4 ms·

So your solution to drug companies jacking up the prices as much as they can is to reward them by removing regulations?

by jahaja 7y ago

tptacek 7y ago
No, his solution is to dial competition back up by reducing regulatory barriers to new entrants, competition being the thing that tends to actually produce durable price decreases in markets, and is, for instance, the reason virtually everyone in the country has a phone in their pocket that only rich people had just 12 years ago. You can't coherently and simultaneously believe that markets are inefficiently pricing insulin too high and that the government should be imputing gigantic costs on firms that want to introduce new, unencumbered insulin products. The two thoughts aren't compatible.
- jahaja 7y ago
  This is the classical "tricke down economy" type of solution. Give companies, who are additionally acting unethically, a guaranteed and direct profit increase and _hope_ that it solves itself in the long-term. Surely it depends on the barriers and how much of a cut those actually are in practice. Furthermore, private corps aren't the only way drugs can be invented.
  - nate_meurer 7y ago
    No, trickle-down refers very specifically to tax breaks tailored narrowly to the wealthy, in hopes that they will in turn distribute their wealth via increased employment of capital and, ultimately, labor. Since its origins in Gilded Age populist political writing and depression era popular media, it has never meant anything else, and it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. > Give companies, who are additionally acting unethically, a guaranteed and direct profit increase... No, lowering barriers to competition doesn't give anyone guaranteed profit. It reliably does the opposite, depriving incumbent companies of their monopolies. > Furthermore, private corps aren't the only way drugs can be invented. Nobody -- literally nobody -- would dispute that. The question is whether the government is able to do the various parts of drug development as efficiently as the private sector. This is not a simple analysis, but I think the answer is more often than not, No.
    - jahaja 7y ago
      Sigh, this is such a typical HN response, "I read everything literally and need to explain what it _actually_ means". I wrote _type_, as in similar. I know the origin. > This is not a simple analysis, but I think the answer is more often than not, No. Why not? Profit-driven drug companies will obviously focus on things that make money, e.g. superficial/vanity related things, not what's necessarily aligned with public interests.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        Because in most markets, one of the more straightforward ways to make money is to deliver products more efficiently, split the reduced cost basis with the customer, and outcompete incumbents. You're not doing your argument any favors with this "typical HN response" stuff. Have a discussion with people on the thread or don't; it is fine for you to simply disagree and walk away.
        jahaja 7y ago
        And in many markets it's not. Well-run state companies, that exists, and have existed for a long long time, efficiency is not a problem and they can focus their efforts and money on what's important, not profits and marketing. Don't tone police me please. I find it rude to assume ignorance and go on explaining. Did you miss the whole mansplaining wave?
        dang 7y ago
        Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that keep doing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        jahaja 7y ago
        Sure. However, given the rudeness in the replies I feel that I restrained myself decently with a few slips. "You can't coherently and simultaneously believe" "You might as well call it "fascist" or "colonialist". It's jibberish." "it is fine for you to simply disagree and walk away" "Right, so it was a bullshit distraction that can safely be ignored." "You're still not understanding." "Now read this slowly and carefully" "You are completely misunderstanding the argument." "I think you're trying to construct a straw man" "which discussion you opened with a snarky, dismissive one-liner." "[if] you're able to use google for five minutes. At this point, though, I'm confident that you're interested only in polemics, rather than actually learning anything about the issue."
  - shpongled 7y ago
    You are completely misunderstanding the argument. Lets say the current price for insulin is $200. I see this margin, and say "I can produce insulin for cheaper, and I'm happy with selling it for $50". The government is placing restrictions on new competitors, so I can't just come in and sell insulin for $50. There is a restriction on competition, which causes artificial prices
    - jahaja 7y ago
      The presumption is that it's actually the regulations that prevents the competition, which haven't at all been made clear. How about patents for example? How about the cheap prices of Europe?
      - tptacek 7y ago
        The presumption is that the regulations add a major cost hurdle to delivering unencumbered insulin products at lower prices, because that is in fact what they do.
        jahaja 7y ago
        Are drug companies operating at a loss in Europe?
        tptacek 7y ago
        I think you're trying to construct a straw man. Nobody on this thread is suggesting that pharma be deregulated. Rather, Rayiner pointed to a specific regulatory problem that may be contributing to the price of insulin. Whether or not drug companies operate at a loss in Europe is immaterial to that point.
        jahaja 7y ago
        I'm not sure what straw man that would be? I haven't suggested that either. What I'm implying is that Europe have regulations too, and that the price difference is not in proportion to the difference in regulatory strictness.

So your solution to drug companies jacking up the prices as much as they can is to reward them by removing regulations?

by jahaja 7y ago

So your solution to drug companies jacking up the prices as much as they can is to reward them by removing regulations?

No, his solution is to dial competition back up by reducing regulatory barriers to new entrants, competition being the thing that tends to actually produce durable price decreases in markets, and is, for instance, the reason virtually everyone in the country has a phone in their pocket that only rich people had just 12 years ago. You can't coherently and simultaneously believe that markets are inefficiently pricing insulin too high and that the government should be imputing gigantic costs on firms that want to introduce new, unencumbered insulin products. The two thoughts aren't compatible.

jahaja 7y ago
This is the classical "tricke down economy" type of solution. Give companies, who are additionally acting unethically, a guaranteed and direct profit increase and _hope_ that it solves itself in the long-term. Surely it depends on the barriers and how much of a cut those actually are in practice. Furthermore, private corps aren't the only way drugs can be invented.
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  No, trickle-down refers very specifically to tax breaks tailored narrowly to the wealthy, in hopes that they will in turn distribute their wealth via increased employment of capital and, ultimately, labor. Since its origins in Gilded Age populist political writing and depression era popular media, it has never meant anything else, and it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. > Give companies, who are additionally acting unethically, a guaranteed and direct profit increase... No, lowering barriers to competition doesn't give anyone guaranteed profit. It reliably does the opposite, depriving incumbent companies of their monopolies. > Furthermore, private corps aren't the only way drugs can be invented. Nobody -- literally nobody -- would dispute that. The question is whether the government is able to do the various parts of drug development as efficiently as the private sector. This is not a simple analysis, but I think the answer is more often than not, No.
  - jahaja 7y ago
    Sigh, this is such a typical HN response, "I read everything literally and need to explain what it _actually_ means". I wrote _type_, as in similar. I know the origin. > This is not a simple analysis, but I think the answer is more often than not, No. Why not? Profit-driven drug companies will obviously focus on things that make money, e.g. superficial/vanity related things, not what's necessarily aligned with public interests.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      Because in most markets, one of the more straightforward ways to make money is to deliver products more efficiently, split the reduced cost basis with the customer, and outcompete incumbents. You're not doing your argument any favors with this "typical HN response" stuff. Have a discussion with people on the thread or don't; it is fine for you to simply disagree and walk away.
      - jahaja 7y ago
        And in many markets it's not. Well-run state companies, that exists, and have existed for a long long time, efficiency is not a problem and they can focus their efforts and money on what's important, not profits and marketing. Don't tone police me please. I find it rude to assume ignorance and go on explaining. Did you miss the whole mansplaining wave?
        dang 7y ago
        Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that keep doing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        jahaja 7y ago
        Sure. However, given the rudeness in the replies I feel that I restrained myself decently with a few slips. "You can't coherently and simultaneously believe" "You might as well call it "fascist" or "colonialist". It's jibberish." "it is fine for you to simply disagree and walk away" "Right, so it was a bullshit distraction that can safely be ignored." "You're still not understanding." "Now read this slowly and carefully" "You are completely misunderstanding the argument." "I think you're trying to construct a straw man" "which discussion you opened with a snarky, dismissive one-liner." "[if] you're able to use google for five minutes. At this point, though, I'm confident that you're interested only in polemics, rather than actually learning anything about the issue."
- shpongled 7y ago
  You are completely misunderstanding the argument. Lets say the current price for insulin is $200. I see this margin, and say "I can produce insulin for cheaper, and I'm happy with selling it for $50". The government is placing restrictions on new competitors, so I can't just come in and sell insulin for $50. There is a restriction on competition, which causes artificial prices
  - jahaja 7y ago
    The presumption is that it's actually the regulations that prevents the competition, which haven't at all been made clear. How about patents for example? How about the cheap prices of Europe?
    - tptacek 7y ago
      The presumption is that the regulations add a major cost hurdle to delivering unencumbered insulin products at lower prices, because that is in fact what they do.
      - jahaja 7y ago
        Are drug companies operating at a loss in Europe?
        tptacek 7y ago
        I think you're trying to construct a straw man. Nobody on this thread is suggesting that pharma be deregulated. Rather, Rayiner pointed to a specific regulatory problem that may be contributing to the price of insulin. Whether or not drug companies operate at a loss in Europe is immaterial to that point.
        jahaja 7y ago
        I'm not sure what straw man that would be? I haven't suggested that either. What I'm implying is that Europe have regulations too, and that the price difference is not in proportion to the difference in regulatory strictness.