Monotony

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Comments

[weswilson]

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Just remember, it's not a "monopoly" until you own literally everything.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And then it's still the government's fault?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

When isn't it?

I was reading about this (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/medicines-made-in-india-set-off-safety-worries.html?hp) earlier today and trying to find the anti-regulation angle. Because, of course, any case where you can find rampant corruption in the supply chains that feed into our healthcare system has to be something that is caused by government and can't be corrected by government.

So I figure: first of all, the problem described by the story is being exaggerated by the NYTimes, which we can't trust because they have a clear liberal bias. And we know they have this bias, because the story supports a liberal account of the underlying problem.

Second, I'm sure that the Indian government is doing something to protect the corrupt drug-producers, although exactly what I'm not sure of. Though I'm sure that, if I read Forbes regularly, I'd have something I could handwave at. So we'll just take that point as granted.

Finally, I'll blame the U.S. government authorities for regulating the domestic drug industry too much, which is what's driving these producers to find more lenient regulatory environments that are more removed from and so more opaque to consumer scrutiny. If those drug-makers made their drugs here, without having to deal with regulatory oversight or quality control, they would compete on quality; consumers would reward those companies that have better practices; and this whole process would be facilitated by the fact that it's all being done domestically. The free-market oversight and transparency mechanisms that would be required to make all of this happen would just naturally emerge, if they have value to consumers (I'll stipulate). That is to say, people will cover the costs of making sure their cancer drugs actually are "cancer drugs" and not, say, antifreeze, if they value that degree of confidence to a degree commensurate with those costs; and if they don't value that degree of confidence to that extent, then we're better off without those kinds of assurances.

Presto-bango!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Well, darn.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Not sure if serious...

[oslo.livejournal.com]

That might tell you something... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Only if your reference to it is meant to imply that you're intentionally doing it.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

without having to deal with regulatory oversight or quality control, they would compete on quality; consumers would reward those companies that have better practices

That is a bit of a rose-colored prediction, I think. That may work for inexpensive, common drugs: profit margins are so thin to make aspirin or even Allegra that companies dare not cut corners. But with the expensive stuff like cancer treatments and HIV cocktails it would be "you buy what you can afford". So you would have the wealthy (or those with top-tier premium healthcare plans) getting the real stuff and poor people getting half horse tranquilizers. What would that company care if their medicine was half antifreeze? If poor saps are buying it because they have no choice, they'll never lose their customers and always make money no matter how crappy the stuff is. Let's call it the 'hope subsidy': "Gee, I know that generic Med-X is half antifreeze, but it's all I can afford. I hope it is better than nothing"

[oslo.livejournal.com]

That is a bit of a rose-colored prediction, I think.

More than rose-colored; it's completely unsubstantiated. Still, some people seem to think such rosy predictions are persuasive, even conclusive arguments.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

A'yup.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I am so glad you posted this. Explains socio-economic inequity and class privilege pretty well, no?