Should the government make drugs?

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
Elizabeth Warren Plan Would Allow the Government to Manufacture Its Own Generic Drugs

A bill from Elizabeth would allow the government to manufacture generic drugs that aren't being put on the market due to market failures.

I am not sure how I feel about this. I am not comfortable with the government making drugs, even generic ones, but I can recognize the social benefit of this type of system.

What do you guys think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted15807

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,907
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
I'm not sure I have a full understanding at this time what the economic impact of this type of thing would be. I do think that the government typically can't do things as well as the private sector, but if the private sector refuses to do something that benefits people because they make more money denying people certain treatment then some governing body should take the responsibility of ensuring people are getting the medical treatment that they need.

I do think it is a weird sentiment to not be comfortable with the government making drugs. If you aren't comfortable with the government doing that, then why be comfortable with a long list of things the government does? Declaring was, not declaring war and making warlike actions, turning the prison system into a business, etc. If its about trusting the government, or not trusting the government, I don't think manufacturing medication is the place to start having problems.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Elizabeth Warren Plan Would Allow the Government to Manufacture Its Own Generic Drugs

A bill from Elizabeth would allow the government to manufacture generic drugs that aren't being put on the market due to market failures.

I am not sure how I feel about this. I am not comfortable with the government making drugs, even generic ones, but I can recognize the social benefit of this type of system.

What do you guys think?

I think the plan is so stupid it further damages any credibility she thinks she has as a presidential candidate.
 

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,907
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
I think the plan is so stupid it further damages any credibility she thinks she has as a presidential candidate.

Can you explain what it is about the plan that makes you feel that way? You've only explained your emotional reaction to the plan, not your thoughts on what is right or wrong about the plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wallyj84

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
I'm not sure I have a full understanding at this time what the economic impact of this type of thing would be. I do think that the government typically can't do things as well as the private sector, but if the private sector refuses to do something that benefits people because they make more money denying people certain treatment then some governing body should take the responsibility of ensuring people are getting the medical treatment that they need.

I do think it is a weird sentiment to not be comfortable with the government making drugs. If you aren't comfortable with the government doing that, then why be comfortable with a long list of things the government does? Declaring was, not declaring war and making warlike actions, turning the prison system into a business, etc. If its about trusting the government, or not trusting the government, I don't think manufacturing medication is the place to start having problems.

It isn't about distrusting the government. It is about the proper role of the government and business within society.

I am uncomfortable with the government making drugs because I think that is something best left to the market. As I learned more about the idea and how some drugs are kept off the market for purely financial reasons, I warmed up to it a bit. However, I am still uncomfortable with the idea on a gut level because I don't like government trying to take over something best left to private businesses.

I actually have similar thoughts about prison privatization. I think introducing the market into that area has brought nothing but trouble to society.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Can you explain what it is about the plan that makes you feel that way? You've only explained your emotional reaction to the plan, not your thoughts on what is right or wrong about the plan.

The government doesn't have the infrastructure to manufacture drugs. They'll offer up government contracts to existing drug companies to manufacture the drugs, but there's no incentive for those companies to take on the extra work. For the government to manufacture the drugs themselves would take more funding and legislation that's not included in her bill. Her bill is useless bureaucratic window dressing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of the Federal government strong-arming the fuck out of the pharmaceutical industry, but Warren's bill wouldn't do anything productive in that regard or any other, it's just a waste of money.
 

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,907
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
It isn't about distrusting the government. It is about the proper role of the government and business within society.

I am uncomfortable with the government making drugs because I think that is something best left to the market. As I learned more about the idea and how some drugs are kept off the market for purely financial reasons, I warmed up to it a bit. However, I am still uncomfortable with the idea on a gut level because I don't like government trying to take over something best left to private businesses.

I actually have similar thoughts about prison privatization. I think introducing the market into that area has brought nothing but trouble to society.

I think I would agree with you, except that the market acts in the interest of profits and not the well being of people afflicted with disease. The most famous example being Martin Shkreli and his company jacking up the price of a drug to a very high cost that wasn't aligned with the market value of the drug. High school students, outside of the US, were able to synthesize the drug on a small scale for only a few cents per dose while Shkreli priced single doses somewhere in the $700 range. I might have that dollar amount wrong but I just don't feel like looking it up now.

If people have a right to life, then this is clearly an affront to it. Infringing on ones right to live only to line your pockets is not only morally unacceptable, but it could be argued that it violate the right to life, or the inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness quoted in the declaration of independence.

I would much prefer that businesses outside of the government take the moral route, or that the government force them to take the moral route. But something needs to be done, otherwise healthcare costs will continue to grow at a rate that simply doesn't make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keenobserver

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,907
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
The government doesn't have the infrastructure to manufacture drugs. They'll offer up government contracts to existing drug companies to manufacture the drugs, but there's no incentive for those companies to take on the extra work. For the government to manufacture the drugs themselves would take more funding and legislation that's not included in her bill. Her bill is useless bureaucratic window dressing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of the Federal government strong-arming the fuck out of the pharmaceutical industry, but Warren's bill wouldn't do anything productive in that regard or any other, it's just a waste of money.

Maybe, but isn't that what legislation is for. The reason we can't get drugs for cheaper is that pharmaceutical companies buy patents on pharmaceuticals, even if they didn't create them. They restrict the ability for others to create them. Shkreli prevented other companies from making Daraprim and jacked up the price. While you can argue that this would lead to more competition to make a better drug, it certainly leads to people dying. Meanwhile, if he were not able to restrict the ability to create the drug, people would survive, the healthcare costs would be lower, for the patients and for everyone who pays for healthcare, and we would still have chemists looking for better alternatives because that is what chemists do.

Her plan might not be perfect, but it seems to be better than doing nothing, which is what is being done now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keenobserver

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
The government doesn't have the infrastructure to manufacture drugs. They'll offer up government contracts to existing drug companies to manufacture the drugs, but there's no incentive for those companies to take on the extra work. For the government to manufacture the drugs themselves would take more funding and legislation that's not included in her bill. Her bill is useless bureaucratic window dressing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of the Federal government strong-arming the fuck out of the pharmaceutical industry, but Warren's bill wouldn't do anything productive in that regard or any other, it's just a waste of money.

I imagine the government contracting out the actual manufacturing and probably distribution of the drugs would be the only way for any kind of bill like this to pass. I think conservatives would be very much against some kind "post office" like system for drugs. Honestly though, I don't know any where near enough about the drug manufacturing system in the USA to make a statement either way about how this would work.

Do you have knowledge of that area?
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Her plan might not be perfect, but it seems to be better than doing nothing, which is what is being done now.

There's not "nothing". Senators Sanders and Khanna introduced a drug pricing bill. It's got some issues as well, but it's incorrect to suggest that Warren is the only one doing anything and thus her plan is preferable to no action.

Bernie Sanders’s new plan to bring down drug prices, briefly explained
The plan from Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna would use foreign countries’ drug prices to lower prices in the US. Could that work?

Amy Klobuchar introduced a bill last year to allow medicare to negotiate its drug prices (rather than only Medicaid). It never went anywhere, but again, Warren isn't the only one out there working on this kind of stuff.

Senate bill would empower Medicare to reduce drug prices

There's more than just these two, they're just examples. But really we need to flip the senate back to Dem in 2020 and preferably president as well to get more traction on these. Efforts to address prescription drug pricing are largely Democrat led.
 

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,907
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
There's not "nothing". Senators Sanders and Khanna introduced a drug pricing bill. It's got some issues as well, but it's incorrect to suggest that Warren is the only one doing anything and thus her plan is preferable to no action.

Bernie Sanders’s new plan to bring down drug prices, briefly explained
The plan from Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna would use foreign countries’ drug prices to lower prices in the US. Could that work?

Amy Klobuchar introduced a bill last year to allow medicare to negotiate its drug prices (rather than only Medicaid). It never went anywhere, but again, Warren isn't the only one out there working on this kind of stuff.

Senate bill would empower Medicare to reduce drug prices

There's more than just these two, they're just examples. But really we need to flip the senate back to Dem in 2020 and preferably president as well to get more traction on these. Efforts to address prescription drug pricing are largely Democrat led.

This is going to semantics. There are plans from others, but nothing is really in action. Currently, nothing is being done, its the free market at its worst and its the reason that things like the Affordable Care Act are necessary.

I agree, flipping the Senate is necessary, though I am cautiously optimistic about what will happen after next Friday. In the meantime, I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with Warren's plan. The idea is to apply pressure to the drug companies. If there is any profit to be made that the government could theoretically take away then they will do what is necessary to make that money. Companies don't let profits go when they have an option.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This is going to semantics. There are plans from others, but nothing is really in action. Currently, nothing is being done, its the free market at its worst and its the reason that things like the Affordable Care Act are necessary.

I agree, flipping the Senate is necessary, though I am cautiously optimistic about what will happen after next Friday. In the meantime, I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with Warren's plan. The idea is to apply pressure to the drug companies. If there is any profit to be made that the government could theoretically take away then they will do what is necessary to make that money. Companies don't let profits go when they have an option.

It doesn't apply pressure though. That's the intent of Sanders' and Klobuchar's plans. Warren's lacks teeth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keenobserver

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,907
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
It doesn't apply pressure though. That's the intent of Sanders' and Klobuchar's plans. Warren's lacks teeth.

That is your opinion. It looks like the plan is based on a comparison of drug prices between the US and five other countries, CA, UK, Germany, France, and Japan. I don't know exactly what drug prices are like there, but I'm willing to be that the total amount spent on drugs in those five countries is less than what is currently spent on the same drugs in the US. So, why wouldn't the drug companies just raise prices in those countries so that they don't have to reduce prices in the US. From their perspective its better than reducing price. 1. They don't have to produce as much and can still charge what they want. 2. They might sell less items, but they are selling at a higher price so they make more profit per unit.

If you had to make and sell 100,000 of an item and sell them for $0.01 a piece, or make 10,000 of the same item and sell it for $0.10 a piece and have the same cost, which would you do?

I'm not saying either plan is good or bad, but there are soft spots in those supposed teeth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwhip1011

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That is your opinion.

That is what was requested :p

It looks like the plan is based on a comparison of drug prices between the US and five other countries, CA, UK, Germany, France, and Japan. I don't know exactly what drug prices are like there, but I'm willing to be that the total amount spent on drugs in those five countries is less than what is currently spent on the same drugs in the US. So, why wouldn't the drug companies just raise prices in those countries so that they don't have to reduce prices in the US. From their perspective its better than reducing price. 1. They don't have to produce as much and can still charge what they want. 2. They might sell less items, but they are selling at a higher price so they make more profit per unit.

If you had to make and sell 100,000 of an item and sell them for $0.01 a piece, or make 10,000 of the same item and sell it for $0.10 a piece and have the same cost, which would you do?

I'm not saying either plan is good or bad, but there are soft spots in those supposed teeth.

I did say when I brought it up that Bernie Sander's plan has some issues as well.

Look, we all know why drug prices are out of control. It's because Wall Street has gotten involved and investment firms are purchasing pharmaceutical companies and jacking up the prices not to cover the cost of new development but simply to return a high profit for shareholders. But good luck seeing any legislation passed that disentangles those two... both parties are a bunch of pod people when it comes to Wall Street.

16539.jpg


There are a few legislators trying, but they get lost in the noise from pod people saying they'll do the same thing while campaigning and then doing nothing. Even Trump campaigned on being some champion of reigning in Drug prices.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
That is what was requested :p



I did say when I brought it up that Bernie Sander's plan has some issues as well.

Look, we all know why drug prices are out of control. It's because Wall Street has gotten involved and investment firms are purchasing pharmaceutical companies and jacking up the prices not to cover the cost of new development but simply to return a high profit for shareholders. But good luck seeing any legislation passed that disentangles those two... both parties are a bunch of pod people when it comes to Wall Street.

16539.jpg


There are a few legislators trying, but they get lost in the noise from pod people saying they'll do the same thing while campaigning and then doing nothing. Even Trump campaigned on being some champion of reigning in Drug prices.

The Sanders and Warren plans aren't in competition. They actually go after different parts of the drug industry and complement each other more so than anything else. So I don't see why you're promoting one over the other.

In terms of Wall Street and its effect on the drug industry, I don't think Wall Street is really to blame but how would you detangle the two?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tight_N_Juicy
1

185248

Guest
There is a reason why drugs became illegal in the first place. it had nothing to do with money, it had to do with addiction.

The Other Prohibition: Opiate Addiction in the Roaring ’20s | The Saturday Evening Post

Drugs are not what they were back then, they are far more lethal now, in many cases, there is no second chance.

Even if you legalise drugs, there will always be an underground to supply stronger more lethal varieties.

Life saving medication yes, maybe whatever. Drugs that debilitate and mame an individuals life and their families...no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwhip1011

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
There is a reason why drugs became illegal in the first place. it had nothing to do with money, it had to do with addiction.

The Other Prohibition: Opiate Addiction in the Roaring ’20s | The Saturday Evening Post

Drugs are not what they were back then, they are far more lethal now, in many cases, there is no second chance.

Even if you legalise drugs, there will always be an underground to supply stronger more lethal varieties.

Life saving medication yes, maybe whatever. Drugs that debilitate and mame an individuals life and their families...no.

Did you read the OP or the link?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 185248
1

185248

Guest
Did you read the OP or the link?


Yes, and if you read my last sentence, life saving medication yes. Non life saving medication, no.

Just the same as governments should have more of a stake in what is mined and taken from the soil of a nation which belongs to all citizens as well.

Aids medication did not become accessible to all until it was produced by an Indian company...it went from being $15,000 per year to $356....a $ per day.

Before that...US multinationals were holding people to ransom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwhip1011

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The Sanders and Warren plans aren't in competition. They actually go after different parts of the drug industry and complement each other more so than anything else. So I don't see why you're promoting one over the other.

In terms of Wall Street and its effect on the drug industry, I don't think Wall Street is really to blame but how would you detangle the two?

I'm not promoting either plan. I think both plans have strong deficiencies that big pharma can work around. I merely mentioned that Warren isn't the only legislator to propose something on this issue (which was an argument someone else had put forward).