Anybody see this? It adds some insight into the discussions we were having about health care prices in the U.S.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. helped mastermind a sweeping conspiracy among generic drugmakers to raise the price of medicines, according to a new antitrust lawsuit filed by states that stems from a five-year investigation of the companies. Teva’s stock plunged the most in three months.
More than a dozen current and former executives at top generic-drug makers, including Mylan NV and a unit of Pfizer Inc., were sued on Friday by more than 40 states led by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
“We have hard evidence that shows the generic drug industry perpetrated a multi-billion dollar fraud on the American people,” Tong said in a statement Friday. “We all wonder why our health care, and specifically the prices for generic prescription drugs, are so expensive in this country — this is a big reason why.”
This is another illustration of how medicine represents a free market failure. While price fixing is not unheard of in other parts of the economy, it's rare where there is healthy competition and a normal supply and demand curve. Those circumstances don't exist with health care, where competition is limited and demand is inelastic.
Friggin Isreal, at least Debeers has the courtesy not to come within 20 miles of our cost when they come here for meetings. I see Dershowitz is caught up in a sticky situation much like Bubba Clinton. Some of my best friends are Jewish butt, gaming the system for huge financial gain is dirty pool. It also gives others a bad rap. At any rate this is TEVA and subsidiaries and to their credit they did deny...
The other firms in the U.S. are mum. Many of the States and the Feds are going to make hay. A lot of hay.
Kpdemello wrote:This is another illustration of how medicine represents a free market failure.
If true, it demonstrates illegal / criminal activity ... I don’t think this means the free market system is a failure.
It represents both. The only reason this activity is illegal is that along the way we discovered that capitalism isn't perfect and sometimes corporations act to stifle competition by price-fixing. So we regulated it and made it illegal. Under classic capitalist theory, not only would this not be illegal, it wouldn't be necessary because competition would create enough pressure to prevent this sort of thing. But we all know the real world doesn't always work that way.
When it comes to health care in particular, the conditions that lead to price fixing are exacerbated because the free market doesn't work the same way it does with other types of products. So we need to regulate it even more. The point here is that drug prices are not being properly set by the free market. Price fixing is just one problem among many in that sphere.
Kpdemello wrote: along the way we discovered that capitalism isn't perfect...
Neither is our legal system, but it's the best we have devised so far.
Kpdemello wrote:When it comes to health care in particular, the conditions that lead to price fixing are exacerbated because the free market doesn't work the same way it does with other types of products. So we need to regulate it even more.
No, we don't need more regulations, we just need to shine a very bright light on this and prosecute offenders. There are many examples of where drug and treatment prices have come down over time.
I have called before for far more transparency, far more disclosure in the medical industry, Prices should be posted just like in the supermarket. Competition should exist across State lines. Prices should be the same for all purchasers. Drug prices shouldn't be different for me than they are for you.
Kpdemello wrote:This is another illustration of how medicine represents a free market failure.
If true, it demonstrates illegal / criminal activity ... I don’t think this means the free market system is a failure.
It represents both. The only reason this activity is illegal is that along the way we discovered that capitalism isn't perfect and sometimes corporations act to stifle competition by price-fixing. So we regulated it and made it illegal. Under classic capitalist theory, not only would this not be illegal, it wouldn't be necessary because competition would create enough pressure to prevent this sort of thing. But we all know the real world doesn't always work that way.
When it comes to health care in particular, the conditions that lead to price fixing are exacerbated because the free market doesn't work the same way it does with other types of products. So we need to regulate it even more. The point here is that drug prices are not being properly set by the free market. Price fixing is just one problem among many in that sphere.
Please explain, because I see your bold statement as bold nonsense. Under classic capitalist theory, competition causes lower prices, thus companies have the incentive to fix prices to avoid competing with one another, thus the clear need for rules (i.e. antitrust laws).
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Mister Moose wrote:No, we don't need more regulations, we just need to shine a very bright light on this and prosecute offenders. There are many examples of where drug and treatment prices have come down over time.
This seems like a contradiction. You don't want more regulation, but you want to "shine a bright light on this and prosecute offenders." How do you do that without more regulation? Who holds this light you want to shine? It was government people who discovered this price fixing issue. You wouldn't have people like that looking into it without government and regulation.
Mister Moose wrote:Prices should be posted just like in the supermarket. Competition should exist across State lines. Prices should be the same for all purchasers. Drug prices shouldn't be different for me than they are for you.
This is sort of what I'm talking about. Nobody had to tell supermarkets to post prices on all their goods. They did so because competitive market forces made it necessary. In health care, you're going to have to force providers to post prices, and you're going to have to force them to charge the same for all purchasers, because right now, left to their own devices, they don't do it. That in and of itself is more regulation, by the way. But the bottom line is, clearly, the free market itself is not working here. It needs help to function properly.
Last edited by Kpdemello on May 13th, '19, 09:25, edited 1 time in total.
Bubba wrote:Please explain, because I see your bold statement as bold nonsense. Under classic capitalist theory, competition causes lower prices, thus companies have the incentive to fix prices to avoid competing with one another, thus the clear need for rules (i.e. antitrust laws).
Basically classical capitalism is when there are no rules because competition and free markets are thought to be effectively self-regulating. From the article: "This epoch of capitalism was characterized by free market ideology, which holds that the market should be left to sort itself out without intervention from governments."
Once you start imposing rules, like preventing price fixing and anti-trust laws, you're no longer talking about classical capitalism. You're talking about government intervention, which is Keynesian or New Deal capitalism. That concept really started taking hold in the late 1920's, so it's a relatively recent development.
Mister Moose wrote:No, we don't need more regulations, we just need to shine a very bright light on this and prosecute offenders. There are many examples of where drug and treatment prices have come down over time.
This seems like a contradiction. You don't want more regulation, but you want to "shine a bright light on this and prosecute offenders." How do you do that without more regulation? Who holds this light you want to shine? It was government people who discovered this price fixing issue. You wouldn't have people like that looking into it without government and regulation.
No...this is enforcement of current regulation, not the addition of more regulation. What part of that appears to be a contradiction?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Bubba wrote:Please explain, because I see your bold statement as bold nonsense. Under classic capitalist theory, competition causes lower prices, thus companies have the incentive to fix prices to avoid competing with one another, thus the clear need for rules (i.e. antitrust laws).
Basically classical capitalism is when there are no rules because competition and free markets are thought to be effectively self-regulating. From the article: "This epoch of capitalism was characterized by free market ideology, which holds that the market should be left to sort itself out without intervention from governments."
Once you start imposing rules, like preventing price fixing and anti-trust laws, you're no longer talking about classical capitalism. You're talking about government intervention, which is Keynesian or New Deal capitalism. That concept really started taking hold in the late 1920's, so it's a relatively recent development.
Keynesian Economics has far more to it than preventing price fixing and instituting anti-trust laws and is far more interventionist than the simple imposition of rules. In fact, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act predates Keynes' published work by more than 30 years. The trust busting of the early 20th century predates Keynes as does the institution of utility regulation which, by the way, was developed by electric utilities (specifically Commonwealth Edison in Chicago) in order to preserve their monopolies. The early parts of the New Deal predate Keynes' 1936 work as well, although his influence on the New Deal is clear.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Capitalism is messy as is democracy. Right now, the China tariff's issue will be resolved; although it will result in an increase in the cost of consumer goods until S. Korea, Japan and others start to pick up the slack. This was a brilliant move by Trump.
File under break eggs to make breakfast. It is amazing The Failing New York Times is siding with the Reds. It goes to show they really are communist sympathizers.
Bubba wrote:Keynesian Economics has far more to it than preventing price fixing and instituting anti-trust laws and is far more interventionist than the simple imposition of rules. In fact, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act predates Keynes' published work by more than 30 years. The trust busting of the early 20th century predates Keynes as does the institution of utility regulation which, by the way, was developed by electric utilities (specifically Commonwealth Edison in Chicago) in order to preserve their monopolies. The early parts of the New Deal predate Keynes' 1936 work as well, although his influence on the New Deal is clear.
All true. Not sure why it's relevant. I was just trying to define classical capitalist theory as opposed to the more interventionist period that came later and brought with it laws against price fixing, anti-trust, etc. If you read article I posted a link to, it literally defines these terms for you. If you don't like the terms, well, I think that's just semantics and not really the point we're discussing here.
Last edited by Kpdemello on May 13th, '19, 15:51, edited 2 times in total.
Mister Moose wrote:No, we don't need more regulations, we just need to shine a very bright light on this and prosecute offenders. There are many examples of where drug and treatment prices have come down over time.
This seems like a contradiction. You don't want more regulation, but you want to "shine a bright light on this and prosecute offenders." How do you do that without more regulation? Who holds this light you want to shine? It was government people who discovered this price fixing issue. You wouldn't have people like that looking into it without government and regulation.
No...this is enforcement of current regulation, not the addition of more regulation. What part of that appears to be a contradiction?
Sure, I suppose. At a minimum it is embracing the current regulation as a good thing, and reinforces the position that not all regulation is bad. I guess the real contradiction is when he later said he wants to force providers to post pricing, charge the same price for everyone, etc. That is literally a proposed set of new regulations.
In any case, the allegations are that these companies have been engaging in price fixing for a long time and getting away with it. At a minimum, that suggests that perhaps the regulations on the books aren't terribly effective at curbing this activity. I agree, we need to shine a bright light on them - it seems to me the beset way to do that is by mandating new protections and controls, i.e. new regulation.
Kpdemello wrote:When it comes to health care in particular, the conditions that lead to price fixing are exacerbated because the free market doesn't work the same way it does with other types of products. So we need to regulate it even more.
No, we don't need more regulations, we just need to shine a very bright light on this and prosecute offenders. There are many examples of where drug and treatment prices have come down over time.
This seems like a contradiction. You don't want more regulation, but you want to "shine a bright light on this and prosecute offenders." How do you do that without more regulation? Who holds this light you want to shine? It was government people who discovered this price fixing issue. You wouldn't have people like that looking into it without government and regulation.
Let me clarify. The above quote refers to what you said above it, ie more regulations on price fixing specifically. We have those already.
Kpdemello wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:Prices should be posted just like in the supermarket. Competition should exist across State lines. Prices should be the same for all purchasers. Drug prices shouldn't be different for me than they are for you.
This is sort of what I'm talking about. Nobody had to tell supermarkets to post prices on all their goods. They did so because competitive market forces made it necessary. In health care, you're going to have to force providers to post prices, and you're going to have to force them to charge the same for all purchasers, because right now, left to their own devices, they don't do it. That in and of itself is more regulation, by the way. But the bottom line is, clearly, the free market itself is not working here. It needs help to function properly.
Actually quite a few states have supermarket pricing laws. And the current health care pricing maze has as much to do with insurance and how it's evolved (able to negotiate different prices per policy group) as providers. And yes, that would be more regulation than currently exists in this specific industry, but transparency and fairness are healthy foundations, not burdens of open markets and capitalism.
Note that what I'm recommending does not set prices, or regulate services in anyway, other than to provide the consumer with information.
This is a tough one. There are consultants which will figure this stuff out for older people for a fee. Their buying radio time with the "don't let the nursing home take money that you have no right to butt you want to take advantage of loopholes in the law so you can buy a second vacation home ads".
The "K" street consultants have written these laws for decades to protect "their" interests. A good place to start is the doctor liability rules which the left has created. Just letting people die of old age would also help.
