Turing Pharma 5000% price hike, why regulation doen't cut it

Post Reply New Topic

Yep that is what I said. "sticking plaster" is British for Band-Aid, except I believe Band-Aid is both a brand and general term bit like Hoover.

No it isn't. It works much better than the alternatives.

That's why a significant proportion of Americans want to move towards a single payer system, but few people in countries with single payer systems want an American style system.

Another problem caused by government regulation, and we're told that the solution is more government regulation. Same old song.

One would presume that you, being a Brit, have never experienced a true health care system. And the majority of people don't support Obamacare, let alone a single payer system, unless you want to believe government polls. And you probably do, seeing as how they support your position.
Watch what happens in a few months. The 'support' for Trump isn't really for him, it's against the government. We Americans rebel against tyranny, in case you didn't notice. We did it against George III, and we did it against the 'Progressives' after the Wilson Administration, and we'll do it again

You forgot to invoke Ronald Reagan, Saint of Capitalists. He was the turning point in convincing a fair segment to vote against their own best interests and instead assume that they too were part of the rather elite group that makes their money from investment rather than wages or salaries.

It turns out he lied about the costs. Apparently these sales are bid up, and the finance needed is built into the cost. SO it is inflated intentionally.

It has nothing to do with scientific development, becuase these people aren't in medicine or science.

Also I heard it suggested that he may have been outed by the insurance companies, after all they would be paying him.

It is a good point is it is easy for politician to take aim at him, and sure he deserves it. However they would be so willing to take on the medical insurance companies.

brilliant example of why No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy, as single payer is actually an effective system in most first world countries. America isn't one of these.

Actually, trickle down economics worked. But because the effects didn't fully take hold until the Clinton Regime, he gets the credit. Ironic.

most economists(including Reagan's budget director) don't think it does, nor does the IMF

in fact, the income of the top 1% has increased steadily since Reagan's 2 terms, as shown by the below graph, so what you're basing this claim on is mysterious.

Besides you can turn that argument on its head. People assume things about things that they have not experienced. Yet some are older than the NHS.

The generally kicked around figures (ie easy enough to verify online) are that out of 38 'industrialized' nations, only one does not have nationalized health care. That would be the USA, btw. And in rankings of cost & quality we rank...39th. Just behind....I believe it's Indonesia or some such.

Also the flaw is to rate the quality only on the best hospitals.

I saw a program of a ER (I believe in Florida not sure), and I know the building itself would never be approved for use A&E. I wish I could find a clip. It was completely unsuitable for use, old and cramped. Also these guys were shouting over each other, running around like headless chickens, with no leadership and oversight. You would expect it to be closed.

I got the impression it was the type of place where inexperienced ER doctors got a baptism of fire, in a poor area. I know it had "charity" in the name. But I have also been told there are no charity hospital anymore apparent.

Yes, and that's PER PILL!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0

So, assuming a patient has to take one, everyday, that went from forking-over just shy of $400 a month, to over $20 THOUSAND, PER MONTH----an amount some people don't make in a YEAR!! The guy, figuratively speaking, oughta be SHOT!!

Hear, hear!!

How do governments regulations are responsible for that? This is not the government who raised the price, but a greedy CEO.

The CEO is a jerk. But he's only able to inflict his jerkiness on others because of government regulations granting him a virtual monopoly. 

A free market discourages price gouging. If Lowe's arbitrarily decided to start charging $1000 for a hammer, even Jimmie Johnson would start buying his hammers at Sears or Home Depot instead. 

Daraprim is a generic, whose patent expired decades ago, but Turing holds the sole US license for its manufacture. It's not in much demand, only being prescribed to a few thousand US patients a year, so while it was cheap there was little incentive for competitors to bother selling their own version. A dramatic price rise changes that – or it would, in a free market. Unfortunately, American pharmaceuticals aren't made or marketed in a free market or anything even close to one. 

1. It can't be imported. (Glaxo, which owned the US license for Daraprim until 2010, still makes and sells it in other countries, for about a nickel a dose; obviously the pills are identical.) Officially this is because the FDA doesn't trust any other country's vetting procedure. (Somebody yell "Thalidomide!") With well-established, thoroughly tested generics like this, the real reason is: to protect US manufacturers from competition. 

2. Getting a "new" drug approved for sale on the market – even an identical copy of a well-established generic – is slow and expensive. A would-be competitor would have to put his version of Daraprim through clinical trials, as if it were a brand-new drug, just to prove that it was actually identical to the original. (Mass spectrography and X-ray chromatography now analyze substances with a precision never dreamed of when these procedures were first devised. And they do it in minutes.)

Also, the FDA currently has a three years' backlog of applications for approval of generics. So if Turing had stuck to their guns and their arbitrary high price, they would have enjoyed at least three years of monopoly before any competition might have been allowed. 
Again, this procedure is ostensibly to protect consumers – but in fact it protects established firms from competition. 

Jerks will always be with us. Not only can they not be legislated out of existence, government regulations tend to give them power they never could have attained in a free society. 

"Martin Shkreli’s brazen legal fleecing would be impossible in an unfettered market. He bought himself a monopoly made entirely of health-and-safety red tape."

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/bad-reg ... -business/