4 ms·
I don't know the parent's goals in trotting that out, but in general, I love how often this line is used as a defense of the "free market" in drugs. Aside from
by _jal 10y ago
I don't know the parent's goals in trotting that out, but in general, I love how often this line is used as a defense of the "free market" in drugs.
Aside from the military[1], in what other categories of product do those waving that banner support mandatory payments to private entities supporting their preferred agenda[2]?
Never mind that the military is the best comparison to drugs in terms of regulation - the only products less "free-market" in the US than drugs are military weapons. In a way, there's a funny symmetry there.
[1] A huge amount of that money goes directly to private firms, just like pharma payments.
[2] Well, I guess one can opt out of medical care.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoI'm not defending a free market in drugs. I actually don't believe such a thing can exist. I'm simply observing the price board does what almost all price boards do: maximizing short-term political gains. It's a response to parent pretending a complex discussion has one true answer.
- HarryHirsch 10y agoIn Europe price controls have been in place since the War, if not earlier, and the pharma industry in Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland and the UK did extremely well until the 1980s. Pfizer opened their Sandwich site in 1954 and when they closed it in 2011 it wasn't because of the NHS.
- swsieber 10y agoI'm not even sure you can call it "free market" because of the distortions that patents bring into it...
- rayiner 10y agoPatents distort what would happen in the absence of patents, but so does every other kind of property right. Markets in the absence of patents exhibit free rider effects, which are themselves undermine market efficiency.
- theseatoms 10y agoThe free rider effects you're referring to are exacerbated by how arduous the FDA approval process is.