4 ms·
If there’s a profit, yes. But try explaining “sorry we have the ability to treat you but you’re going to die because the medicine isn’t profitable enough for a
by freehunter 7y ago
If there’s a profit, yes. But try explaining “sorry we have the ability to treat you but you’re going to die because the medicine isn’t profitable enough for a company to produce”.
- HarryHirsch 7y agoThat's the other argument for nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry: broadening the supply chain. When Hurricane Maria destroyed Puerto Rico there was a shortage of saline in the US, because margin is so low that the market can only support very few manufacturers, many of which were on Puerto Rico. Right now we are looking at another rash of shortages. The Indian government has banned export of certain medications and pharmaceutical intermediates because India is worried about the coronavirus outbreak and domestic shortages.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoSomeone still has to pay workers to make the drug at the end of the day. They don't work for free any more than doctors If workers aren't getting paid directly, they would be paid by tax dollars. The only questions are: 1) can nationalized companies make drugs cheaper? 2) If yes, are there second order effects, like reduced drug innovation.
- freehunter 7y agoMany schools of economics teach that the proper place for the government to step in is when something serves the public good but has a low chance for profit. Public transportation, libraries, schools, roads, parks. These wouldn’t be profitable ventures for a commercial operator, but the public needs these things. So the government provides.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoI wholeheartedly agree, but that doesn't mean that government employees build all the roads, schools, and parks. This is often done by for-profit companies and payed for with tax dollars