This is what "Globalization" looks like: use laws and captured regulatory agencies to segment the world into markets by ability to pay. Charge more where you can. At the same time, use cheap communications to hire the lowest-cost labor to develop and create the product.<p>Humbug. This kind of information puts a huge damper on the arguments about "Intellectual Property" and "piracy" and stuff, at least to me. Why not segment the labor market, too, and enforce that. High priced pharmaceuticals? They have to be developed and made by high-priced labor, thank you very much.
Not to worry, they'll cost the same everywhere in a few years, when tpp and ttip are ratified and enforced - everyone's prices will go up to match the US's.
> "Manufacturers say decent returns are needed to reward high-risk research and prices reflect the economic value provided by medicines."<p>Contrast this market or model with mining, where small junior companies raise investment capital from people who want to take the risk of the junior actually finding a profitable deposit to mine.<p>It seems this is more what markets were made for; people who want to take the risk and get the reward foot the bill for that risk. Removing that cost from the cost of the product makes the product more accessible, and the financing comes from those who want to finance.
I posted this in a previous thread:<p>By centralizing all procurement of a drug for an entire country through a single contract, of course countries are able to negotiate better prices than what Americans pay in a more free market. This is especially true given the structure of the pharma business, with massive up-front costs and almost-zero marginal costs. You could do the same with countless products. But this is it's own kind of abuse. Instead of being paid the market price, pharma companies are paid the lowest-price they could absolutely tolerate. They also have to worry about the political fallout of walking away from a deal when the government tries to blame them for the lack of a deal.<p>There's definitely ways in which drug pricing can become abusive and needs to be regulated, especially because government intervention via patents is partially responsible for enabling these abuses. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. A free market for drugs makes sure that companies can recoup their investments and make a reasonable profit. If pharma companies don't feel that they can do that, they won't invest in new drugs. Also, I don't want to live in a place where the availability of a treatment is determined by some government committee that determines what the value of a month of my life is.<p>A final thought, sticker prices for drugs are thrown around as evidence that drugs are overpriced, but 1) no one ever pays the sticker price, it's almost always negotiated way down and 2) these drugs provide immense value. Antiretroviral drugs, for example, turn HIV from an imminent death sentence into a very manageable disease like diabetes. Thousands of dollars a month is pretty reasonable when you consider that. Insurance makes sure that individuals can afford it.
I was asked to repost this as part of the new HN reposting experiments. Original located here[1], thought it was a good original comment and wanted to carry it over.<p>[1]<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10375093" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10375093</a>
The rest of the world is so damn proud of their cheap universal health care. Little do they realize how much of it is subsidized by Americans. You're welcome world. You're welcome.