When she had the prescription filled it was $170. When I told them she had no insurance they re-filled it as a generic for $14
If she had insurance it would have only cost her the $10 “co-pay”, so she would not care about the price. The insurance company would have eaten the addition $160. This is why insurance costs so much.
“Co-pay’s” are the cause of many of the ills of the system. When the thing you want costs the same no matter where you go, there is no incentive to price things down.
When The government forces insurance to cover Viagara, it continues to cost $170 (or more) for a prescription.
In a free market, a drug that would allow men to have more sex would be so mass-produced that the costs would be down to pennies per pill.
But when The Government forces insurance to cover it at $170, it maximizes profits to keep making it the same way (as if it is in rare supply -OR- demand)
> In a free market, a drug that would allow men to have more
> sex would be so mass-produced that the costs would be down
> to pennies per pill.
Sure, if you don’t account for the cost of developing the drug in the first place (cost: $800MM to $1B in 1998 dollars)
> But when The Government forces insurance to cover it at
> $170, it maximizes profits to keep making it the same way
> (as if it is in rare supply -OR- demand)
The government isn’t forcing insurance companies to cover it at a higher price. Viagra is still protected by patents giving the original manufacturer exclusive rights to sell the drug. The price of the drug is set by negotiations between the manufacturer and the various payers. Medicare/Medicaid get the “best price” (to greatly simplify matters). The regulatory and compliance landscape is so complex that a company might be found guilty of Medicare fraud without any ill intent. This has resulted in the creation of a compliance apparatus that adds greatly to the cost of drugs for everyone.
Drug pricing is a complex issue. I suggest checking out this book for a true free market perspective:
http://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation/dp/0300143265
It's not the insurance coverage, it's the patent. Which is entirely constitutional.
Of course, a variety of games are played to get patents and copyrights extended in ways that the Founders never intended, but that's another question entirely.
Next time I need an antibiotic, I’ll give this a try...http://www.doomandbloom.net/how-to-use-fish-mox-to-treat-your-sick-fish-of-course/
I have a friend who uses it and has never had a problem.