supposed to be that the market sets the price. Until the patent expires, you pay exactly as much as the drug is worth, no less and no more. But if the government (or even a large enough insurance company) is paying then there is no market, the buyer has pricing power. The only way the patent system produces the efficiency it's supposed to is if the patient pays for the drugs. Without that you might as well get rid of drug patents and just use tax money to fund drug research directly. But if you talk about either getting rid of prescription drug coverage or getting rid of drug patents, politics enters and we get the inefficient catastrophe we have.

by thatcat 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> This perception is ideological, in the mind of many Americans market equillibrium is always the most efficient pricing, this measure of efficiency is not related to the amount of healthcare delivered per dollar spent. The "market is efficient" assumption is voided by the bastardized healthcare system in the US. In theory the reason we have drug patents is that if you create an important drug, you get a temporary monopoly that you can use to make a lot of money, so people will have the incentive to create important drugs. The benefit is supposed to be that the market sets the price. Until the patent expires, you pay exactly as much as the drug is worth, no less and no more. But if the government (or even a large enough insurance company) is paying then there is no market, the buyer has pricing power. The only way the patent system produces the efficiency it's supposed to is if the patient pays for the drugs. Without that you might as well get rid of drug patents and just use tax money to fund drug research directly. But if you talk about either getting rid of prescription drug coverage or getting rid of drug patents, politics enters and we get the inefficient catastrophe we have.