Submitted by Trejkaz (not verified) on Mon, 2005/06/06 - 23:27.
Over in Australia, I pay around $20/month for an inhaler with 120 doses of under a milligram, making it more expensive than most illegal drugs on the market.
The problem with a free market is that when you have only one company with a stranglehold over a supply of a drug thanks to a patent, they'll do whatever they want with the price. It's true that "if people are still willing to pay, then the price is still right", but normal economics dictates that some people will stop buying the product due to the price being too high.
The problem with assuming that normal economics applies in this case is simple. This person whose drug has just been made too expensive for him to buy... what is his alternative? Pick between sickness and poverty. It would be a tough choice for me, but luckily our country has reasonable free health care, so if I really couldn't afford the $20 inhaler, it would be $5 instead and the government would pay the gap.
Recovering research costs seems fine, but it feels like it would be more fair if multiple companies held each patent, so that there would at least be some incentive for competition, rather than the consumer receiving a blatant shafting from these greedy bastards.
Better to be price fixing the drug at a lower price than giving it to a monopolistic company which will price fix everything it sells to more than it's actually worth.
Free Market is Fine, But Monopoly Isn't Free
Over in Australia, I pay around $20/month for an inhaler with 120 doses of under a milligram, making it more expensive than most illegal drugs on the market.
The problem with a free market is that when you have only one company with a stranglehold over a supply of a drug thanks to a patent, they'll do whatever they want with the price. It's true that "if people are still willing to pay, then the price is still right", but normal economics dictates that some people will stop buying the product due to the price being too high.
The problem with assuming that normal economics applies in this case is simple. This person whose drug has just been made too expensive for him to buy... what is his alternative? Pick between sickness and poverty. It would be a tough choice for me, but luckily our country has reasonable free health care, so if I really couldn't afford the $20 inhaler, it would be $5 instead and the government would pay the gap.
Recovering research costs seems fine, but it feels like it would be more fair if multiple companies held each patent, so that there would at least be some incentive for competition, rather than the consumer receiving a blatant shafting from these greedy bastards.
Better to be price fixing the drug at a lower price than giving it to a monopolistic company which will price fix everything it sells to more than it's actually worth.