3 ms·

>They will not say it is because drug company execs are selfish bastards. Because that is a given. Dealing with a selfish bastard is ok as long as you can walk

>They will not say it is because drug company execs are selfish bastards. Because that is a given. Dealing with a selfish bastard is ok as long as you can walk away from a transaction if it is not to your liking. People bargaining for their life don't really have that freedom. I can buy a watermelon from a guy selling it out of the back of his pickup on the side of the road and be pretty confident that it won't kill me. You won't ever be able to say that of medicine. Many of the regulations are there for a reason. There will never be as much competition in medicine as there is in food (unless it is in the 'Uh, oh, a handful of companies own all of the farms' direction). So, even if we eliminate all regulation it still wouldn't solve the problem of competition. So, we will have few players in a market that is difficult if not impossible for your average consumer to understand selling items that are essential for people to continue to live no matter which direction we go. So the only question is: would the threat of government forces keep these players in line better or worse than self-policing under the fear of market punishment if what they do goes badly? My thought is that the government is going to have the resources to effectively go after bad actors where the surviving relatives of individuals harmed will not. And there won't be enough market players in any case for those trying to make a decision based on what news they get of such bad market behavior to effectively stop them by spending their money elsewhere. It's the difference between being able to pump the brakes on a bad situation or relying on coasting to a stop.

esyir 7y ago
I think you're making a false assumption here though, particularly with this line: >There will never be as much competition in medicine as there is in food (unless it is in the 'Uh, oh, a handful of companies own all of the farms' direction). So, even if we eliminate all regulation it still wouldn't solve the problem of competition. This may be true, we don't necessarily need that level of competition and a lower level, but still competitive market can handle this. Rather, we're at the other extreme, where regulatory barriers are heavy enough essentially prevent competition, effectively ensuring monopoly. A good example here would be the list of off patent drugs with no generic alternative. In particular the infamous case of Daraprim, where generic Daraprim could be made, but would have to go through the FDA approval process.

esyir 7y ago

I think you're making a false assumption here though, particularly with this line: >There will never be as much competition in medicine as there is in food (unless it is in the 'Uh, oh, a handful of companies own all of the farms' direction). So, even if we eliminate all regulation it still wouldn't solve the problem of competition. This may be true, we don't necessarily need that level of competition and a lower level, but still competitive market can handle this. Rather, we're at the other extreme, where regulatory barriers are heavy enough essentially prevent competition, effectively ensuring monopoly. A good example here would be the list of off patent drugs with no generic alternative. In particular the infamous case of Daraprim, where generic Daraprim could be made, but would have to go through the FDA approval process.