Presidential Election 2016 Oct 15, 2015 21:58:12 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Oct 15, 2015 21:58:12 GMT -5
For starters, all of jaedrik's sources are speculation and opinion based pieces instead of actual data. I'm going to start in weird order, but I would like to tackle the piece on pharmaceuticals and regulations on them.
As Aristotle and Aquinas taught, every study has its proper method. One cannot apply the deductive logic used to arrive at undeniable truths in metaphysics to the physical sciences which require an inductive method.
Likewise, economics is a deductive and psychological science.
The article in question: mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-fda
Said source ALREADY starts off disingenuous by claiming that R&D costs to the cost of a drug apply to a company that bought a company which already did the R&D. Even the FDA approval being part of the new company's cost could be seen as disingenuous because from the wording it appears that the drug was already submitted, and thus submission costs were already paid for by the previous company.
"Sachs is being somewhat disingenuous in representing the production cost of Sofosbuvir as $100, and the markup as 800 times costs (as he did in an August 7 tweet. There are substantial fixed costs involved in R&D, trials and FDA approval, and the like. Any company incurring those costs expects to recover them by charging an above-marginal cost, and if trade secrets or other features of the market allow them to do so, they will."
In this particular, whether he's right or wrong is tertiary and does not undermine the main points of the article as his mess-up here in no way disproves anything else.
The principle behind the example is sound, they merely don't apply to Sofosbuvir.
x800 of production cost is just a number which is irrelevant to the true nature of our discussion: namely, why the thing costs so much. Either way, including R&D and other costs or not (which I don't know Gilead inherited the debt or anything else), they'd still be in massive excess.
It then goes on to suggest, without any proof, that removing the FDA's ability to take time to look into the drug would somehow lead to LESS deaths.
Terrell is right in this particular.
The free market drives down costs and raises quality of service.
Bad drug companies would be punished according to the mandates of the market economically, and by civil law on damages against particular people.
It then talks about patents and makes the bold claim that outright removing patents on pharmaceuticals would be fine. Anyone that puts some thought on the subject knows that removing patents would lead to pressure on the company to drive up the price of drug drastically, leading to FURTHER DELAY of the patient being able reasonably acquire the drug due to temporarily increased costs.
Anyone that puts some thought on the subject knows that removing patents would lead to a mad rush by the competition to get in on the lucrative profits available, thus increasing the supply and driving down costs.
The best solution is to have a reasonable time limit on the patent based on how long it takes for the company to start making a net profit while using reasonable prices.
The best solution is to abolish the patent system.
Who are you to say your arbitrary "reasonable time limit" and "reasonable prices" are inherently morally superior to the free market's non-arbitrarily decided time limits and prices?
There are infinitely more problems with government granted monopoly and price controls as a whole than the purported injustices of the market process.
But my favorite part is when the source objects to idea of aspirin not being allowed to be advertised as a way to prevent heart attack. Because yeah, let's risk people's lives by encouraging them to constantly shove blood thinners into their system to prevent myocardial infarction rather than actual preventative measures like diet, exercise, and specific kinds of surgery. Oh what's that, you got a minor open wound, well time to call an ambulance to treat what is now a major bleed. There's a reason that at most doctors will suggest to their patients to regularly take a single Baby aspirin instead of a full dose.
Aspirin makers are naturally incentivized to inform, takers are naturally incentivized to know. People will make stupid decisions regardless, and I'd argue that the same people who will not do what they OUGHT and take preventative steps like you mentioned won't be affected by this. In fact, in their attempts to rationalize their stupidity, they will likely already know the facts about aspirin and use the drug in such a manner. Then there are the people who actually need to know this stuff to save them.
That's just one article though. I'll have more to say as I keep reading the other sources, though I have a feeling it's going to be more disingenuous stuff like that pharmaceutical article.