The Big Pharma Monster

[Stevicus]

The normal problem with price controls is that if producers feel they can no longer make the desire profit, they will turn their attention to other avenues of profit there-by reducing the availability of the product, in this case drugs.
IOW, the only reason we have the availability of the drug is because of the profits.

You can cap the price but you can't force the manufactures to produce the product. This from my understanding is the usually fear against price controls.

Patents also limit the competition. Once the drug has been developed, even if another company could produce it cheaper, it'd be illegal for them to do so.

There's nothing preventing the government from building its own manufactories to produce these products, if there's a need for it. If the private sector can't or won't do it, it falls upon government anyway - for a variety of services. We used price controls during WW2, and they were quite successful in terms of productivity and technological advancement.

If a company decides the profits aren't high enough and choose to take their ball and go home, then there is still recourse the government could take. I don't see it as a dead end. If there is a way to save a life and the private sector refuses due to profits, then the government can take control and do so in the name of human rights and the preservation of life.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, yes, But if that is too simple as a factor alone. We are into something that is hard to quantify, because it is subjective qualities.

Since I am Danish, I will stick to that.
Okay, where to start.
Well, around the beginning of the 1900's we made a compromise. The capitalists controlled the money and production and what I should do for my pay as a worker. The workers were allowed to form unions and go on strike and the capitalists could use lockouts. If it came to a hard spot, the government was allow to make a compromise by turning it into law.
That is one example. Now here is how absurd it is to some. A restaurant some years ago tried to use no union workers and wouldn't negotiate with the unions. So here is the kicker. The unions asked other members of other unions to boykott to the restaurant, so for example the restaurant couldn't get deliveries, because the workers bringing the deliveries could refuse.

Well, you will ask - what does that have to do with your thread? It is about mindset. How you view the parts as humans in a process and how you resolve differences?!!
A welfare state is a compromise between different parts and the role of the government is to look out for all. And I mean all.

So here is the Danish tradition. For regular laws one side or the other has majority, but for the big structural changes they are almost always compromises between the 2 sides.
It is in the mind.

Our unions lost a lot of the power they once had. Many blame this on Ronald Reagan.
Reagan also used his appointments to set a lasting legacy for breaking unions. He would appoint 3 management representatives to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) causing it to significantly depart from its legal obligation to help promote collective bargaining. Under the board, they settled only half the cases the NLRB did under President Jimmy Carter and found in favor of the employer in 75% of the cases. For comparison, the board under Republican President Richard Nixon only found in favor of the employer in 33% of cases. Most of the cases found in favor of employers were around firing workers who were organizing. The board would often stall cases for an average of three years and even when they decided in favor of the employee they would often only award back wages. Now thirty plus years later, that standard is often used in NLRB cases.
https://ucommblog.com/section/national-politics/ronald-reagan-union-buster

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Our unions lost a lot of the power they once had. Many blame this on Ronald Reagan.
Reagan also used his appointments to set a lasting legacy for breaking unions. He would appoint 3 management representatives to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) causing it to significantly depart from its legal obligation to help promote collective bargaining. Under the board, they settled only half the cases the NLRB did under President Jimmy Carter and found in favor of the employer in 75% of the cases. For comparison, the board under Republican President Richard Nixon only found in favor of the employer in 33% of cases. Most of the cases found in favor of employers were around firing workers who were organizing. The board would often stall cases for an average of three years and even when they decided in favor of the employee they would often only award back wages. Now thirty plus years later, that standard is often used in NLRB cases.
https://ucommblog.com/section/national-politics/ronald-reagan-union-buster

Well, unions don't lead to communism. And you need them in some sense. Just as you need capitalists. Or the state controlling some limited means of production or controlling the conditions the capitalists work under.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Isn't government intervention a defining feature of Communist Dictatorship?

It's a trait of pretty much every government that has ever been.

 

[exchemist]

It generally depends on how it's set up. Price controls were quite successful during World War II.

I'm not a fan of market economics anyway, but when it comes to healthcare, I don't think it's feasible or humane to operate that way.

Fact is, if we really, truly operated according to free market economics in healthcare, there wouldn't be any "war on drugs" or any such thing as a "controlled substance." There would be no such thing as prescription requirements or pharmacies, since all drugs should be over the counter in a truly free market situation. But since that's not the case, you can't really operate according to market economics in this realm.

No, that's a reductio ad absurdum. I am not suggesting any extension of market principles to health provision.

However the fact is that Pharma companies are and always will be commercial and profit-driven. What I am suggesting recognises that but seeks a better way of getting drugs at an acceptable cost. I have worked in procurement in industry. There are ways to improve the buyer's bargaining position, by scaling up on a collective basis and using the leverage.

At the moment the US system is particularly crap, because the payer is an insurance company, who gets paid in turn by (usually) the employer of the insured person. So the insurance company could not care less - it just passes on the bill. The guy whose pocket is ultimately being picked (the employer) is several stages removed from the purchase and does not have the skills, information, time, or incentive to challenge it. It's a broken market.

 

[exchemist]

This only works where there is little or no competition that would fill in their spot in the market - which should tell us something about the nature of the pharmaceutical industry.

It just tells you about the alternatives available to the seller.

If they do not have an alternative outlet they may be forced to accept a lower price, in the short term. However, it does not stop there. When it comes to developing the next product, they will recalculate what return they may expect on their investment. If they can't achieve a certain price, they may decide not to develop the product for your market but to do something else for another market - a malaria drug, say. So then the number of players competing for your business decreases. In the procurement of technical products with a large development cost, there is a dialogue all the time between buyer and seller about long term motivation versus short term pricing. There has to be something in it for both sides. A purely transactional relationship will bite you in the arse eventually, because the seller is not obliged to develop and sell products to you. But a professional procurement organisation will understand the economics of the seller and can get a deal that satisfies the seller's shareholders without getting shafted.

 

[SomeRandom]

Isn't government intervention a defining feature of Communist Dictatorship?

Umm no. My government intervenes in a lot of things. We’re still a capitalist country last I checked.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

​

So I hear Biden is going up against Big Pharma regarding drug pricing for Medicare and the prediction is he going to lose. 1500 lobbyists against one man. Trump also tried to take on Big Pharma and lost.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade organization that spent roughly $8.6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2021, sued to block the policy proposals to import lower-priced prescription drugs. Canada has also hinted that they will oppose large-scale exports.

The Pharmaceuticals and Health Products Industry spent about $92 million on lobbying in the first quarter of the year, more than any other industry.
Big Pharma still largest lobbying spender as Biden signs crackdown executive order, House seeks to pass bill lowering drug prices

I suspect a lot of our healthcare issues start with drug cost.
How can we fix this?

Best way: Move to a civilized country, NOT run by greedy corporations and their republican shills

 

[Twilight Hue]

​

So I hear Biden is going up against Big Pharma regarding drug pricing for Medicare and the prediction is he going to lose. 1500 lobbyists against one man. Trump also tried to take on Big Pharma and lost.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade organization that spent roughly $8.6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2021, sued to block the policy proposals to import lower-priced prescription drugs. Canada has also hinted that they will oppose large-scale exports.

The Pharmaceuticals and Health Products Industry spent about $92 million on lobbying in the first quarter of the year, more than any other industry.
Big Pharma still largest lobbying spender as Biden signs crackdown executive order, House seeks to pass bill lowering drug prices

I suspect a lot of our healthcare issues start with drug cost.
How can we fix this?

You can't.

Biden like Trump did, will just agree to look tough for the camaras and media in general.

You will never ever see actual policy manifest that would back up all tough talk they use.

It's too lucrative for the elites to even bother with it aside from all tough talking and banter. Special interest and lobbying are a political best friend and an exclusive club they will never part with.

 

[Nakosis]

Best way: Move to a civilized country, NOT run by greedy corporations and their republican shills

What about the Democrats?

Unfortunately, a handful of congressional Democrats do oppose acting on the issue. Because Democrats control the House and Senate by narrow margins, this opposition threatens necessary reforms. If that threat becomes a reality, it could doom Democratic prospects for retaining control of Congress in 2022.
Has Big Pharma Bought Enough Democrats to Derail Biden’s Plan?

You don't need the Republicans to fix this.

 

[sun rise]

Isn't government intervention a defining feature of Communist Dictatorship?

No. The government "intervenes" in everything in every nation no matter whether they are free or a dictatorship, free enterprise or communist.

There are some still living in the 50's and 60's when we had McCarthyism and the "red scare" and looked for communists everywhere.

 

[Stevicus]

No, that's a reductio ad absurdum. I am not suggesting any extension of market principles to health provision.

I didn't say you were, but my point was that free market principles don't always work to produce an optimal result. Sometimes government has to intervene.

However the fact is that Pharma companies are and always will be commercial and profit-driven. What I am suggesting recognises that but seeks a better way of getting drugs at an acceptable cost. I have worked in procurement in industry. There are ways to improve the buyer's bargaining position, by scaling up on a collective basis and using the leverage.

At the moment the US system is particularly crap, because the payer is an insurance company, who gets paid in turn by (usually) the employer of the insured person. So the insurance company could not care less - it just passes on the bill. The guy whose pocket is ultimately being picked (the employer) is several stages removed from the purchase and does not have the skills, information, time, or incentive to challenge it. It's a broken market.

Price controls need not be permanent. Sometimes they can be used to send a message to big business, of which big pharma is a part. At the moment, with the government acting as an enabler for big business and virtually giving them a blank check, they have no incentive to change. That's why our system (as you correctly point out) is "crap."

The market is broken because of the flawed philosophy behind public policy. Namely, it's the idea that when there are problems, government can't or should not intervene - even when practical necessity dictates that it should. Our society and our government's hands are tied to adherence to ideology and blind faith in so-called "free markets."

 

[Secret Chief]

Umm no. My government intervenes in a lot of things. We’re still a capitalist country last I checked.

Sorry, sarcasm emoji needed.

 

[Secret Chief]

No. The government "intervenes" in everything in every nation no matter whether they are free or a dictatorship, free enterprise or communist.

There are some still living in the 50's and 60's when we had McCarthyism and the "red scare" and looked for communists everywhere.

Sorry, sarcasm emoji needed.

 

[SomeRandom]

Sorry, sarcasm emoji needed.

Ahh apologies.
I find using /s or rather sets up a sarcastic tone

 

[Stevicus]

Sorry, sarcasm emoji needed.

I could tell you were being sarcastic. I thought it was just US-speak for calling anything the government does "communist" or "socialist."

 

[Secret Chief]

I could tell you were being sarcastic. I thought it was just US-speak for calling anything the government does "communist" or "socialist."

Good god man did you think I'm an American? {storms off in a huff }

 

[Stevicus]

Good god man did you think I'm an American? {storms off in a huff }

Naah, I know you're not American, but I thought you played one on TV.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

What about the Democrats?

Unfortunately, a handful of congressional Democrats do oppose acting on the issue. Because Democrats control the House and Senate by narrow margins, this opposition threatens necessary reforms. If that threat becomes a reality, it could doom Democratic prospects for retaining control of Congress in 2022.
Has Big Pharma Bought Enough Democrats to Derail Biden’s Plan?

You don't need the Republicans to fix this.

Republicans are so far right now, they fell off the scale.

Most Democrats are right wing corporate shills.

Very few Democrats are really Democrats.

imo

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ok, but I don't see other non-communist countries faced with this. How does your country handle it?
If our politicians had the will, but sure, greed seems the better driver in US politics.

We have price control policies, to some extent, and tighter controls over drug company behaviour in terms of their sales models, and flat-out bribing of doctors, etc.
Things aren't perfect here, but I'm horrified at how the American people are serviced by this industry.

Explainer: how is the price of medicine decided in Australia? (theconversation.com)