Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
What a load, it's easier because the American system has already subsidized the R&D.
The "American system" you refer to, as it has evolved, is not a free market system. And the greatest facilitator to this system is government and its collusion with crony capitalists and its desire to assume responsibility for the lives of its citizens. Research and development of pharmaceuticals should be a private concern paid for by private entities and purchased by private individuals. Why is R&D for drugs so much more than it is for other industries? How much would costs be affected if we had third party pay for clothing, for cars, for houses (oh yeah Fanny Mae and the housing collapse), food stamps as the method for all to pay. When government subsidizes and other third party pays for the products doesn't that affect prices as opposed to free market transactions by individual buyers and sellers.
Believe it or not safety is actually a concern. The government is looking after the consumer, in return the producers demand price control to maintain high profit levels.
The only control over price the producer has is the maximum amount the buyer can pay. That is, if the producer wants to sell. When the government "looks after" the consumer by mounting an unsustainable debt for its services, the consumer might find a better deal with a reputable free market seller. For the most part, producers would "look after" safety if the market was truly competitive and they wished to stay in business. Even a reputation of poor products that may not be deserved or is exaggerated is enough to cost a producer sales. Would fly-by-night snake oil sellers exist without government "looking after"? Of course. They exist even with it. And much of the snake oil is sold to us by government in terms of overbearing costly regulations and do good policy's and programs. Would some government regulation be good. Sure. Preferably by State and local governments where citizens have more control
I think you actually can have safety and affordability but the expense is of course margin.
Here's a very interesting opinion from today's NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/op...vQr2OMAxWf/NKA
-spence |
The article seems to be advocating free market principles--introduce competition by open and honest information rather than clandestine deals between hospitals, doctors, and medical device producers. And the elimination of collusion between lobbyists and government.
The article also points out that the tax does nothing to "solve" the lack of free market transactions nor to lower costs and prices. On the other hand, the tax does put more money into the coffers of government--ill gotten gains from rotten fruit.