| Spanky |
01-16-2006 11:31 PM |
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. I don't like subsidies either. But subsidizing a massive, inefficient system which seeks to monitor what millions of people get at the point of purchase is just a foolish waste of money better devoted to a program which would lower the price of drugs, thus removing the need for the inefficient program. My thinking is simple - easier to fund and monitor companies than to develop, implement and oversee millions of people's purchase of drugs. You think the waste and damage due to fraud and lobbying for subsidies would outweight the waste and damage caused by a massive impossible-to-administer program which consumers can never hope to understand?
|
I think there are two issues here. I think the drug companies have plenty of a profit motive to come up with drugs that help people. The drug companys will continue to do their research and find cures. In addition, subsidizing drug companys will make the drugs cheaper for both rich and poor people. The rich don't need any help. They can pay full price for the drugs.
The second issues is providing drugs for those who can't afford them. No matter how much you subsidize the drug companys, they will charge money for their drugs and there will be people that can't afford them. The market works well in providing the consumers that have money with what they want. No need to mess with the market there. What the market does not take care of (no matter how efficient it is) is providing poor people with what they need. That is where the government steps in. Yes, setting up a huge wasteful bureacratic system to provide drugs to the needy is a drain on tax dollars, but it is a necessary drain. Yes there will be tons of fraud and waste. But that is the only way to do it. A big wasteful fraudulent bueracracy that provides drugs to poor people is better than having the poor people not get the drugs they need.
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield Like federal funding for overpriced drugs isn't a subsidization...
|
This is where Ty and I also get into arguments. Yes providing poor people with drugs is a subsidy, but you are not messing with an efficient market. There is no market to provide drugs to poor people, and that is something the government has to do, so the government steps in. But when it comes to a market (like the drug market) that is running efficiently the government does not need to step in to pick winners and loser, and decide which companys get money. The government should let the market weed out the inefficient producers and reward the efficient producers. Let the free market do what it does best.
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield We're arguing 6 versus half a dozen here. You like a ground-up model, I prefer going from top down. Either way, the money reaches the same drug company pockets. I think mine is a better model because its administration costs are smaller, and it can be monitoroed much more closely. I'm advocating the same safety net, I'm just throwing it differently.
|
Not really, because your system focuses on the companys and mine focuses on the poor people. The poor people are the ones that need help, not the drug companys. And if a drug company is going out of business, let it go out of business. But if someone is going to die if they don't get certain drugs, you give them the drugs.
|