Posted on 04/09/2019 8:02:30 AM PDT by GIdget2004
LOL - Why do you think they are charging 1/10th what they do in the US despite similar standards of living? Because of the goodness of their heart outside of the US? Every country has different rules, but they all severely limit the power of pharma.
Evidence?
LOL - Why do you think they are charging 1/10th what they do in the US despite similar standards of living?
Because they said sell at this price or we don't buy.
As I said, reimportation won't be allowed to happen: Western nations are members of the WTO, all of whom have agreed to TRIPS, which requires, "Where the law of a Member allows for other use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder [...] any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use" (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/factsheet_pharm02_e.htm).
I gave you the evidence. The prices are 90% lower than the US with the same production costs. There is no reason ANY firm would do this without the government saying "take this, or else"
As I said, reimportation won't be allowed to happen: Western nations are members of the WTO, all of whom have agreed to TRIPS, which requires, "Where the law of a Member allows for other use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder [...] any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use"
Yes, but patent rights can be adjusted very easily, just as easily as other laws, both the duration, pricing power, quantity limitations, etc. And remember, all it takes is ONE single country to allow re-importation.
Regardless of your opinion, we have about 5-10 years for Medicare/medicaid blows up the US government budget. Pharma and hospital prices are going to get fixed one way or the other. You can’t go from 3% of GDP in 1960 to nearly 20% and rising, every year costs going up 2x+ the rate of inflation and not ultimately crash the system. Medicare/medicaid are projected to cause $2T+ net deficit per year over the next 30 years. We simply can’t pay for that and we won’t. The Government would default. The cost to the private sector is just as bad.
Evidence?
I gave you the evidence. The prices are 90% lower than the US with the same production costs. There is no reason ANY firm would do this without the government saying "take this, or else"
That doesn't show that "or else" is ignoring patents, rather than simply not buying.
As I said, reimportation won't be allowed to happen: Western nations are members of the WTO, all of whom have agreed to TRIPS, which requires, "Where the law of a Member allows for other use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder [...] any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use"
Yes, but patent rights can be adjusted very easily, just as easily as other laws, both the duration, pricing power, quantity limitations, etc.
Not under TRIPS: "patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application [...] The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years counted from the filing date."
And remember, all it takes is ONE single country to allow re-importation.
That ONE country would incur WTO sanctions; can you name ONE country that would do so for the sake of U.S. medicine buyers?
And the only possible solution is to socialize pharma pricing?
A free market requires many buyers, many sellers with unlimited movement of goods. We don’t have that now in pharma at all - just a lot of buyers with one seller and a ridiculous # of regulations and protections for pharma. Allowing more movement of goods and reducing patent protections would increase the free market, not socialize pharma pricing.
LOL If the US is the one opening up the reimportation laws, I don’t think they’d have to worry about it. You can haw and hem all you want. The laws will change in favor of buyers in the near future one way or the other. Whether or not we get Bernie sanders single payer and massive across the board cuts to profits or pharma stops putting 100% of profits in the US + hospitals have forced price transparency and enforced monopoly regulations to get there is still to be determined, but math is math. When X is going up at the rate of income 2-3x for 50+ years and is going to do so without changes in the laws into perpetuity, the laws of exponents take over and the system will break.
Making pharma less free is not the answer.
Allowing more movement of goods
Like I said, let's end the reimportation ban - but understand that as I've shown, it will have little or no practical effect,
and reducing patent protections
Not a topic previously under discussion - but certainly worth considering. Keeping in mind that too little IP protection means zero new drugs.
Again, that is not what I'm suggesting. Putting basic limits that other industries already have on pharma increases the free market. Remember a free market is NOT one sided - that's a monopoly. A free market requires MANY buyers and sellers and free movement of goods. LImiting the sellers (patents) and movement of goods (ban of reimportation) IS the anti-capitalistic part. Patents are good within reason but both patents and the process/cost to develop new drugs needs to be changed
Not a topic previously under discussion - but certainly worth considering. Keeping in mind that too little IP protection means zero new drugs.All these things are related so yes it is under discussion one way or the other (for example, you could keep the patent length the same in the US but do what Europe does which is limit the profit margin $ or %). And we have innovation in industries where your competitors will copy you in 3 days and yet it still occurs. Patent reform should also differentiate between drug cures (longer patents) and marginal improvements in treatments (very short patent).
For example? Do those innovations cost what pharma research and regulatory compliance costs?
Patent reform should also differentiate between drug cures (longer patents) and marginal improvements in treatments (very short patent).
Makes sense to me.
On a proportional scale and rewards nearly every industry does. For example, if you innovate in food, it'll get copied within days. Eg, the last company I was with was an upscale supermarket chain that decided to test putting cool items directly into pre-made burger patties (bacon, gouda, peppers, etc). We had to re-do our meat department schedules across the country, change out every one of our case layouts, and add significant prep labor ours. Within a week of rolling it out to our entire company, our largest competitor was testing it and a month later rolled it out company wide. Three years later even regular grocery stores did this. If you innovate in lodging, it'll get replicated within a year. Same with construction. No other industry has the protections as Pharma and Hospitals. And yes, we need reform that makes it cheaper and faster to issue new drugs.
Except for every other IP creator: software, movies, publishing, ...
And yes, we need reform that makes it cheaper and faster to issue new drugs.
That's the conservative answer - not the price limits of the article.
Numbers?
That's the conservative answer - not the price limits of the article.
It's both, actually. Many mistake conservatism to be always big business, but conservatives believe in free markets which requires many buyers AND sellers and unlimited movement of goods among other many other things that also benefit buyers. It's what keeps pricing competitive. Without that you end up in a situation with forever spiraling pricing rising 2-3x the rate of inflation like we've seen for nearly 60 years. That is not conservatism. That is stupidity.
For MOST things? I call BS.
2) it's not life or death
Neither is much pharma. And I would think the life-or-death areas are where we'd MOST want to incentivize innovation.
LMAO Books, movies, games, and other copyrights - they are competing for eye-balls with literally MILLIONS of entertainment options, including the very free freerepublic.com. How many options does a stage 3 cancer patient have?
And I would think the life-or-death areas are where we'd MOST want to incentivize innovation.
Yes, but the current patent laws do not encourage life/death cures, they encourage treatment research.
For MOST things? I call BS.
How many options does a stage 3 cancer patient have?
Stage 3 cancer is not "most things."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.