Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Patents were included in the constitution to give incentive to inventors.

No, patents were included in the Constitution in order to preempt then-existing state patent laws, which were all over the map (har, har). Considering that previously patents were governed by royally granted monopolies even outside the invention arena, patents were understood, then and now, to be a perfect example of sovereign giveth, and sovereign taketh away. If the policy no longer works or impedes trade and invention, Congress changes the patent laws (in theory; modern lobbying has made this all but impossible).

I don't think you were saying patents are underpinned by some sort of constitutional policy one way or another, but I think we should be clear. It's just an extension of the Commerce Clause, not a constitutional right or constitutional policy value.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Courtesy of the NYT, via Wonkette, scenes from a GOP protest in Gotham:

• At one point, as hundreds of guests with invitations waited to pass through velvet barriers to enter the club, a small group of men in bowler hats and women in gowns marched up, chanting, "Four more wars" and "Re-elect Rove."
  
  As the group approached, a man who appeared to be a security agent of some type, was overheard whispering into a microphone: "We've got two groups. One for and one against."
  
  Actually, it was two against. The person was confused by a group that calls itself Billionaires for Bush, a collection of activists who use satire to make a political point. Indeed, members of the Sierra Club, who were protesting on the other side of the street were also confused and began shouting at what they thought was a pro-Bush contingent.
  
  "We want the truth and we want it now!" the Sierra protesters shouted.
  
  The billionaires shouted back, "Buy your own president!"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That's wonderful. But you still haven't got anything to say about Burger's observation that profits are made in this business before generics can compete. Evidently it's a tough industry in which to design around the patent. (Which, after all, is a form of government regulation limiting competition.)

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If the policy no longer works or impedes trade and invention, Congress changes the patent laws (in theory; modern lobbying has made this all but impossible).

To be clear...anyone says this shit again- I send some megahert at them over the internet. Atticus I'll give this one break, but you are treading on dangerous ground here- SAM may finally agree with me on something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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.

Sure, but it makes your argument irrelevant. People take buses to Canada. You win. People take buses to NYC. 1-1.

The core of the argument is that by allowing the reimportation of drugs from Canada you're undercutting american drug co. profitability. Same as if you impose price regulation on those drugs in the US. Well, you're still winning. But so what.

Because my response was exactly that, so what. You have to demonstrate that hurting profitability is a bad thing for US society. It is possible, see Viscusi et al., to over protect. And it's my contention, admittedly without support, that we overspend on healthcare and therefore create incentives for overinvestment in health care R&D. So, if you lower the profits drug cos. make, just possibly you're reducing the amount of R&D to the socially optimal level.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Courtesy of the NYT, via Wonkette, scenes from a GOP protest in Gotham:

• At one point, as hundreds of guests with invitations waited to pass through velvet barriers to enter the club, a small group of men in bowler hats and women in gowns marched up, chanting, "Four more wars" and "Re-elect Rove."
  
  As the group approached, a man who appeared to be a security agent of some type, was overheard whispering into a microphone: "We've got two groups. One for and one against."
  
  Actually, it was two against. The person was confused by a group that calls itself Billionaires for Bush, a collection of activists who use satire to make a political point. Indeed, members of the Sierra Club, who were protesting on the other side of the street were also confused and began shouting at what they thought was a pro-Bush contingent.
  
  "We want the truth and we want it now!" the Sierra protesters shouted.
  
  The billionaires shouted back, "Buy your own president!"

That sounds like the time Michael Moore hired the Infernal Bridegroom theater troupe to cheer outside of Ellis Unit during an execution.

• David Atwood, president of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, and Dudley Sharp, vice president of Justice for All, both visibly pissed off, yelled at each other at almost exactly the same time, "Did you do this?" then, "No!"
  *
  *
  *
  "Is this what George Bush wants?" asked Atwood. "The cheerleaders?" Sharp put his hand on Atwood's shoulder and said, "Anti-death-penalty and pro-death-penalty strongly believe in what they're doing, and that doesn't include disrespecting the other side." Meanwhile, a bare-chested, body-painted, football-helmeted man ran through the crowd with a "Death" pennant.

http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2...l/1/index.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
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.

Why not regulate what the royalty is on lasik?

Why not regulate what Lemuelson makes on bar code readers?

how much should the gov't let GM charge for its new airbag systems?

What you're arguing then isn't really providing gov't ensured health care, you're arguing to pull the plug on patents for pharm. or at a minimum control how the patents are used. That will certainly kill incentive in a business that is already dealing with very tight margins.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, if you lower the profits drug cos. make, just possibly you're reducing the amount of R&D to the socially optimal level.

but drug development over the past 20 years resulted in a drug my father can take to handle COPD and add 10+ years to his life. I'd rather you not risk ruining that incentive to "just possibly" reduce R&D to some better level.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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.

I think he's saying that:

(a) since the bulk of pharma profits come during periods in which they have a statutorily-granted monopoly on the products at issue, and

(b) because monopoly pricing is inherently inefficient,

(c) therefore, drug prices could be regulated/lowered to reach a more socially efficient price somewhat lower than current prices, and

(d) drug companies would still invest and make products and profits.

Of course, finding the right price to strike that balance is tricky, to say the least.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

You may be partly right -- in that the buses are mainly going to Mexico to buy drugs, but plenty of folks cross to Canada for that purpose Google it.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
burger points out profits are mainly during the patent period- okay- I don't see how that impacts my argument.

My simplified elucidation of his antitrust-theory related arguments should make the applicability of his arguments to yours crystalline.

Dull Normal

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why not regulate what the royalty is on lasik?

Sure, you can regulate the price of everything. Although the reds figured out that while it works, in theory, it doesn't.

But we're not talking about all of society, we're talking about health care. and while it's a perfectly defensible position to say "everyone for themselves" it appears that's not one taken by the majority. So, once you're into a regulated world, which we are, the question is "how best to do it" not "we shouldn't do it at all."

And you still haven't responded to the point that perhaps the incentives for R&D in the drug/health industries are supra-optimal. I mean, spend enough and we can prevent any disease, but if you're spending a billion dollars to save one person, are you getting the best value for the dollar?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


My simplified elucidation of his antitrust-theory related arguments should make the applicability of his arguments to yours crystalline.

Ummm....whats these words mean?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
To be clear...anyone says this shit again- I send some megahert at them over the internet. Atticus I'll give this one break, but you are treading on dangerous ground here- SAM may finally agree with me on something.

Atticus -- it is too a Constitutional right, implemented by statute.

Further -- there have been several rounds of substantial changes in the patent laws over the past 20 years. Including, for example, to tie the threads in a bow -- the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act (1984) addressing the expedited procedures for approval of generic drugs -- and pre-approval patent litigation on said drugs.

You may wish to tend to your knitting on this one.

BTW -- talk about a extraordinarily complex statute fraught with unintended consequences.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
BTW -- talk about a extraordinarily complex statute fraught with unintended consequences.

S_A_M

one being the development of the second nerdiest board on infirm.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, you can regulate the price of everything. Although the reds figured out that while it works, in theory, it doesn't.

Is it a basic premise of your argument that drug companies make "too much" profit?