re: Trump to Big Pharma - "We are going to end Global Free-Loading" - BOOM!

quote:

---

We already have a system that very easily tracks origin on all kinds of products, including drugs. This is a non-issue.

---

Eh. I'm not a super expert on that. But I know many pharmacies which advertise as Canadian pharmacies aren't actually in Canada.

quote:

---

Many companies invest much of their profits into R&D.

---

So they say. There's no requirement to disclose R&D figures so there's no ability to effectively call them out when they charge $80,000 for a 12 week prescription.

quote:

---

So your theory is that demand and willingness to pay has zero effect on US drug prices.

---

Until Obamacare exposed the middle class to those prices thorough a basically mandated catastrophic policy construct, that theory would be 100% correct. Insurance covered it, and insurance covered for it. Previously, there was little or no primary consumer cost exposure.

I am on board with this.

Agreed.

Wife is a Pharmacist. Lets not go too far here Donald.


Need dem wages

The price increases to the U.S. for the Canadian product. Re-importers don't do it for free. But I'm not surprised you missed that.

In a government-controlled market (i.e., a socialist one), the government sets the prices of goods and services at whatever level they feel is best. There is, therefore, less profit available for companies to make. Less profit means less money available for companies to either improve the products they already make or offer new ones, and also means fewer new companies entering the market (if they are even allowed to do so). Overall this means fewer choices for the consumer, poorer quality of products, and less innovation.

In a capitalist market, prices are set by the "invisible hand" of the marketplace. Profit for suppliers, especially in high-demand markets, is high, and competition is heavy. This puts pressure on companies in the market to either put out better, more advanced products, or to reduce costs in order to compete. Overall you have more choices for the consumer, better products, and high innovation.

The problem is that neither of these systems really works when healthcare is involved. A capitalist market functions because there will eventually be a balance struck between what the consumer is willing to pay versus what the supplier is willing to accept. If the supplier prices their goods too high, no one will buy them. But in the case of healthcare, especially when we are talking about potentially life-saving drugs and procedures, there is no real limit to how much a consumer will pay for that sort of product. When demand is essentially infinite, suppliers can charge whatever they think they can get away with. Instead of capitalism, we are left with simple extortion - "Give me a huge sum of money or you're going to die." This is effectively the system that we have in the US. Now, the profit potential for companies in this system is immense, so the competition for that profit is also immense and results in many high-quality products on the market and a huge amount of money poured into R&D, but the financial burden on the consumer is also immense - and, it can certainly be argued, unfair. However, if we agree that a free healthcare market is unfair to consumers, then the only other option is to allow the government to step in, which, as we have already discussed, means the quality and quantity of goods available in that market will necessarily go down. That isn't an optimal outcome either.

The reason other first-world countries are able to make socialized healthcare work at such a high level is because they are able to cheat. They have easy and free access to products which were developed by companies interested in the profit potential of the US market, and they are able to set government controls on the price of those products without worrying that it will negatively impact their quality or quantity. I work for a big pharmaceutical company. We make a product that is needed by millions of people all over the globe. And even so, the US market alone accounts for more of our revenue than every other country in the world put together. Just the same as military protection, the US populace is bearing the cost of providing free benefits to the rest of the first world, and receiving nothing in return.

So, that is the choice we are faced with. Do we socialize healthcare in this country, which would drastically reduce the cost to consumers, but would also negatively impact the quality of healthcare available in not only the US, but in just about every country on earth? Or do we continue to allow the free market to set astronomically high prices, and thereby allow other countries to freeload off the profits companies are able to make here?

And before anyone tries to say the ACA is socialized healthcare, it is not. The ACA just extends health insurance to every US citizen and forces insurance companies to join with taxpayers in footing the bill. It doesn't do anything to address the root issue. I'm glad to hear Trump talk about ending global freeloading, but I'm not sure how he plans to do it without increasing government control of the market. Lessening those controls would seem to have the opposite effect. I'm willing to wait and see what he does, though.

quote:

---

However, the funding of R&D solely on the backs of US taxpayers (while the rest of the 1st World literally pays nothing) has to stop.

---

quote:

---

rural Guatemala

---

quote:

---

rest of the 1st World

---

quote:

---

Guatemala

---

quote:

---

the 1st World

---

quote:

---

Guatemala

---

Perhaps the conundrum is less obvious to you than it should be?

quote:

---

The price increases to the U.S. for the Canadian product. Re-importers don't do it for free. But I'm not surprised you missed that.

---

Perhaps you missed this?

quote:

---

quote:

---

How do we trick the drug manufacturers into selling enough drugs in Canada

---

We introduce you to a world map and to a continent named "Europe".

---