it is too bad that you don't understand GOP apologist talks w forked tongue, unwilling / unable to give specific egs. farm subsidies are GOP's favorite economic welfare programs for their wealthy donors, the Ag corporations. these policies lead to shortages. yet GOP apologists remain silent. stupidity is anointing companies as "know it all"
Just weighing in here but price controls on ag products is one of the reasons I am very leery of price controls. In that case they are done to keep ag prices higher rather than keep them lower and I think they are one of the major problems with our farm policy.
that and for something like insulin whose demand is inelastic, price controls to protect consumers would simply push the burden of paying for insulin to insurers, who will then in turn put the burden back on consumers with higher insurance premiums.
There is no price control. The problem is that it's anti-competitive, far from any semblance of a free market which is pretty typical of the "health" industry. Actual production cost is < $72 per year. Annual charge? Up to $6000. https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000850 Abstract Introduction High prices for insulin pose a barrier to treatment for people living with diabetes, with an estimated 50% of 100 million patients needing insulin lacking reliable access. As insulin analogues replace regular human insulin (RHI) globally, their relative prices will become increasingly important. Three originator companies control 96% of the global insulin market, and few biosimilar insulins are available. We estimated the price reductions that could be achieved if numerous biosimilar manufacturers entered the insulin market. Methods Data on the price of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) exported from India were retrieved from an online customs database. Manufacturers of insulins were contacted for price quotes. Where market API prices could not be identified, prices were estimated based on comparison of similarity, in terms of manufacturing process, with APIs for which prices were available. Potential biosimilar prices were estimated by adding costs of excipients, formulation, transport, development and regulatory costs, and a profit margin. Results The manufacturing processes for RHI and insulin analogues are similar. API prices were US$24 750/kg for RHI, US$68 757/kg for insulin glargine and an estimated US$100 000/kg for other analogues. Estimated biosimilar prices were US$48–71 per patient per year for RHI, US$49–72 for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and US$78–133 for analogues (except detemir: US$283–365). Conclusion Treatment with biosimilar RHI and insulin NPH could cost ≤US$72 per year and with insulin analogues ≤US$133 per year. Estimated biosimilar prices were markedly lower than the current prices for insulin analogues. Widespread availability at estimated prices may allow substantial savings globally. https://www.finance.senate.gov/chai...drug-companies-and-pbms-that-keep-prices-high Bipartisan Investigation on Rising Insulin Costs Finds Skyrocketing Prices are a Result of Companies Putting Profits Over Consumers’ Interests. After Years-Long Investigation, Finance Committee Publishes Thousands of Pages of Company Documents with Report, Exposing, For the First Time, the Pricing Schemes Between These Industry Giants. We found that the business practices of and the competitive relationships between manufacturers and middlemen have created a vicious cycle of price increases that have sent costs for patients and taxpayers through the roof. This industry is anything but a free market when PBMs spur drug makers to hike list prices in order to secure prime formulary placement and greater rebates and fees,” Grassley said Insulin manufacturers lit the fuse on skyrocketing prices by matching each other’s price increases step for step rather than competing to lower them, while PBMs, acting as middlemen for insurers, fanned the flames to take a bigger cut of the secret rebates and hidden fees they negotiate. Consolidation within the PBM industry has not improved the situation,” Wyden said.
Neither of these are market solutions - they're both examples of government intervention (or unique non-intervention when compared to other products) into the market.
Rs are running on the price of gas in the midterms, yet they do not give two ***** about he price of insulin.
The top three insulin manufactures in US (Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi) represent over 90 percent of the global insulin market and produce almost 100 percent of the insulin supply in the United States. I haven't bothered to look at the three companies profitability the past few years, but betting it must be pretty good...
I'm pretty sure Stone is openly a swinger, so when he says he knows first hand, I believe him. I looked it up - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-posted-ads-online-frequented-sex-clubs.html
The intervention on reimportation of drugs is a government intervention by other countries. As an American I have a even lesser say in what happens in other country but if they're willing to subsidize the cost of drugs and they are willing to import them that is on them. From the US market side that might spur US manufacturers to lower costs.
The people who buy and sell it, just like every other product in the world. Alternatively, we could deregulate medicine so that you can purchase it from wherever you want and destroy the government created monopolies seen in the United States. There is no reason you shouldn't be able to buy your drugs from Mexico, Canada, China, India, etc. It is only through government regulation that you pay more for insulin here than you do in other countries. The problem is, I do understand. You just don't like it. Specific examples of what? Price controls constricting supply? Sure, how about rent control. Unfortunately for your argument, I am against farm subsidies (and any subsidies for that matter). The government should not subsidize and business or industry, they should get out of the way and let the market work. If you don't think multi-billion dollar businesses know where their profits come from, I don't know what to tell you. I never said there were, I was arguing against implementing price controls. Perhaps we should deregulate and allow people to buy drugs from whomever and wherever they choose. Yes, we should instead have a total non-intervention in the market.
He lives in DC with 90 foot height restrictions in residential zones, i guess that's why he's against high rises.
This is a weird argument, given that the reason those drugs are cheap in Mexico, Canada, etc is that those countries' government regulate the prices.
Like from Canada and other countries where the gov control drug prices? So essentially, we are buying into another gov drug pricing scheme that works. Deregulation to get into an effective regulated system...? I'm good with it, but why not also do it ourselves and not depend on other countries' regulated systems? I still prefer to buy here if the prices are similar (Buy in America, FDA protection and all). How about we also allow every buyers to negotiate on drug price. Medicare is not allowed to negotiate drug prices. That was a trillion $ giveaway. Here are some things that aren't regulated and their impacts on drug prices in the US: a- US Merck tried to enter the market for Insulin. France Sanofi sued on the ground of patent infringement and Merck agreed to no longer pursue it although they said there is no patent infringement. The assumption is that Sanofi paid Merck to stay away. How about we shouldn't allow a company to pay another drug company from entering the marketplace? b- Insulin is very old and the original patents (last 20 years) expired. But there is a concept called "evergreening" which is a technique to artificially extend patents protection. Canada has regulations against this "loophole". We tried but were not anywhere near as successful to stop this practice. How about we close this loophole? c- Lobbying power. Self-evidence on favorable laws to the industry. When your choice is between your health and drug (or care), the "free" market is completely distorted since "demand" is typically infinite (typical because some are forced to while other chooses to forego care or die rather than bundle their family with the cost).
It is the sellers not the buyers that set the market. There is a monopoly of 3 insulin producers. That’s the problem.
