[–] acheron2012 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Next study hopes to reveal hidden linkage between standing in the rain and getting wet.

Want cheap healthcare? Make it illegal for the government to participate in any facet of the market. ESPECIALLY putting a floor in prices through medicare and medicaid!

[–] iDontShift 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

want cheap health care? take better care of yourself.

[–] MyWaifuIsNotASlut 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

between that and just gracefully accepting death at age ~85 instead of staying alive as long as possible regardless of much many doctors and drugs are required, most healthcare cost problems would disappear.

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

Make it legal for non "MD's" to operate as doctors and make it legal to sell non pharmaceuticals as treatment / cures and the cost of medical school and health care will plummet.

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

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

Make it illegal for the government to participate in any facet of the market.

My one question about this is how to approach consumer protection. If we have a pharmaceutical industry with zero regulation or government oversight of any kind, how do we stop companies from pushing out poorly tested drugs that harm people (either immediately or sometime down the road)? My assumption would be that you're betting on the fact the company wants to remain profitable and stick around, and so it'd be in their best interest to minimize as much risk as possible, but I'm not convinced that would make as stalwart a defense against experimental/poorly tested drug deaths.

Note that this isn't any advocation for our current system and I'm not defending the pharma industry practices by any means, I'm honestly asking this question. In addition, does "no regulation" at all also mean no anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws? Because that's also regulation (ironically, it would be the opposite of how the FDA is currently operating).

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

Note the era of literal Snake Oil salesmen in the USA, where hucksters sold literally anything with any claim those chose to make. and skipped town before the people died

[–] acheron2012 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Your question is not only a good one - it is a (the?) fundamental problem with human nature and how one organizes a sustainable society; 4000 years of recorded history proves we have not yet mastered this problem. Critically I believe utopia is unobtainable. There will always be suboptimal outcomes. The goal is to accept this and not abandon one's morals at the first sign of imperfection.

You are basically correct that a lot of my belief is based on businesses wishing to remain in business. However it would foolish to assume that is universal. Even today fly-by-night companies attempt to game the system.

The key to where I differ, or at least flesh out Laissez-faire capitalism is that I believe it was a horrific error to give CORPORATIONS Human-Rights. A company is not a human. You cannot throw a corporation in prison - or for that matter line it up and shoot it. Most great evils today are perpetrated by psychopaths shielded from identification, not to mention prosecution by being part of an international corporation. There is no reason why that has to be the case.

It is easily possible, IMMENSELY desirable even, to strip all corporations of ALL human rights. A new legal entity needs to be created. We can call this creature a Corporation. It will have the right to enter into contracts and have the full civil protection afforded by law. It will not however have ANY criminal protection at all. EVERY crime a corporation commits was in fact committed by a living breathing person - and that individual need to see the inside of a prison when they harm others.

Specifically to your question: Bob is allowed to form a corporation and sell stock to investors. These investors would never be held accountable for the companies actions. Companies have boards of directors today. I don't much care if Bob is declared "god" of Merk, or if he answers to a board of 50. The point is that there are decision makers. When Merk sells a new wonder drug that turns out to kill 10% of the people that take it - then a lawsuit would ensue. Now it is completely possible that this was an honest mistake!!! If you want "Wonder Drugs" on the market in less than 2 generations you're going to have to cut out 100 or so decade long "clinical trials". It becomes incumbent upon physicians to "Do some of that Doctor Shit" - not just write scripts for whatever they're getting a kick back on.

So mistakes will happen. People will die. But that goes on today anyway. It is impossible to eliminate risk. We just need to manage it much better. The people that are equipped to manage it are BOB, his board, and his direct reports. If our lawsuit determines that Bob knew this wonder drug was really liquid death but sold it anyway, then BOB -- NOT Merk but Mr. Bob himself -- goes to the electric chair and we execute him.

This is what "doing the most good for the most people" REALLY looks like. And you don't need 250,000 worthless government drones to make it happen.

PS: As an aside this also handily solves the problem of Twitter/Facebook/Reditt et al censoring free speech. They are indisputably a part of public speech today. MORE SO that the fabled public square of the 19th century. By eliminating these corporations Human Rights we can quickly and easily with no fuss or muss apply the Bill Of Rights to them. So when Mark Z deletes your post supporting Judge Moore, or Sergey Brim says you can't own a gun and work for Google, we simply throw these individual humans in prison for 10 years. Their replacements will not infringe on the human rights of the humans that in the end are the only reason the corporation exists in the first place.

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

how do we stop companies from pushing out poorly tested drugs that harm people

By informing ourselves and not buying them. See: Underwriter's Laboratories.

[–] Rellik88 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

we stop companies from pushing out poorly tested drugs that harm people (either immediately or sometime down the road)?

We have that now with the FDA.

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

Bingo.

[–] helpfultechguy 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Get rid of the damn Health Care and Maintenence Organization Act of 1973 that Nixon enacted that made the health care industry for profit. There isn't money in cures people, there's money in treatments. That's why every damn drug we have treats symptoms and not the actual cause, and they charge you out the ass for it.

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

There isn't money in cures people, there's money in treatments.

If someone's got a cure, they'll beat the competition who just has treatments.

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

Prices are higher because thew government mandates that the drug companies have to sell their product to the Third World at discounted prices so they have to make up for it somewhere.

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

Progressive bullshit made by that evil man Soros.

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

Harvard also ceases study because Big Pharama are Big Donors to Harvard and have Children attending Harvard

[–] filthycasual 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

This is actually a difficult problem. Certainly not as simple to fix as the title suggests.

The paper in the OP talks a bit about it, but the crux of this problem is how to encourage research and development without also having ridiculous drug prices. When companies create new drugs they get the exclusive rights to produce said drugs for a certain amount of time. The advantage/purpose of this is the incentive to create new drugs and bring them to market. One problem with this is that the companies with these artificial monopolies will set the price as high as they can get away with. Another problem is that the drug companies are able to make small modifications to a drug to obtain another exclusivity period.

I'm not sure exactly what the solution is. If you take government out of the equation entirely, you risk de-incentivizing research and development, because someone else will just steal your formula and make it cheaper. Perhaps the market can fix this itself via companies keeping secrets instead of filing public patents, but i'm not sure if it's easy to just take a pill and test it somehow to determine the exact contents for reverse engineering. Deregulation would also mean a huge new market for domestic corporate espionage. Who do you think the corporations would cry to when that happens?

You could also come at the problem from the other angle. If deregulation doesn't sound like a good idea, you may want to try adding pricing/profit margin restrictions that go along with the current exclusivity. This comes with its own problems. Surely some research is more difficult and time consuming than others, as well as differences in the ease of creating the finished product. So, who decides the appropriate restriction? That entity is a huge weak point in this system that will be subject to bribery/coercion/corruption.

I'm sure I didn't even think of half of the issues. Even so, deregulation (no artificial monopolies) seems like the best route in my estimation, but good luck getting that passed into law.

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

Agreed. But the major red pill here is that the people of the United States, by paying top dollar for the latest and greatest that Medicine has to offer, subsidizes all those other countries with their "amazing" socialist medicine.

You want to see the UK, Canada and France, among others, freak the fuck out? Pass Universal Healthcare in the US. Watch the subsidies dry up and the cost of everything, not just pharmaceuticals, skyrocket in those other countries.

There's a reason that the US has the best healthcare money can buy, because it costs a lot but it drives innovation like you wouldn't believe. It also allows for the fact that I was able to get an MRI, twice, literally the same day the doctor ordered it. It was not a life threatening situation, just a "make sure everything looks good" and I had my pick of places to go and when to go, including same day. Ask your average Canadian or Brit if they can say the same.

I know that's anecdotal and a bit off topic from pharmaceuticals, but people are so damned ignorant as to what it really costs to have the level of healthcare the US does. All you hear is how horrible it is. I've had relatives, working their "dream job" that had shitty or no benefits make fun of my husbands corporate job, that also complained that our insurance was so good and theirs was shitty/non-existent. They could also get the "awful" corporate job, but chose "the dream" instead. They wanted their cake and to eat it too.

And yes, they were very left wing.

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

Expensive High tech imaging certainly makes the patient feel like the doctor is doing something.

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

I get good healthcare in Singapore for cheap because of government subsidy.

Healthcare in America is still too expensive because you are paying for the welfare recipient as well.

Socialism is bad. Right-wing populism is good.

Same thing like why higher education in America is so expensive. Cuz you gotta pay for the nigger and the mexican's tuition fee too.

Progressive western "welfare" state is fucking bullshit. People who don't want to work should just die of starvation.

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

If you take government out of the equation entirely, you risk

the free market coming up with something else entirely to address the problem. As long as you have forced subsidizing of a protection system, you hamper alternate solutions because government-granted monopolies push the costs of enforcement on citizens rather than the company who benefits.

[–] 00100100-10 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

In a free market system monopolies wouldnt exist. All monopolies exist because of the government.

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

Let me introduce you to the Rockefeller family.

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

Wrong. Wal-Mart is good example of monopoly that nether bad or good.

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

Walmart is good. Best prices around.

[–] freedumbz 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

On stuff like this I like to take a look at the whitepaper. Two things wrong with this already and I haven't looked at it.

1 - Pajeet wrote it

2 - It's behind a paywall so I literally can't look at it.

[–] Kannibal [S] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

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

Yea finally. Like we didn't know this 10 years ago. Our government is just a bunch of bought shills for corporate America.

Fuck this country's politicians. Every single swindling one of them!!

load more comments ▼ (15 remaining)