In this hypothetical situation, the government could step in and save millions of lives per year with a short term loss of profit to one ...
In this hypothetical situation, the government could step in and save millions of lives per year with a short term loss of profit to one company. In this situation you'd let millions of people die because you think it might reduce future medical research outcomes? So obviously I haven't found a hypothetical situation extreme enough for you yet. We make policy decisions that limit how much money companies can make from medical breakthroughs all the time. The FDA approval process, for instance. If we stopped requiring FDA approval, developing drugs would be much more profitable, but as a society we agree that drug safety is a good trade off. What if drug affordability is a good trade off as well? There's no way to know without investigation, but that is why I'm opposed to making policy on purely ideological grounds. What if it turns out that limiting pharmaceutical profits, decreases medical funding by 10%, but increases access to drugs that are developed by 100%? Again it may work out exactly opposite, but if you oppose limiting the price of drugs just because "it's wrong", you'll never know. What if it turns out that medical funding isn't the bottleneck in medical breakthroughs. What if the number of people capable of becoming researchers is, and what if that amount goes up with more affordable drug access. Again, I'm not proposing a specific course of action, but I'm saying that there are situations where the free market doesn't work and regulation is necessary.
Posted by learc83 on Apr 19, 2015, 2:51 AM
Tags
Related issues
- I love Americans making arguments against things like paper ballots or health care on the basis of "it's too expensive for such a large c...
- People hate it when faceless bureaucrats decide that some health care expense is too expensive for the large faceless bureaucracy to cove...
- > I will never understand why people think ACA was so great.
- Turning oneself in doesn't absolve one of a crime.
- All that we know is that the doctor carefully guided the patient out of the intervention, flashing a value that nobody had introduced bef...
- > Is that what we want?
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.7,000 issues0 comments
pricing (Healthcare)
I love Americans making arguments against things like paper ballots or health care on the basis of "it's too expensive for such a large c...
People hate it when faceless bureaucrats decide that some health care expense is too expensive for the large faceless bureaucracy to cove...
> I will never understand why people think ACA was so great.
Turning oneself in doesn't absolve one of a crime.
All that we know is that the doctor carefully guided the patient out of the intervention, flashing a value that nobody had introduced bef...
> Is that what we want?
If we're gonna stick with private insurance in the US, we should detach it from employment.
>Putting the entire population on vitamin D supplements would be too expensive for the country’s national health service, he told me.
In this hypothetical situation, the government could step in and save millions of lives per year with a short term loss of profit to one ...
In this hypothetical situation, the government could step in and save millions of lives per year with a short term loss of profit to one company. In this situation you'd let millions of people die because you think it might reduce future medical research outcomes? So obviously I haven't found a hypothetical situation extreme enough for you yet. We make policy decisions that limit how much money companies can make from medical breakthroughs all the time. The FDA approval process, for instance. If we stopped requiring FDA approval, developing drugs would be much more profitable, but as a society we agree that drug safety is a good trade off. What if drug affordability is a good trade off as well? There's no way to know without investigation, but that is why I'm opposed to making policy on purely ideological grounds. What if it turns out that limiting pharmaceutical profits, decreases medical funding by 10%, but increases access to drugs that are developed by 100%? Again it may work out exactly opposite, but if you oppose limiting the price of drugs just because "it's wrong", you'll never know. What if it turns out that medical funding isn't the bottleneck in medical breakthroughs. What if the number of people capable of becoming researchers is, and what if that amount goes up with more affordable drug access. Again, I'm not proposing a specific course of action, but I'm saying that there are situations where the free market doesn't work and regulation is necessary.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.