1. If prices weren't this high then there wouldn't be incentive to develop these drugs in the first place. There's a reason most novel drugs come from the US!
2. The vast majority of drugs do not pan out and most fledging companies formed to study them fail
3. In the US, insurance mostly covers the cost of drugs
4. In 14-20 years, the drug will be turned into a generic and the prices will plummet
> then there wouldn't be incentive to develop these drugs in the first place.
This isn't true. The incentive is to help people. There are many people who are calable of doing that but can't do it afford to. We can just pay for their cost of living and research directly, cutting out the profit entirely.
Rockefeller famously opened up about 1500 libraries nationwide. Free to use public libraries, but the librarians and such were paid.
Meaning, such philanthropy does not require every single soldier ant to be a philanthropist. But it does require them to not seek a "get rich" mentality. Such a mentality is inherently incompatible.
And, for the rich philanthropist, he must be ready to lose money. You and I are but lowly ants, and to us losing money is bad. But consider for someone like Rockefeller, there was 0 quality of life decrease after opening those libraries. Of course, if I open even one library, I'm broke.
Surely healthcare requires many ants who want to be compensated.
For this reason I think the idea that healthcare should not be contingent on profit seeking individuals to be a pretty hollow statement.
It also seems that we have a shortage of Rockefellers to bankroll the US healthcare system as active charity with no profit motive.
That seems inconsistent to claim that people will do the work and donate money without returns in the face of reality where very few people do that.
The response seems to be that people in our current system are forced to seek compensation to survive. This seems easily testable. Cut back doctor and healthcare workers salaries to a subsistence income or even the median and you will quickly see if people flock to the profession or leave it
This doesn't align with reality, in which almost all developed nation-states have public healthcare systems.
It is for the benefit of society as a whole that people be healthy. Therefore, it is in the interest of each and every person our healthcare be funded. Therefore, they should all fund it.
It's not like other goods where some people want a toy, and some people don't. It's more in line with education. Everyone needs it, and if everyone has it then things improve for everyone - even those who can't get it, for one reason or another.
In my eyes, healthcare as a field almost perfectly fits the description of what should be a nationalized service. We've taken the jump with other low-hanging fruit, like education. And society as a whole has benefited greatly from no longer having the majority of the population be illiterate.
Developed nation states with public healthcare systems rely on the US pharma industry for an outsize part of drug discovery. It may be better for the whole world that there's one rich country taking the private approach.
Also, the idea that if "something is in everyone's interest, it should be nationalized" doesn't address the fact that free markets are better at matching supply to demand. For example, the UK and Canada have significant healthcare supply shortages that only seem to be getting worse.
To put the previous paragraph another way: having "a right to healthcare" in the abstract is nice but if you need to see an oncologist, waiting weeks/months/years is going to get you killed. In the US this is much less of an issue. Yes it's expensive but when the alternative is "dying of cancer," people are okay going into debt!
> Developed nation states with public healthcare systems rely on the US pharma industry for an outsize part of drug discovery
I've heard this argument again and again and nobody has ever given me any hard proof.
SOME drugs are developed in the US. Not this one the post focuses on. How many drugs does the US produce as compared to the rest of the world? I dunno, nobody has any numbers. But you're assuming it's enough for it to qualify as a type of "welfare". That, to me, is more of a wishful belief than a hard reality - i.e. you're coping. The drugs are extremely expensive and it's hard to accept that maybe you're being scammed, so people retroactively create plausible reasons to explain this so they don't feel scammed. At least, that's what I see.
> In the US this is much less of an issue
This is actually incorrect. Health outcomes in the US are worse than pretty much every developed nation. This is where my previous paragraph comes in.
People would like very badly to believe our high prices are because the service is good, but this is not actually true, this is just a coping mechanism. Not only are our prices higher, but our standard of care is much lower.
> For example, the UK and Canada have significant healthcare supply shortages that only seem to be getting worse.
This is largely conservative propaganda. If you delve deeper, you will find out that wait times are typically lower in the UK and Canada as opposed to the US. Conservatives cherry pick examples of longer wait times, but again, you have to delve deeper than "oh it takes three months to get random tendon you've never heard of surgery!"
There is no such thing as a major US Pharma company. Major Pharma Companies and the industry are multinational. Revenue from the US is what makes drug development profitable, no matter where the companies are located. If the US paid the same as Europe, most drugs would not be economical to develop.
When you sit in a go/no-go decision to develop a new drug, you model US revenue and ROW revenue to see if the product is worth developing. US Revenue is usually 2x what can be made elsewhere, and pushes the product into the green.
The new drug in this article is Cobenfy, by Bristol Myers Squibb. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), is a multinational pharmaceutical company. BMS Revenues from US sales is 32 Billion. Revenues from every other country put together is 13 Billion. [1, pg 19]. The Company Bristol Myers Squibb has a profit Margin of about 14%. IF US paid like Europe, the profit margin would be -35% per year.
This is the way the US props up the global pharma industry. Now, I personally dont think this is something to be proud of. I think it would be better to simply not have many of the drugs we do, than pay the high prices. Alternatively, if somehow the US price matched with Europe, perhaps Europe would be forced to raise their prices.
The current state is like splitting the electric bill with a housemate who will only pay 25%. As long as you are scared of the power getting cut off, you are stuck paying most of the bill and being exploited.
The US health industry is deeply flawed, but it isnt just the private/public distinction. Many European countries have private healthcare and still have lower costs. It is systemic dysfunction and fear that drives the costs.
You lack any evidence for that and are ignoring the evidence to the contrary: nurses and teachers are paid shit in almost every country but do it anyway.
They do it because they want to make money. Give them full salary even if they dont show up for work, and most wouldnt. They would rather be relaxing and having fun.
Also, Nurses are a relatively well paid position, ~150% us the US median salary.
Point 1 is wrong, point 2 doesn't apply, insurance is now bearing the borden for this capitalistic endeavor for point 3, and in 14-20 years many people who stand to gain a significant quality of life improvement from this drug are likely to be dead (point 4).
2. The vast majority of drugs do not pan out and most fledging companies formed to study them fail
3. In the US, insurance mostly covers the cost of drugs
4. In 14-20 years, the drug will be turned into a generic and the prices will plummet