Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well since I'm accused of creating irrelevant side arguments so I can win, let me ask what point burger's point raises.
This started when I said Canada has bad medical and its citizens come here, SAM said "busloads go to Canada to buy pharms." (Of course if true the buses would be raided at the border) I said thats another reason why turning the US into Canada would screw up our health care- pharm cos. would stop developing.
burger points out profits are mainly during the patent period- okay- I don't see how that impacts my argument.
|
Burger is pointing out that there is a stage in the lifespan of a drug when its maker has a monopoly. This is when they make their profits. Later, there are substitutes in the marketplace, and competition drives prices down, close to (if not at) cost. Burger's point is that, without some form of government regulation, monopolies will set prices at levels which maximize their own profits but do not maximize net social utility. They set prices too high for the social good. This is understood w/r/t the phone companies, power companies, etc.
So, unless there is some magic reason why we should want pharma to earn extra-big profits, Econ 101 says we should do something to restrict drug prices during this period.
You may be saying that if we take money away from the drug companies, they won't invest as much in R&D, and we will all suffer. If you think this, it's not clear why.
