I don’t think so. Price is always set to what the market will bear irrespective of cost (so long as it is higher), and the market cannot work properly in the consumer’s interest because there is insufficient competition and demand is too elastic
I don’t know how old you are, I’m halfway through my 40’s. Over the counter costs for drugs were expensive back in the 1970’s when I was a teenager; it’s just that the vast majority of people had health-care that was superior to what is offered today (though, admittedly, very expensive for companies to maintain). There were no deductibles; no such thing as an ‘out of network’ hospital or physician; and drugs cost nothing if prescribed and you had insurance. At least, not under my mother’s policy from Prudential that her employer paid for.
However, this is probably appropriate because so many of these companies are America.
Actually, according to this list, less than half of the top 50 (the top 30 being “Big Pharma”) are in the US; and of the top 10, only 4 are. So many equates to 13 of the top 30, and 22 of the top 50; at least in 2006.
I am in my late 50s and I remember what you describe.
At least, not under my mother’s policy from Prudential that her employer paid for.
Don’t you see that insurance only hides the problem? It makes us pay in a less painful way. That health cover from your mother’s employer was part of a package, and in lieu of salary. It probably cost her more than the full price of all the medications she received that way.
Actually, according to this list, less than half of the top 50 (the top 30 being “Big Pharma”) are in the US; and of the top 10, only 4 are. So many equates to 13 of the top 30, and 22 of the top 50; at least in 2006.
Well the mechanism I described should work just as well on the people who live wherever the pharmaceutical companies are based. If 40% of the top ten (is that by market- share, shareholder nationality, or profitability?) are American companies then it is appropriate that we should take a large share of the pain. Probably this should be more than 40% because the USA is the likely to be most influential country in bringing this out-of- control market back to order.
RE: I just don't believe them. Why do you? by Occams :: NR8 :: Show
I am in my late 50s and I remember what you describe.
At least, not under my mother’s policy from Prudential that her employer paid for.
Don’t you see that insurance only hides the problem? It makes us pay in a less painful way. That health cover from your mother’s employer was part of a package, and in lieu of salary. It probably cost her more than the full price of all the medications she received that way.
Actually, according to this list, less than half of the top 50 (the top 30 being “Big Pharma”) are in the US; and of the top 10, only 4 are. So many equates to 13 of the top 30, and 22 of the top 50; at least in 2006.
Well the mechanism I described should work just as well on the people who live wherever the pharmaceutical companies are based. If 40% of the top ten (is that by market- share, shareholder nationality, or profitability?) are American companies then it is appropriate that we should take a large share of the pain. Probably this should be more than 40% because the USA is the likely to be most influential country in bringing this out-of- control market back to order.