Confirms what I thought: 43% of the people don’t understand economics. Which would you rather have for a life-saving drug:
1) availability of the drug albeit at a higher price
2) shortages of the drug
3) shortages of the drug, leading to some kind of government-directed rationing system?
Some of you might remember the price controls on gasoline in the 70’s. Some people hired kids to sit in their cars in the gas lines so they could buy 10 gallons of gasoline. In the history of mankind, price controls are never impact-neutral and the nature of those impacts now depends a lot on how a woke gov’t wants to allocate gas. My guess: The gov’t will give preference to owners of all-electric vehicles!
Well, not exactly free...We pay for them and the benefactor pays nothing.
Indeed.
“Price-gouging” actually allocates supply to the most pressing demand.
Look at the nonsense at the start of COVID hysteria.
We had no toilet paper.
What was the solution? Since everyone (esp. in my commie area) hates “price-gouging”, the stores come up with this stupid quota on how many you can buy.
Did the shelves ever fill? No, not really. Only got a little better when the manufacturers and shippers were ALLOWED to work again. But stores still pulled this infantile “only buy 2” policy.
How do you control for how many times that person comes into the store to buy? How many household members do you control for? What if all 4 household members come in that day and buy their quota?
The paranoid hoarders are NOT going to be stopped by this. They might stop if the price is high.
“Confirms what I thought: 43% of the people don’t understand economics.”
I’m a free-market guy. However, pricing should have some relation to the availability of a drug, it’s patent status, and competitor treatments, among other things. These are not always part of the “free market price”.
Also, for the “free market” to operate, there should be no “third party payer” - the decision should be the individuals and reflect their own prioritization of their need versus their available capital.
There also should be a minimum of regulatory constraints in a free market.
here’s a simple example:
Have you ever paid for an Aspirin given to you in the hospital?
How much do you think it should cost?
No, I think you might need to brush up on your economics.
We have something in this country but its not a “free market” in medicine, nor pharmaceuticals. In the US, you have legions of lobbyists hitting up Congress for their special provisions to be added to law. This is the farthest thing from a “free market” for pharmaceuticals.
Also, there are literally piles of government money that go into the development of pharmaceuticals that end up being privately patented and given a price that does not reflect the peoples investment in the development of particular drugs - even when purchased by government programs, such as Medicare.
No, we do not have a free market in pharmaceuticals. We have a fraud that recycles ill-gotten gains through politicians, their cronies. Its an absurdity and it should stop before people like you prattle on about the “free market” when you have no idea what you are talking about.
The “price controls” option is not the answer. The Free Market, of which you do not seem to understand in this market space is the answer. But you need to enable the free market so that it can operate and provide needed medications to people at the most efficient (and likely much lower) cost that available today
Biden will unveil his drug price control plan soon. When the regime embargoes Chinese pharmaceuticals the price will go to zero for most life saving drugs. Zero, as in zero availability equals zero cost.
The comprehension of economic principles is sadly lacking - possibly purposefully.
I worked with a high school economics teacher who could not explain how money came into existence!
The problem is, we know many meds can be bought over seas or in Canada for a fraction of what the US consumer pays for it. We know we’re being screwed over on prices and we have no control over it.