[–] Broc_Lia 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

"Gouging" is a meaningless word. You can say anyone is "gouging" if they're charging more than you'd like them to.

The problem in this situation is that pharma companies are routinely granted monopolies, so they can charge what they like without any fear someone else will make a better offer. Remove the monopoly and you'll remove the problem, we'll have market prices within a year.

[–] Saufsoldat 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

monopolies

The word you're looking for is patents. You're saying you want to completely remove all patents, not monopolies. Monopolies would still exist and be much more prevalent than they are now.

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Patents are a monopoly.

And no, markets tend to be very harsh on monopolies. Natural monopolies can occur, but price signals mean that they'll never be stable. In order to have a stable monopoly, force is required, like by the FDA.

[–] BohMoon 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I agree free markets (capitalism) would solve the problem. Don't need big government to enforce free markets, corporations and their billionaire investors don't like competition. Don't need a big government, just a small strong government to enforce the rules of capitalism instead of granting monopolies.

[–] bikergang_accountant 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Patents need to be shorter. They would not exist in a purely free market and are not a natural right. We do not make them to protect the natural rights of researchers and developers. We have patents so that the productivity of the research will be available to other companies eventually. The constitution says so. If no other company ever makes use of it, it was a waste of a patent. The right period of time to have patents is the time that best serves other companies. The wants of the original developer shouldn't be considered at all.

5 year period to guarentee first to market. That's it.

[–] Saufsoldat 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

In the same comment you claim the free market would fix it and then say the free market wouldn't fix it because you need government to enforce the rules.

In the free market, pharma companies would charge whatever the fuck they want and if 1000 rich people pay $1 million each for their new miracle cure, then that's a better payday than 1 million poor people paying them $10 each.

[–] rspix000 [S] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Remove the monopoly

Sounds like regulations and laws that mean big government b/c Pig Pharma goes around buying up their competitors without someone to watch them.

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The only reason buying up a competitor is a viable strategy in the first place is because of intellectual monopolies granted by the government. Drugs are pretty cheap to manufacture, without uncle sam setting up little cartels everywhere, a pharma company buying up their own competition would mean they have no competition for a month or two. At best.

[–] Crow_T_robocop 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You won't have any new drugs because no company will pay for the research if they can't make money on the product. In general, the patent period for a new drug is 20 years--which sounds like a lot--but that is twenty years from the time the company applies for and is granted by the FDA permission to begin testing in humans. There are three phases of testing that must be performed, and each phase typically takes a couple of years at least. In general, and without proper sources to back up my claims, I would suggest that half of the twenty-year patent period is spent on testing, and this testing costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I would suggest that half of the twenty-year patent period is spent on testing, and this testing costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

So you're saying the government mandated testing is excessive and is preventing new drugs from entering the market? I agree, we should get rid of that too.

[–] derram 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

https://archive.is/ioj94 | https://vgy.me/JnA167.png :

Class action attorney Steve Berman is taking on the drug industry - Business Insider

'In his latest lawsuits against drug companies, Berman is taking a cue from cases against the Gambino, Lucchese, and Genovese crime families. '

'"The theme in all the cases is that the consumer is powerless, and the drug companies know that," Berman said in an interview. '

'Class action attorney Steve Berman is coming after a drug industry he says is "gouging" the American consumer. '

'"It's completely opaque, so the drug companies will take advantage of that any time they can."', "Berman's firm is still recruiting patients to join as plaintiffs, and each case is awaiting judicial certification as a class action."

This has been an automated message.

[–] PraiseIPU 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

thing is if it wasn't just blatant greed and indifference to human life I actually wouldn't mind.

like I'm willing to pay 10x the price if it offsets the cost to people that can't afford meds.

but gouging prices while also being subsidized by the government and running a 20%+ profit margin is just gaming the system for greed.

[–] killercanuck 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The 20% thing doesn't sound bad it's the subsidization along with applying charge master rates to people who are under government assistance. Most companies generally aim for 19-30% profit to cover their operating costs and create a safety buffer so I don't see why a company taking the risks to produce these products can't earn money this way. It's when there's insane pricing for really simple medications or direct marketing to physicians that's the issue. That along with a lot of medications(including schedule 1 drugs) need reclassification so people can purchase them directly from pharmacists. If people have the option to shop for certain medications by seeing the price first rather than have a prescription covered by insurance as a barrier you'll see way more competitive pricing. It would also save the taxpayers and the poor money if lower class people normally covered by medicare/medicaid/tricare just shop for medications without the system to intervene. There are way too many behind the counter remedies for things like dandruff, erectile dysfunction, or even mild depression that shouldn't need a prescription to acquire.

[–] Viropher 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

May the Gods protect that man.

[–] 8851976 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not the Greek ones?: http://www.jta.org/2015/10/15/news-opinion/world/greek-drug-firms-rep-warns-parliament-of-jewish-conspiracy

During Wednesday’s debate in parliament, Dimitris Giannakopoulos, the president of the Hellenic Association of Pharmaceutical Companies, said 11,000 Greek jobs would be lost and blamed the measure on pressure from Jewish groups in order to benefit Israeli generic drug makers.

[–] Freaktheswamp 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Can he take on the lawyers who make drugs even more expensive?

[–] rspix000 [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I have a client who had a heart attack while taking Vioxx by Merc that hid its known side effects and had to cover damages for a class of consumers injured by the unsafe drug it marketed heavily to doctors. This is why the corps all try to take away your right to class actions where you can band together with similarly affected consumers to take on the "hardened targets". This system makes drugs more expensive in the same way that a drunk driver who denied drinking is required to pay up for folk he injured. If you are interested you can read about the pharma industry practices here: http://truecostofhealthcare.net/the_pharmaceutical_industry/

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I don't see the point in suing pharma companies or doctors if your treatment doesn't work out. Medicine is about the most complex field of engineering there is, and it's virtually guaranteed that some treatments will backfire horribly. If we're able to sue every time that happens, then the costs will just end up on the bill of the next person looking for treatment.

The bottom line is that you shouldn't trust pharma company's claims about their products any more than you should uncritially trust any other form of advertising. You should base your decisions on the drug's track record, and if you make the decision to consent to a certain course of treatment, take responsibility for that decision.

[–] selpai 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The real enemy here is the drug patent system.

[–] edistojim 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And once again the only ones that will benefit and get rich are the lawyers.

[–] beetles 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The author continually uses the acronym PBM without defining what it stands for. This makes the article virtually unreadable. ;/

[–] openair 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This is really good news to hear.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)