I think your idea for handling the OP's hedge fund type case is a good one. I would go further and cap the increase at something reasonable, like maybe 300%. But that doesn't address the more general problem for the legitimate cases where pharmaceutical companies develop new treatments for less common diseases and need prices to enable continued R&D.

You can cap those prices but the effect will be a reduction in development of those kinds of new treatments - at least in the short run. That might be ok in the long run because it would incentivize the companies to be less extravagant in their development costs and find more efficient solutions if that's possible. That's a big IF though and getting there might be a long long run. However that may be something we just have to live (and die) with to avoid bankruptcies all around.

I admit my idea is almost certainly politically unfeasible and will never happen. But it's more a case of its making too much sense than because it's a bad idea.


PairTheBoard

Also notice i didnt say cap the price of drugs at entry. At entry the company decides based on how it feels the effort is worth it as a breakthrough. It deserves to be rewarded for the effort given to obtain it. I imagine that the cost is covered then by many people not the poor one that has the disease. If a drug exists and we do not give it to save a human that needs it then this is a crime of our times. We must pay as society the company for the drug to save the person. If the company requires unreal prices then we must punish the company for being so excessive as over time it will recover its costs if it is more reasonable that first time. We can even reward the company with tax breaks if it doesn't do this now.

What i said was about capping the increase of an already established drug that has a market for many years. That implies a ton of people depend on it now. Why victimize them suddenly that heavily? There is no legitimate reason a company that has priced a drug in a particular level for years suddenly takes it 10x or more higher. I argued even more than 2x is bad. But ok 2x, 3x lets agree some level to avoid the 55x craziness and still leave room for other developments that may justify such movement.

I just argued that we can use the taxation of the rich in a way to attack many of these problems and not victimize individual rich people when they get unlucky for so much. Tax all of them a much smaller amount and get the same effect in a smoother manner.

We can take the main idea you have and make it smoother or force the rich to improve society with their money instead of taking it to other countries and giving the finger to the country that made them big. We can force them (by the power of incentives of better taxation) to use their money to improve a society not to apply their power to corrupt the system or invest in house of cards type investments that do not offer tangible benefit to the world only exploit its weaknesses and help middle class and the poor become poorer by cutting jobs and sending them overseas etc. Force the rich to make their profit in reasonable constructive manners developing a real economy.

masque de Z,

You cannot do that. Usage of force in redistribution of wealth reinforces a flawed economic state.

You induce by setting examples and being pretty public about it. Something common sense like a national grocery chain donating all of its day's bread at the end of the day.

Bread and bread. Since these tend to be publicly traded, and food R and D is essentially grassroots (it is individuals posting on community sites that come up with most new recipes or ideas) management and employees, since it can also take compensation in the same bread, can fill out fair compensation practices by quarterly dividends or a small trading reserve for small-cap acquisitions.

In a market increasingly reverting to a more optimal bazaar approach online, it is essential to be accessible and flexible, and retain ahimsa.

And you develop a sense of community in doing so.

What usage of force i did to redistribution?

Use cyber Marxism instead. Pool resources, build the new paradigm amongst yourselves, etc.

Remove wealth from the equation.

You're not quite wrong, but the pivot bit of logic is the bolded in my quoting your own words.

Either would work, but your idea takes too long and is prone to backsliding. Also, it is inherently violent.

Taking back Wall Street didn't do ****e, did it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10...n_8247382.html

One of the user comments

"Honestly, there still isn't a decent cure for toxoplasmosis (I have been treated for it about 6 times now). If he can make true on his word that he will invest in a better drug with the money he earns while making sure that no one is denied treatment based on their wallet, then I am all in favour of the price hike"

good topic. thx for starting it OP .. had seen headline a couple of weeks back in a canadian newspaper but forgot to go back to it

i'm a huge fan of free markets BUT to me this goes a little far........ i'm much more in favour of a company that has owned the drug for years raising the price suddenly than some interloper.

i would also say that medicine/pharma is not a "free market" and was never intended to be such. also, not sure any industrialized countries are highly free market when it comes to pharma. usually highly regulated.... i think there should need to be a review for things like this.

having said that, 2 more comments,

1) this is what many many companies do with acquisitions but they usually raise the price slowly.. a big bank i know bot a giant investment fund company renowned for very low fees. my bet was that they would raise the fees very slowly and quietly for years on those newly acquired funds/customers. not sure if they have.

2) i think this is exactly what valeant (high flying canadian health care stock, formerly biovail) is getting in trouble. huge drop in stock after monumental rise when the government started investigating them buying some drugs and then immediately jacking up the price (not like headline boy but very very substantially)

Much like medical tourism can you apply the same concept to pharmacy tourism and do a trip to India with your prescription and head back after a few weeks with a supply?

From what I read this specific drug costs about 10 cents in India.

It takes only 2-3 weeks to get stuff from India in the mail. If you get to know online customer service guys from India on the phone they can special order things for you as long as it's not a controlled substance.


PairTheBoard

Take drugs from India at your own risk:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/wo...ries.html?_r=0

as a human being, you have every right to talk about these matters

unless you're implying you would take the same course of action (actually ripping off the terminally ill, not the suggested recoup of R&D)

I wouldn't probe Miss_Lonely_Hearts too much, into talking about the good and the bad.
Actually. Replace 'the good' with 'the bad' in that sentence, and 'the bad' with 'the worst'.

for profit medicine is a joke

This should be the end of the analysis for your whole mind. When you get to "unneeded deaths" you are at a stopping point.

.

Two wrongs...

Any idea how much pharma spends on advertising? It might shock you.

The drugs work remarkably well. And who is going to hold him to account anyway? Nobody, which is why it is perfectly safe for him to lie his ass off in that spot.

The idea that companies can't do anything ethically wrong, which is what underlies your point, is simply, absolutely, wrong. It's wrong when they do it and it's wrong for an individual to do it.

I don't know. Has anyone recently been killed in this country for crimes against the public at large? I can't think of any, save for some stories of victims family members going off here and there. But I don't know of any case where a villain was known to have done something vile and then some person, non directly impacted by their crime or bad act, took revenge for the public. Or even people directly impacted.

If you're speaking directly to vigilante actions...

Uh, people disappear and if they weren't nice people, nobody really cares or wastes the newsprint in most instances.

If a kid stops screaming on a plane, you don't question your good fortune.

Any examples?

Chicago detective Jon Burge tortured over 200 suspects, many of them innocent, into confessions. He lived openly in Florida after that. Was he in any danger? There are a lot of people like him and they just live openly. I can't think of anyone ever taking out anyone like that. Maybe there is some vigilante justice somewhere but I can't think of a single example where the vigilante was acting on behalf of the public. Political assassinations by schizo's don't count.

And if GZ went mysteriously missing newspapers would definitely "waste ink" on it.

Florida??? You mean Dexter wasn't real??

The Unabomber got a couple of low-grade ****heads at the end.

Didn't he mainly kill/attack random decent people who were advancing the technology he thought would somehow kill us or whatever? Ok wiki is telling me he killed some corporate jackals as well. I was looking for someone not so emotionally disturbed, someone making what could be seen as a righteous kill from a majority perspective, like killing O.J (on the basis that it is infinitely clear he is guilty), but I guess TedK technically qualifies under a more relativist perspective.

A psychopath with a conscience? Come on now, that's too easy. The contradictory premise alone gives it away.

Such binaries.

Evolution. More like a doctor's detachment.

Well, he had a code his detective father gave him in order to not get caught. It was really his father's concience that drove that premise. Still, as they drew that story out, he was obviously too good to be a sociopath.

It was obvious from the first few episodes (which I was pressured into watching). But thanks for seeing that. I try to get people to see the fundamental contradiction of that show and it's like I get all kinds of nonsensical pushback.

I guess I could just let people enjoy the show. It's a nice fantasy.

I am giving it another go. He is a sadist. Completely different condition. Also a really bad imitation of aloof autism spectrum disorder. Plus fairly deeply introspective. Kind of as if the writers tried to invent a character who was an emaciated obese man who thought he was a type of cheeseburger.

If you want to get really bothered, watch some videos by Sam Vaknin. He is a social ****** who thinks he has narcissism.