5 ms·

That law would be the 'Medicare For All' law. The government could then determine the maximum price for life-saving everything. And the predatory bastards could

That law would be the 'Medicare For All' law. The government could then determine the maximum price for life-saving everything. And the predatory bastards could go find an honest job (if they know what that means).

TomMarius 7y ago
In my country we tried this "government could determine the maximum price for (some category) everything" and it ended up with tons of dead people. Not even Germany with their socialized Healthcare does that, why would the US do?
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  I call bullshit, give me facts somewhere where I can read about it ( trustworthy source). Because here in Europe, multiple countries are fine with it.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    I don't know a single EU country that would set maximum prices. Can you share which one do you mean? Aren't you confusing it with insurance company tariffs (pre-determined prices for treatments etc), which are set by the insurance companies, not government? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
    - wjnc 7y ago
      Uhm, the Netherlands does? In Dutch [1]. There are a few mechanisms. One is a maximum price based on a basket of comparable countries. Two is a maximum insured price based on comparable medicines with mandatory co-payments above the average. Three is insurers bargaining with apothecaries. Four is government bargaining for orphan medicines. Five is sometimes allowing apothecaries to create licensed medicine by themselves. Many of these are totally opposite the US-system afaik, with Medicare not being allowed to negotiate prices being the most glaring one. [1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/geneesmiddelen/betaalbaar-houden-van-geneesmiddelen https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/geneesmiddelen/beta...
      - NicoJuicy 7y ago
        Belgium also does this
    - hadrien01 7y ago
      In France: The Economic Committee for Health Products (CEPS) [...] is mainly responsible for setting the prices of medicines and the prices of individual medical devices covered by compulsory health insurance. [0] And according to the WHO, most European countries set drug prices [1] [0] https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/ministere/acteurs/instances-rattachees/article/ceps-comite-economique-des-produits-de-sante https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/ministere/acteurs/instance... translated with DeepL [1] https://www.who.int/medicines/technical_briefing/tbs/TBS2016_Pricing_Policies.pdf https://www.who.int/medicines/technical_briefing/tbs/TBS2016... slide 23
      - TomMarius 7y ago
        OK, I was wrong. I will look into links provided, thank you.
- danaris 7y ago
  Setting maximum prices for some goods is a feature of communism/socialism. Soviet Russia was communist/socialist. Soviet Russia killed millions of people Therefore, all men are Socrates—er, I mean, setting maximum prices for some goods kills millions of people. Do you see the false syllogism here? It's an argument I see made all the time, and it doesn't hold a drop of water.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    People also died precisely because of market manipulation, due to food shortages, housing shortages, and of course healthcare shortages, which were especially catastrophic. I was not talking about the gulags. And I am not Russian.
    - danaris 7y ago
      And I never said anything about gulags. I have no idea what your country is, as you didn't mention it; however, I have heard over and over again the argument that Stalin killed millions of people, therefore anything that moves even the slightest bit toward socialism is Evil. The fact remains that claiming that setting maximum prices for some lifesaving drugs will lead to the situation you saw in your country has no logical basis. At best, it's a slippery slope fallacy.
      - TomMarius 7y ago
        So what killed these people that weren't in gulags? Some of them were killed by the secret police etc, but the absolute majority of victims of communism and socialism were not killed, they died - because of unavailable food, medicine, healthcare services, housing and so on. No one is talking about people Stalin killed and you're right it has no logic. The thing that got these people to die was market manipulation, which is why I posted it in a discussion about market manipulation. Not everyone has to be immediately thinking about Stalin when making an argument about socialism leading to deaths. There are plenty of options. See Venezuela for instance.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
When confronted with the problem of price gouging, reacting with a planned economy is like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. Why don’t we fine the company, class action a settlement, and place a few execs behind bars instead.
- cyphar 7y ago
  "Planned economy" is an incorrect description of the proposal, because planned economies don't just set prices but they also allocate quantities to producers and consumers (something which people would rightly feel unhappy about if you applied such a system to medical supplies). The system being proposed in the US as part of the M4A bill is how almost every other developed nation except the US handles essential drug prices. The government negotiates the price with the drug companies and they come to an arranged price at which they are sold. Here in Australia we don't have the same problems you have with run-away drug prices, specifically because our government both covers part of the cost of drugs when purchasing them (as part of Medicare) and negotiates the prices down.
  - lysp 7y ago
    And I'm pretty sure the Aus Gov also agree to purchase a certain amount as part of the negotiation.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      I'm not sure if that's the case for drugs, but you're quite right that it's the case for medical devices. The producers are effectively competing for a government contract to be one of the few Medicare-sanction producers for that particular medical device (and being sanctioned for Medicare rebates means that your device will be used by the majority of people who need such a device -- otherwise they won't get coverage for it through Medicare or even private insurance in most cases).
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    Hair-splitting. Your sibling description sounds defacto planned by these measures. Tired of the false dichotomy of wild-west anything-goes or heavy government control. We could have a functioning market and also punish bad actors, if it was considered a possibility.

TomMarius 7y ago

In my country we tried this "government could determine the maximum price for (some category) everything" and it ended up with tons of dead people. Not even Germany with their socialized Healthcare does that, why would the US do?

NicoJuicy 7y ago
I call bullshit, give me facts somewhere where I can read about it ( trustworthy source). Because here in Europe, multiple countries are fine with it.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  I don't know a single EU country that would set maximum prices. Can you share which one do you mean? Aren't you confusing it with insurance company tariffs (pre-determined prices for treatments etc), which are set by the insurance companies, not government? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
  - wjnc 7y ago
    Uhm, the Netherlands does? In Dutch [1]. There are a few mechanisms. One is a maximum price based on a basket of comparable countries. Two is a maximum insured price based on comparable medicines with mandatory co-payments above the average. Three is insurers bargaining with apothecaries. Four is government bargaining for orphan medicines. Five is sometimes allowing apothecaries to create licensed medicine by themselves. Many of these are totally opposite the US-system afaik, with Medicare not being allowed to negotiate prices being the most glaring one. [1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/geneesmiddelen/betaalbaar-houden-van-geneesmiddelen https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/geneesmiddelen/beta...
    - NicoJuicy 7y ago
      Belgium also does this
  - hadrien01 7y ago
    In France: The Economic Committee for Health Products (CEPS) [...] is mainly responsible for setting the prices of medicines and the prices of individual medical devices covered by compulsory health insurance. [0] And according to the WHO, most European countries set drug prices [1] [0] https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/ministere/acteurs/instances-rattachees/article/ceps-comite-economique-des-produits-de-sante https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/ministere/acteurs/instance... translated with DeepL [1] https://www.who.int/medicines/technical_briefing/tbs/TBS2016_Pricing_Policies.pdf https://www.who.int/medicines/technical_briefing/tbs/TBS2016... slide 23
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      OK, I was wrong. I will look into links provided, thank you.
danaris 7y ago
Setting maximum prices for some goods is a feature of communism/socialism. Soviet Russia was communist/socialist. Soviet Russia killed millions of people Therefore, all men are Socrates—er, I mean, setting maximum prices for some goods kills millions of people. Do you see the false syllogism here? It's an argument I see made all the time, and it doesn't hold a drop of water.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  People also died precisely because of market manipulation, due to food shortages, housing shortages, and of course healthcare shortages, which were especially catastrophic. I was not talking about the gulags. And I am not Russian.
  - danaris 7y ago
    And I never said anything about gulags. I have no idea what your country is, as you didn't mention it; however, I have heard over and over again the argument that Stalin killed millions of people, therefore anything that moves even the slightest bit toward socialism is Evil. The fact remains that claiming that setting maximum prices for some lifesaving drugs will lead to the situation you saw in your country has no logical basis. At best, it's a slippery slope fallacy.
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      So what killed these people that weren't in gulags? Some of them were killed by the secret police etc, but the absolute majority of victims of communism and socialism were not killed, they died - because of unavailable food, medicine, healthcare services, housing and so on. No one is talking about people Stalin killed and you're right it has no logic. The thing that got these people to die was market manipulation, which is why I posted it in a discussion about market manipulation. Not everyone has to be immediately thinking about Stalin when making an argument about socialism leading to deaths. There are plenty of options. See Venezuela for instance.

mixmastamyk 7y ago

When confronted with the problem of price gouging, reacting with a planned economy is like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. Why don’t we fine the company, class action a settlement, and place a few execs behind bars instead.

cyphar 7y ago
"Planned economy" is an incorrect description of the proposal, because planned economies don't just set prices but they also allocate quantities to producers and consumers (something which people would rightly feel unhappy about if you applied such a system to medical supplies). The system being proposed in the US as part of the M4A bill is how almost every other developed nation except the US handles essential drug prices. The government negotiates the price with the drug companies and they come to an arranged price at which they are sold. Here in Australia we don't have the same problems you have with run-away drug prices, specifically because our government both covers part of the cost of drugs when purchasing them (as part of Medicare) and negotiates the prices down.
- lysp 7y ago
  And I'm pretty sure the Aus Gov also agree to purchase a certain amount as part of the negotiation.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    I'm not sure if that's the case for drugs, but you're quite right that it's the case for medical devices. The producers are effectively competing for a government contract to be one of the few Medicare-sanction producers for that particular medical device (and being sanctioned for Medicare rebates means that your device will be used by the majority of people who need such a device -- otherwise they won't get coverage for it through Medicare or even private insurance in most cases).
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  Hair-splitting. Your sibling description sounds defacto planned by these measures. Tired of the false dichotomy of wild-west anything-goes or heavy government control. We could have a functioning market and also punish bad actors, if it was considered a possibility.