4 ms·

I'm not anti free-market capitalism by any stretch. But I would argue that when it comes to life-saving medicine there's no real "market". If I'm diagnosed wi

I'm not anti free-market capitalism by any stretch. But I would argue that when it comes to life-saving medicine there's no real "market". If I'm diagnosed with a fatal disease, and I'm told someone has the cure, I don't say "hmm, I'd love to buy it, but that sounds too expensive". Instead I say "where do I sign, I don't care how much it costs, take everything". Cures to fatal diseases are not products that can be given a real market value based on supply and demand since everyone who is ever told about the product who needs it is willing to give up all of their earthly possessions to obtain it. From that perspective for someone to say "Hmm, yeah I'd love to give it to you but I'm gonna need more. You see my stockholders aren't gonna be happy if I only take all you own. It's clearly worth more than that." seems a little out of touch. In my mind profit is not the right motivation for developing cures for fatal diseases.

ars 11y ago
> Cures to fatal diseases are not products that can be given a real market value based on supply and demand That argument doesn't work. Antibiotics can cure many fatal diseases, yet they don't cost all that much. The reason is supply and demand, the exact thing you say can't be done. The supply is that it's easy to make them. The demand is that people can pick other drugs. Other things that work into the equation is how much effort it took to invent it, and how many people get sick and need the particular medication. Or in other words, market economics works just fine even for that type of treatment. And elderly people refuse treatment all the time in order not to waste resources they want to pass on to their kids.
- datashovel 11y ago
  I would argue that the reason antibiotics is inexpensive is not because of supply and demand. It's because of competition in the market. If a single entity owned the intellectual property for all antibiotics, my hunch is they would be quite a bit more expensive.
  - ars 11y ago
    > is not because of supply and demand. It's because of competition in the market Competition is a form of supply and demand, so your sentence is contradictory. It's still wrong, there are lots of patented medications on the market every year, many for treating fatal diseases, and they don't charge outrageous amounts. I posted this earlier, maybe you didn't see, but this drug is a monoclonal antibody. That is by FAR the most expensive type of drug we have ever invented. That's the reason for the cost, not the patent. It will still be expensive even off patent.
    - datashovel 11y ago
      I found this excerpt that might be helpful to our discussion: The law of demand states that, if all other factors remain equal, the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand that good. In other words, the higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded. http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.... So let's consider a scenario. The drug is available on the market for $100. Will I buy it? Yes. For $1000? Yes. For $10000? Yes. For $100000? Yes. For $1000000? Yes. etc.. For $10000000000? Yes, but I can't afford it. Notice I never said no. The pharmaceutical company, the hospital, and the insurance company said no. I don't see where the "law of demand" enters into the equation. I can't see how it is possible to shim "supply and demand" into a market where the only decision you make when purchasing is "If I don't purchase it, I will die". On the other hand, simply through adding a competitor into the mix suddenly both parties need to figure out how to keep costs low so the consumer will pick them over their competitor. The fact that there's competition in the market place is orthogonal to the "law of demand". In other words, no matter how many competitors exist in the marketplace there will always be the same number of people saying "yes" to the purchase. Exactly the same number of potential customers no matter how many competitors exist in the market. All of whom will purchase it if they can afford it.

ars 11y ago

> Cures to fatal diseases are not products that can be given a real market value based on supply and demand That argument doesn't work. Antibiotics can cure many fatal diseases, yet they don't cost all that much. The reason is supply and demand, the exact thing you say can't be done. The supply is that it's easy to make them. The demand is that people can pick other drugs. Other things that work into the equation is how much effort it took to invent it, and how many people get sick and need the particular medication. Or in other words, market economics works just fine even for that type of treatment. And elderly people refuse treatment all the time in order not to waste resources they want to pass on to their kids.

datashovel 11y ago
I would argue that the reason antibiotics is inexpensive is not because of supply and demand. It's because of competition in the market. If a single entity owned the intellectual property for all antibiotics, my hunch is they would be quite a bit more expensive.
- ars 11y ago
  > is not because of supply and demand. It's because of competition in the market Competition is a form of supply and demand, so your sentence is contradictory. It's still wrong, there are lots of patented medications on the market every year, many for treating fatal diseases, and they don't charge outrageous amounts. I posted this earlier, maybe you didn't see, but this drug is a monoclonal antibody. That is by FAR the most expensive type of drug we have ever invented. That's the reason for the cost, not the patent. It will still be expensive even off patent.
  - datashovel 11y ago
    I found this excerpt that might be helpful to our discussion: The law of demand states that, if all other factors remain equal, the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand that good. In other words, the higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded. http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.... So let's consider a scenario. The drug is available on the market for $100. Will I buy it? Yes. For $1000? Yes. For $10000? Yes. For $100000? Yes. For $1000000? Yes. etc.. For $10000000000? Yes, but I can't afford it. Notice I never said no. The pharmaceutical company, the hospital, and the insurance company said no. I don't see where the "law of demand" enters into the equation. I can't see how it is possible to shim "supply and demand" into a market where the only decision you make when purchasing is "If I don't purchase it, I will die". On the other hand, simply through adding a competitor into the mix suddenly both parties need to figure out how to keep costs low so the consumer will pick them over their competitor. The fact that there's competition in the market place is orthogonal to the "law of demand". In other words, no matter how many competitors exist in the marketplace there will always be the same number of people saying "yes" to the purchase. Exactly the same number of potential customers no matter how many competitors exist in the market. All of whom will purchase it if they can afford it.