Libertarians: What would cause the Price of the EpiPen to drop?

[blaxshep]

Um, no, it doesn't. Got to almost any third-world democracy and you'll see libertarianism in action, in the form of weak government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.

Libertarianism - since it opposes government regulations that try to ensure a level playing field for businesses - almost ensures the rise of an oligarchy, and the effective enshrinement of the "Golden Rule", in that he who has the gold, makes the rules. I've seen it myself.

In reality all governments are Oligarchies, even here in America 100% of congress, the White house executives and even the SC are all made up of the elite 1%. Furthermore all of the lobbyists that bribe our law makers represent the elite 1% and their corporations. The fact that we vote for them is laughable since the only ones that are electable are the elite 1%. Obama won because he had a billion dollars to run on.

Regulations are necessary to keep Capitalists from selling cyanide for aspirin and dumping the waste in our drinking water but regulations also keep small businesses from competing with the monopolies we call corporations. You think the ACA was about helping the poor? Hell no it was about legislating tax money into profits for the elite 1% that otherwise couldn't sell their goods and services to people that have no money.

To be honest I applaud the liberals for their intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Harshaw]

From the Libertarian platform:

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Government Employees

We favor repealing any requirement that one must join or pay dues to a union as a condition of government employment. We advocate replacing defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution plans, as are commonly offered in the private sector, so as not to impose debt on future generations without their consent.

2.6 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

2.7 Marketplace Freedom

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

2.8 Labor Markets

Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

So? You're describing countries with governments that are not limited; they're powerless and corrupt.

Libertarians - and many (or most) conservatives - seem to think that government regulations are there to hinder growth, to prevent businesses from succeeding. Thing is, while there are a relatively few regulations that we could do without, the overwhelming majority of regulations are there for good reason, and instead of being hindrances, are conducive to a successful economy.

And what's the proof? The first-world democracies - the most successful nations in human history - are ALL socialized democracies, and function using the very models that libertarians swear up-and-down should condemn us to the economic dustbin of history. In other words, libertarians are arguing against the very kinds of systems that have brought the greatest success.

Well, I guess you're going to have to define "success."

 

[Fishking]

US patents are for 20 years, non-renewable. Design patents are for 14 years, non-renewable.

Depends. Pharma companies are good at finding out a drug they've had also has another effect, which then lets them renew the patent for the same drug for a different use.

 

[Master PO]

The problem with your ideology is this, the ONLY reason why epipen has no competition and the reason why they can charge $600 for a product that takes them $10 to make is because the government has interfered with the free market by allowing companies to patent their inventions. In a government free real free market anyone could make epipens and the original epipen would be powerless to stop them then we would see epipens on sale for most likely $20. Be careful what you wish for.

then if a person worked to develop a product costing them hundred of thousands or millions, and another person can just copy it without laying out any cost, who is the winner and who is the loser?

 

[blaxshep]

Depends. Pharma companies are good at finding out a drug they've had also has another effect, which then lets them renew the patent for the same drug for a different use.

The CEOs salary went from 3 million to 19 million but it is the cost of making a $10 pen that went up to $600. I hope he rots in prison once the congressional inquiry is over.

 

[blaxshep]

then if a person worked to develop a product costing them hundred of thousands or millions, and another person can just copy it without laying out any cost, who is the winner and who is the loser?

Im not disagreeing with that logic just pointing out that under a government free "Free Market" that is what would happen. That's why I say, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Fishking]

The CEOs salary went from 3 million to 19 million but it is the cost of making a $10 pen that went up to $600. I hope he rots in prison once the congressional inquiry is over.

*She. And her father is a sitting Democratic Congressman.

 

[Master PO]

Im not disagreeing with that logic just pointing out that under a government free "Free Market" that is what would happen. That's why I say, be careful what you wish for.

government is securing .......right to property

 

[blaxshep]

*She. And her father is a sitting Democratic Congressman.

Oh ok, then I hope they both die a horrible death. Preferably from anaphylactic shock and some poor slob standing there refuses to let them use his because it cost him $600.

 

[blaxshep]

government is securing .......right to property

Oh so now you want the government to interfere with the free market huh?

 

[Master PO]

Oh so now you want the government to interfere with the free market huh?

government is always to secure rights, no matter what.

by patents it does that

 

[ARealConservative]

https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault

 

[blaxshep]

government is always to secure rights, no matter what.

by patents it does that

Free markets do not depend on governments, Free Markets existed thousands of years before patents, that is a modern government regulation. So what do you want a free market or government regulation? Funny how Capitalists hate the government meddling in the "Free Market" except when it defends their profits.

 

[Master PO]

Free markets do not depend on governments, Free Markets existed thousands of years before patents, that is a modern government regulation. So what do you want a free market or government regulation? Funny how Capitalists hate the government meddling in the "Free Market" except when it defends their profits.

government is created to secure rights, that is its function.

it i create something its my property, and government is bound to secure that property from other people.

rights come before everything else

 

[blaxshep]

government is created to secure rights, that is its function.

it i create something its my property, and government is bound to secure that property from other people.

rights come before everything else

The free market existed long before the government protections you are speaking of. This is government intervention on the free market.

 

[Master PO]

The free market existed long before the government protections you are speaking of. This is government intervention on the free market.

if it is, then we have to disband government because their is no point of it existing then.

 

[blaxshep]

if it is, then we have to disband government because their is no point of it existing then.

Too funny, so now unless the government regulates the free market there is no point in it existing? I thought you were against government regulation? What part of the Free market says I can't sell something to someone because someone else does? Patents are 100% a government created, regulated and enforced construct.

 

[Master PO]

Too funny, so now unless the government regulates the free market there is no point in it existing? I thought you were against government regulation? What part of the Free market says I can't sell something to someone because someone else does? Patents are 100% a government created, regulated and enforced construct.

iam a strict constitutionalist

the constitution is grants the federal to regulate commerce AMONG the states, interstate commerce.

states governments to have power to regulate commerce inside of states, intrastate commerce, regulation of commerce is only to secure the rights of people, to protect the health and safety of the public.

it is not meant to serve the goals of government, ETC....it has no authority to set wages, or tell who has to be hired, when they do that they are interfering in free markets

 

[blaxshep]

iam a strict constitutionalist

the constitution is grants the federal to regulate commerce AMONG the states, interstate commerce.

states governments to have power to regulate commerce inside of states, intrastate commerce, regulation of commerce is only to secure the rights of people, to protect the health and safety of the public.

it is not meant to serve the goals of government, ETC....it has no authority to set wages, or tell who has to be hired, when they do that they are interfering in free markets

Right on all that but the free market is thousands of years old, it predates the constitution. Even the constitutional grant of regulating commerce is not a part of a true free market. In a true, no government, free market you have no enforceable right to any intellectual property. Its strictly a matter of an agreement between buyer and seller. Period.

 

[Master PO]

Right on all that but the free market is thousands of years old, it predates the constitution. Even the constitutional grant of regulating commerce is not a part of a true free market. In a true, no government, free market you have no enforceable right to any intellectual property. Its strictly a matter of an agreement between buyer and seller. Period.

the founders created our federal government to secure rights, throughout the states, if a person in NY created a product, and NY law protected that product, then another person could not take the idea of that product to another state and make it his own, because the patent for the product crosses state lines.

the government is securing the property of a person , the foundation of all rights is property

 

[blaxshep]

the founders created our federal government to secure rights, throughout the states, if a person in NY created a product, and NY law protected that product, then another person could not take the idea of that product to another state and make it his own, because the patent for the product crosses state lines.

the government is securing the property of a person , the foundation of all rights is property

All your US constitution and government talk pertains to America, not the free market. In 1217 the US did not exist but the free market did. There was no property rights of any kind being enforced on the free market. It was a government free "Free Market". So for all the blather of wanting a true free market what you Capitalists really want is a government regulated one. Without which you could not charge $600 for an item worth $10. In a true free market anyone could make and sell anything they want and no one would buy an item worth $10 for $600.

 

[Ikari]

The problem with your ideology is this, the ONLY reason why epipen has no competition and the reason why they can charge $600 for a product that takes them $10 to make is because the government has interfered with the free market by allowing companies to patent their inventions. In a government free real free market anyone could make epipens and the original epipen would be powerless to stop them then we would see epipens on sale for most likely $20. Be careful what you wish for.

Oh, if there were for-real competition, those things would certainly be 40 - 60 bucks. Even that's got a high profit margin on it. I don't think you can 100% divorce government from the markets, but it is clear that it is their intervention that has aided Big Pharma in setting up its monopoly and enables the price gouging we are now seeing. It also, IMO, highlights why we need both government and business as separate entities. They have different abilities and goals, and one is needed to check the other in certain places.

 

[blaxshep]

Oh, if there were for-real competition, those things would certainly be 40 - 60 bucks. Even that's got a high profit margin on it. I don't think you can 100% divorce government from the markets, but it is clear that it is their intervention that has aided Big Pharma in setting up its monopoly and enables the price gouging we are now seeing. It also, IMO, highlights why we need both government and business as separate entities. They have different abilities and goals, and one is needed to check the other in certain places.

This is a difficult topic, drugs take billions of dollars to develop and the corporations that develop them need to be compensated for this, but allowing them to gouge people that depend on the drugs is unacceptable. Somehow we need to divorce drug development from drug manufacture. Maybe the State develops the drugs with Tax dollars then manufactures bid to manufacture the drug once it's approved? Maybe the State reimburses development costs with a profit incentive then manufacture of the drug is open like generics? I don't know.

 

[Ikari]

This is a difficult topic, drugs take billions of dollars to develop and the corporations that develop them need to be compensated for this, but allowing them to gouge people that depend on the drugs is unacceptable. Somehow we need to divorce drug development from drug manufacture. Maybe the State develops the drugs with Tax dollars then manufactures bid to manufacture the drug once it's approved? Maybe the State reimburses development costs with a profit incentive then manufacture of the drug is open like generics? I don't know.

It is true there is a lot of money going into research, but not all that is born by Big Pharma. Particularly with the epipen, they use generic drugs for that so they just developed the injection system and nothing more. But there's a lot of other places including government lab and academia where a lot of research takes place. And if we look at Big Pharma in general, they are super not hurting, even with what they are spending on development. Their CEOs are getting ludicrous pay raises and they are raking in the dough. So just looking at the system, while there is a lot of development costs, because they operate in government established near monopoly, they have no issues with this.

I've thought about this for some time. I'm not opposed to government and certainly there are systems that have time scales and financial scales that are actually out of reach of private business unless there is some amount of monopoly, and scientific research is in that group. There's a lot of engineering that can take place in the private sector, but the base research is expensive and you're talking decades for things like drugs to make it to a market. Think about it, the days of Bell Labs are over, and even that only existed because AT&T had a monopoly. So I think all sorts of scientific research needs to be funded by the government. Research facilities and hospitals can perform a lot of medical research and if we collectivist this so that the drugs are made, essentially, by the Public then there is no IP or other hurdles to making generic medications and the pharmaceutical companies don't have to bear the cost of research, just that of engineering (for delivery systems) and distribution. Also, no local monopolies then. We pay to have our base research conducted by impartial scientists looking for cures and treatments, Pharmaceutical companies are allowed access to the results, no monopoly, just open competition without the worry of copyright or anything else. There would still be plenty of profit to be had as well, the price to the consumer would be reasonable and controlled through actual market competition instead of price fixing.

it's just a thought, but fundamentally we need to do research, we need to develop our science and engineering. Any successful nation has to have good science and the BEST nation has to have the BEST science. This is just the course of humanity. So how do we ensure that we are really pushing our science and technology properly, and this includes medical tech? And in such a way that beneficial results can be obtained by the People. There's no point making an awesome robot arm for amputees if amputees cannot afford or access it. Because of the growing scales of scientific research, both temporally and financially, I think government more and more will be necessary to secure our research and promote the expansion of our science.

 

[blaxshep]

It is true there is a lot of money going into research, but not all that is born by Big Pharma. Particularly with the epipen, they use generic drugs for that so they just developed the injection system and nothing more. But there's a lot of other places including government lab and academia where a lot of research takes place. And if we look at Big Pharma in general, they are super not hurting, even with what they are spending on development. Their CEOs are getting ludicrous pay raises and they are raking in the dough. So just looking at the system, while there is a lot of development costs, because they operate in government established near monopoly, they have no issues with this.

I've thought about this for some time. I'm not opposed to government and certainly there are systems that have time scales and financial scales that are actually out of reach of private business unless there is some amount of monopoly, and scientific research is in that group. There's a lot of engineering that can take place in the private sector, but the base research is expensive and you're talking decades for things like drugs to make it to a market. Think about it, the days of Bell Labs are over, and even that only existed because AT&T had a monopoly. So I think all sorts of scientific research needs to be funded by the government. Research facilities and hospitals can perform a lot of medical research and if we collectivist this so that the drugs are made, essentially, by the Public then there is no IP or other hurdles to making generic medications and the pharmaceutical companies don't have to bear the cost of research, just that of engineering (for delivery systems) and distribution. Also, no local monopolies then. We pay to have our base research conducted by impartial scientists looking for cures and treatments, Pharmaceutical companies are allowed access to the results, no monopoly, just open competition without the worry of copyright or anything else. There would still be plenty of profit to be had as well, the price to the consumer would be reasonable and controlled through actual market competition instead of price fixing.

it's just a thought, but fundamentally we need to do research, we need to develop our science and engineering. Any successful nation has to have good science and the BEST nation has to have the BEST science. This is just the course of humanity. So how do we ensure that we are really pushing our science and technology properly, and this includes medical tech? And in such a way that beneficial results can be obtained by the People. There's no point making an awesome robot arm for amputees if amputees cannot afford or access it. Because of the growing scales of scientific research, both temporally and financially, I think government more and more will be necessary to secure our research and promote the expansion of our science.

Great post, I agree completely. Capitalism only works for one thing, making profits, but if we want affordable healthcare profits need to be limited. Additionally we have a huge problem with things the people need, like antibiotics for example, there is no real profits in antibiotics and so almost every drug manufacturer has closed their antibiotic development labs. This while bacteria is becoming resistant to all the antibiotics we current have. There is enough profits to be made in the manufacture of approved drugs, it's time to remove the private sector from research and development. IMO. ... or separate research and development from manufacture in the private sector.