The Trump Drug Plan: Buy Canadian

[Zoupa]

Sigh. Roe was over 30% since the beginning of the year.

[Threviel]

Yikes, that's nice, I bet they could afford to throw some of that money away, the owners would probably like that.

[Zoupa]

R&D on useful stuff is throwing money away. Ok then.

Ima tiptoe out of this trainwreck of a thread and let y'all circlejerk to the thought of for-profit healthcare.

[Threviel]

It's not pharma companies responsibility to research unprofitable stuff. They are companies, they are only in it to maximise the owners profit. To try and blame them for not doing unprofitable stuff is like trying to blame a fish for being wet. To expect pharma companies to spend money on clearly unprofitable medicine is like expecting Ford to give away free cars or Skanska to give away free houses. It would be totally irresponsible behaviour.

If you want research into unprofitable diseases you probably want it from government or voluntary sources. So go request it from your politicians, not from corporations.

[Berkut]

My proposal:

Jack up taxes on corporate profits over a certain ROI, and increase tax breaks for companies doing investigative research into marginally profitable drugs that are deemed socially desirable. DO this in some magic way that doesn't result in creating perverse incentives, by getting some people way smarter than I am to figure out how to make that work, and make it flexible so we can tweak that system as needed.

Basically, make the incentives better for investing in drugs that the current straight market model doesn't incent well.

[garbon]

So arbitrarily punish the pharmaceutical industry?

[grumbler]

So arbitrarily punish the pharmaceutical industry?

Why does it have to just be the pharmaceutical industry?  It could be all corporations. And you might want to look up the meaning of "arbitrarily" before you misuse it again.

I have no idea how that could be done without creating perverse incentives and without creating massive loopholes, but the plan relies on magic, just like the Republican tax cuts for "job creators."

[garbon]

So arbitrarily punish the pharmaceutical industry?

Why does it have to just be the pharmaceutical industry?  It could be all corporations. And you might want to look up the meaning of "arbitrarily" before you misuse it again.

I have no idea how that could be done without creating perverse incentives and without creating massive loopholes, but the plan relies on magic, just like the Republican tax cuts for "job creators."

Well Berkut said nothing about applying it to all industries so...

[Zoupa]

My proposal:

Jack up taxes on corporate profits over a certain ROI, and increase tax breaks for companies doing investigative research into marginally profitable drugs that are deemed socially desirable. DO this in some magic way that doesn't result in creating perverse incentives, by getting some people way smarter than I am to figure out how to make that work, and make it flexible so we can tweak that system as needed.

Basically, make the incentives better for investing in drugs that the current straight market model doesn't incent well.

*tiptoes back in*

I'm no economist. As you can tell by my avatar, my preferred mean of production is a collective one So I have no idea if this could work, but it's a good basis for an improvement to the current system.

Berkut gets 1 Zoupa point 

[crazy canuck]

My proposal:

Jack up taxes on corporate profits over a certain ROI, and increase tax breaks for companies doing investigative research into marginally profitable drugs that are deemed socially desirable. DO this in some magic way that doesn't result in creating perverse incentives, by getting some people way smarter than I am to figure out how to make that work, and make it flexible so we can tweak that system as needed.

Basically, make the incentives better for investing in drugs that the current straight market model doesn't incent well.

Probably more efficient for government to directly fund the research

[Threviel]

Yeah, I'd like more government investments in the pharmaceutical sector. Would also provably have positive spillover effects on new pharma companies. Probably a more efficient use of society resources than punishing successful companies.

[Malthus]

I am beginning to think that pharmaceuticals (and healthcare in general) is one of those areas that is better handled through socialist means.

Capitalist competition is generally superior for creating consumer goods. But pharma and healthcare generally appear to be different. If left uncontrolled, their costs seem to continually increase relative to other expenses.

A big part of that could be the fact of an aging population using more drugs and healthcare generally, of course. I suspect a big part is that there is simply no limit to what people are willing to spend to stave off illness and death; so marginal increases in efficacy are rewarded disproportionately.   

[Valmy]

I am beginning to think that pharmaceuticals (and healthcare in general) is one of those areas that is better handled through socialist means.

Capitalist competition is generally superior for creating consumer goods. But pharma and healthcare generally appear to be different. If left uncontrolled, their costs seem to continually increase relative to other expenses.

A big part of that could be the fact of an aging population using more drugs and healthcare generally, of course. I suspect a big part is that there is simply no limit to what people are willing to spend to stave off illness and death; so marginal increases in efficacy are rewarded disproportionately.   

Yeah if you don't have your health, you don't have anything.

[DGuller]

I suspect a big part is that there is simply no limit to what people are willing to spend to stave off illness and death; so marginal increases in efficacy are rewarded disproportionately.   

There is no limit to what people are willing to spend on anything, if some entity without a human face on it is footing the bill.

[Malthus]

I suspect a big part is that there is simply no limit to what people are willing to spend to stave off illness and death; so marginal increases in efficacy are rewarded disproportionately.   

There is no limit to what people are willing to spend on anything, if some entity without a human face on it is footing the bill.

The US situation provides a different perspective, as some middle-income people there lack a "faceless entity" to foot the bill for medical care - and nonetheless go into insolvency to pay for it, apparently.