Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 41 Times in 23 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    Quote Originally Posted by silverlifter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by silverlifter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.
    Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.
    The only state that does those things well is the State of Utopia.
    It's one thing to make a throwaway comment, another entirely to provide some supporting rationale. Those countries that do provide state owned healthcare, education etc, tend to rank at the top of economic and wellbeing indicators, eg these ones. The top 10 all provide state owned healthcare and education.

    So, not utopia, just enlightened.

    #edit: I initially missed your first post, with the link to the Reason article. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. I understand you have that weird American syndrome where, probably because you have not lived anywhere else, you can't conceive of a system that is not fundamentally broken the way yours is. As I said in a previous post, I am genuinely sorry you live in a failed state. Just don't project your own issue onto onther nations, some of us are able to manage a lot better...
    Universal healthcare, socialist, failed state?

    Like Venezuela?

    At least its gold escaped to Africa.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kazoolaw For This Useful Post:

    calamus (June 19th, 2019), dneal (June 19th, 2019)

  3. #22
    Member silverlifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 85 Times in 39 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by silverlifter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by silverlifter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.
    Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.
    The only state that does those things well is the State of Utopia.
    It's one thing to make a throwaway comment, another entirely to provide some supporting rationale. Those countries that do provide state owned healthcare, education etc, tend to rank at the top of economic and wellbeing indicators, eg these ones. The top 10 all provide state owned healthcare and education.

    So, not utopia, just enlightened.

    #edit: I initially missed your first post, with the link to the Reason article. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. I understand you have that weird American syndrome where, probably because you have not lived anywhere else, you can't conceive of a system that is not fundamentally broken the way yours is. As I said in a previous post, I am genuinely sorry you live in a failed state. Just don't project your own issue onto onther nations, some of us are able to manage a lot better...
    Universal healthcare, socialist, failed state?

    Like Venezuela?

    At least its gold escaped to Africa.
    At least attempt to read the thread before flouting your ignorance.

    Venezuela is not one of the ten countries I listed as successfully delivering public services.

    Nor is that the equivalent of socialism. Except in the sheltered minds of morons incapable of adressing an argument with anything more than memes of their equally imbecilic president.
    Vintage. Cursive italic. Iron gall.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to silverlifter For This Useful Post:

    azkid (June 20th, 2019)

  5. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 41 Times in 23 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    Touched the last nerve, I see.

  6. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 41 Times in 23 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    Quote Originally Posted by silverlifter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.
    Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.
    Reference to The Ten, or to The State?

  7. #25
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    542
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked 460 Times in 200 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    Quote Originally Posted by silverlifter View Post
    Nor is that the equivalent of socialism. Except in the sheltered minds of morons incapable of adressing an argument with anything more than memes of their equally imbecilic president.
    When youíre ready to make a cogent argument instead of lumping a few assertions together with insults, maybe youíll get more than memes.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    calamus (June 20th, 2019)

  9. #26
    Senior Member azkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,118
    Thanks
    1,894
    Thanked 952 Times in 439 Posts
    Rep Power
    3

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by azkid View Post
    I'd love to end socialism for big companies. Those parasites have been draining the middle and lower classes for decades.
    While I agree with your first sentence, Iím skeptical about the second. How are big companies draining the middle and lower classes?
    One example: the latest last tax cuts benefitted large corporations and the rich directly and the lower and middle class much less if at all. Those tax cuts were intended to "trickle down" but many large corps simply did stock buybacks with the extra money.

    Lowering top tier taxes had been going on since Reagan. Horse and sparrow economics hasn't really done much for the little guy.

    Going back to the financial crisis a few years ago, the greed of a few bankrupted many individuals (and companies), and many people are still only just recovering. Who got the bailout? Not individuals but large companies. On top of the financial damage inflicted by companies our tax dollars went to bail out those same greedy companies.

    Unfortunately, wages have been pretty stagnant for awhile while housing costs seem to keep growing. Healthcare costs keep growing as well. And education costs. All putting more and more pressure on the middle and lower classes. Sure unemployment numbers look great but nobody mentions how many jobs people have to work just to get by.

    Somehow it is totally acceptable for a family to end up destitute and homeless from getting sick one time, because they can't afford healthcare or insurance, while it is also perfectly fine to bail out or subsidize big companies.

  10. #27
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    542
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked 460 Times in 200 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    Quote Originally Posted by azkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by azkid View Post
    I'd love to end socialism for big companies. Those parasites have been draining the middle and lower classes for decades.
    While I agree with your first sentence, Iím skeptical about the second. How are big companies draining the middle and lower classes?
    One example: the latest last tax cuts benefitted large corporations and the rich directly and the lower and middle class much less if at all. Those tax cuts were intended to "trickle down" but many large corps simply did stock buybacks with the extra money.

    Lowering top tier taxes had been going on since Reagan. Horse and sparrow economics hasn't really done much for the little guy.

    Going back to the financial crisis a few years ago, the greed of a few bankrupted many individuals (and companies), and many people are still only just recovering. Who got the bailout? Not individuals but large companies. On top of the financial damage inflicted by companies our tax dollars went to bail out those same greedy companies.

    Unfortunately, wages have been pretty stagnant for awhile while housing costs seem to keep growing. Healthcare costs keep growing as well. And education costs. All putting more and more pressure on the middle and lower classes. Sure unemployment numbers look great but nobody mentions how many jobs people have to work just to get by.

    Somehow it is totally acceptable for a family to end up destitute and homeless from getting sick one time, because they can't afford healthcare or insurance, while it is also perfectly fine to bail out or subsidize big companies.
    A few things are mingled together here. First, which is what I agree with, is an aversion to "corporate welfare". Doesn't matter to me whether it's subsidies to large corporate farms or automaker bailouts.

    Second is tax cuts to corporations. I tend to agree with lower tax rates in general. Lower corporate tax rates appear to me to increase investment, which leads to job growth. Kennedy, Reagan and Trump in particular have advocated and implemented this, and the results seem consistent. Job growth leads to a higher demand and lower supply, which increases wages. I believe this is reasonably demonstrable. You just have to pick the right field, and most of the liberal arts degrees don't work out.

    Education and healthcare costs are affected greatly by administrative burden / costs, most of which are mandated by the State. I'll post links later when I have a little more time. Healthcare costs in particular are interesting, and there's a reasonable argument that the problem is that we don't directly see the costs since a great portion of them are "hidden" by insurance. There is a lot of writing on this subject, what the costs used to be, and how businesses began offering healthcare as a tax-free method of offering "higher wages" to employees. There have been startups of doctors offering subscription based fixed fee healthcare, which is in line with how healthcare used to be delivered. It seems to be a viable, successful alternative.

    Housing is a tricky topic given the variety of markets and their demand. A 1920's craftsman "fixer-upper" is worth 60-80k in the midwest, and $150k or so when renovated. This same type construction is worth over a million in a California market. Housing regulations and restrictions which are largely governed locally tend to be a major influence. San Francisco is a prime example of how government can screw up a housing market.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    calamus (June 20th, 2019)

  12. #28
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,546
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked 652 Times in 416 Posts
    Rep Power
    5

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    The U.S. never really left the gold standard...


  13. The Following User Says Thank You to SIR For This Useful Post:

    carlos.q (June 30th, 2019)

  14. #29
    Senior Member carlos.q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    On a hill in Puerto Rico
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    935
    Thanked 901 Times in 408 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    I live in a failed state. Our island is bankrupt as a result of a toxic combination of generous tax breaks for the rich, including pharmaceutical companies, and many corrupt politicians. Meanwhile there is a constantly diminishing quality of life for the rest of us.

  15. #30
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    542
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked 460 Times in 200 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    Back on topic, the Hoover Institution has a pretty good article on drug pricing, development and production costs, etc...

    From the article:

    The basic flaw behind both proposals is that they assume that there is a unique ďpriceĒ at which pharmaceutical drugs sell. That assumption often works in competitive markets in which the costs of development are low relative to the marginal (i.e. additional) cost of production for each unit. But so-called marginal cost pricing does not work for new pharmaceutical drugs whose development costs are already high and getting ever higher. Companies are constantly researching and trying to develop new drugs with strong therapeutic properties and tolerable side effects. They also face huge costs in shepherding promising drugs through three stages of clinical trials, each one more complicated than the last. Many promising new drugs wash out in these clinical trials, which means that a pharmaceutical company can remain solvent only if its blockbuster drugs yield enough revenue to offset the costs of its duds. And finally, companies incur huge financing costs as they bring drugs to market. Development and clinical trials take years to complete, and drug companies have to find ways to finance expenditures made in year one with revenues that will only start, typically, some eight to 10 years later.

    So how are these costs best recovered over the relatively short period during which the drugs receive patent protection, which today works out to around 11 years, give or take, for a major blockbuster drug? The common suggestion is that each purchaser should only be required to pay for the marginal cost of producing the drug that he or she consumes. This was the idea behind Trumpís aborted executive order. In a market that is characterized by high fixed costs of development, that strategy offers favorable prospects for all customers but oneóthe first. So if a drug takes one billion dollars to research and develop, but only $10 to produce each unit, the marginal cost formula says that the first consumer has to pay the billion dollars so that the other consumers can get the favorable deal. That formula guarantees that no drug will ever make it to market.

  16. #31
    FP Enthusiast Emeritus mhosea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,544
    Thanks
    412
    Thanked 1,752 Times in 755 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: state ownership of pharmaceutical production

    It's difficult to formulate mitigation strategies without introducing deleterious side-effects. And yet, I think minor tweaks with incentives and regulations is by far the safer route, trying to attenuate the extreme cases of abuse.

    I don't think it's reasonable to compare potential state ownership of pharmaceutical production with any service that the government provides, whether they arguably perform that service well or not. Production of goods and providing services are different thigns. We can point to cases where government has achieved great things that were not fundamentally services, e.g. going to the moon, but off the top of my head I can't think of any that didn't involve exorbitant, often nearly prohibitive costs. If the goal is to save somebody money, I would think long and hard about having the state control it. Is there some model of state production of any goods (not services) that has been a fiscal success?
    --
    Mike

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to mhosea For This Useful Post:

    SIR (July 16th, 2019)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •