Comments on: Secret film shows slaughter to the world Covert operation finally exposes Taiji’s annual dolphin horror http://straightarrow.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/troubled-waters/ The only free press - is the one you own. Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:07:07 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: straightarrow http://straightarrow.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/troubled-waters/#comment-315 straightarrow Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:05:24 +0000 http://straightarrow.wordpress.com/?p=165#comment-315 Great follow up post by another blogger Thanks! November 16, 2009 Drug Companies as Feeding Machines In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. “When we have major legislation anticipated, we see a run-up in price increases,” says Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota. A Harvard health economist, Joseph P. Newhouse, said he found a similar pattern of unusual price increases after Congress added drug benefits to Medicare a few years ago, giving tens of millions of older Americans federally subsidized drug insurance. Just as the program was taking effect in 2006, the drug industry raised prices by the widest margin in a half-dozen years. “They try to maximize their profits,” Mr. Newhouse said. But drug companies say they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years. The drug makers have been proudly citing the agreement they reached with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee chairman to trim $8 billion a year — $80 billion over 10 years — from the nation’s drug bill by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. But this year’s price increases would effectively cancel out the savings from at least the first year of the Senate Finance agreement. And some critics say the surge in drug prices could change the dynamics of the entire 10-year deal. “It makes it much easier for the drug companies to pony up the $80 billion because they’ll be making more money,” said Steven D. Findlay, senior health care analyst with the advocacy group Consumers Union. My analysis: That the firms are trying to maximize their profits ought not be viewed as new thing. It is what they do. To expect a shark not be be a feeding machine is at the very least highly unrealistic. It is not fair to the shark that was designed to feed. If a shark is able to feed, it will. If a drug company is able to charge more for its products, it will. It is interesting that the question of motive is deemed relevant. I myself wonder whether the price increases are really motivated by the anticipated expirations of patents or the $80 billion to be paid as part of the health-care reform. Can I trust the self-serving explanation of the firms in the face of the experts’ studies of historical price patterns before major pieces of legislation affecting the industry? A shark will feed; we don’t ask about its motives. Were a shark to have reasons, they would be whatever furthers its feeding. Whether it is lying would be irrelevant. In fact, the normativity of truth-telling would not register, as it does not have a taste-element. We project onto the shark when we presume a motive or that a normative judgment is pertinent. If the shark can feed, it will. It is a feeding machine. If we as self-governing citizens don’t want the sharks to feed as much, we would need to make them unable to do so. Telling them they shouldn’t feed today simply doesn’t make sense to a shark. Getting mad at a shark for having what we presume is the wrong motive is utterly futile. Besides, we could be all wrong about the motive. We couldn’t trust what the sharks say about it. There might not be a motive other than simply feeding. So if we want less feeding, we would be better served by looking into how the tank permits over-feeding. We can change the tank. We can’t very well change the shark without making it not a shark. We could pass legislation outlawing profits, but at what cost? We want some feeding. We are convinced that we need some sharks in the tank. The question is how to prevent over-feeding at our expense. Presuming the shark will respond to our charges of its immoral motive is a non-starter, but we can redesign the tank, which the shark must take as a required constraint. For example, we can apply anti-trust law such that any sharks that become too big for the tank get chopped up and become shark-food. We can install steel bars in the tank to limit where the sharks can feed (i.e., maximum prices or profits). That the drug companies are price-setters rather than takers strongly points to the need for anti-trust enforcement. Of course, if the sharks are threatening to eat our representatives, we can’t count on our politicians to give us straight talk on significant reform of the tank any time soon. Rather, they will try to convince us that they have sufficiently modified its structure, when in fact they are enabling the sharks to continue over-feeding. Perhaps the officials are sharks themselves? Sharks policing a tank of sharks, while the rest of us wonder why the over-feeding goes on. Maybe we deserve to be gouged. Great follow up post by another blogger
Thanks!
November 16, 2009
Drug Companies as Feeding Machines
In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. “When we have major legislation anticipated, we see a run-up in price increases,” says Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota. A Harvard health economist, Joseph P. Newhouse, said he found a similar pattern of unusual price increases after Congress added drug benefits to Medicare a few years ago, giving tens of millions of older Americans federally subsidized drug insurance. Just as the program was taking effect in 2006, the drug industry raised prices by the widest margin in a half-dozen years. “They try to maximize their profits,” Mr. Newhouse said. But drug companies say they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years. The drug makers have been proudly citing the agreement they reached with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee chairman to trim $8 billion a year — $80 billion over 10 years — from the nation’s drug bill by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. But this year’s price increases would effectively cancel out the savings from at least the first year of the Senate Finance agreement. And some critics say the surge in drug prices could change the dynamics of the entire 10-year deal. “It makes it much easier for the drug companies to pony up the $80 billion because they’ll be making more money,” said Steven D. Findlay, senior health care analyst with the advocacy group Consumers Union.

My analysis:

That the firms are trying to maximize their profits ought not be viewed as new thing. It is what they do. To expect a shark not be be a feeding machine is at the very least highly unrealistic. It is not fair to the shark that was designed to feed. If a shark is able to feed, it will. If a drug company is able to charge more for its products, it will. It is interesting that the question of motive is deemed relevant. I myself wonder whether the price increases are really motivated by the anticipated expirations of patents or the $80 billion to be paid as part of the health-care reform. Can I trust the self-serving explanation of the firms in the face of the experts’ studies of historical price patterns before major pieces of legislation affecting the industry? A shark will feed; we don’t ask about its motives. Were a shark to have reasons, they would be whatever furthers its feeding. Whether it is lying would be irrelevant. In fact, the normativity of truth-telling would not register, as it does not have a taste-element. We project onto the shark when we presume a motive or that a normative judgment is pertinent. If the shark can feed, it will. It is a feeding machine.

If we as self-governing citizens don’t want the sharks to feed as much, we would need to make them unable to do so. Telling them they shouldn’t feed today simply doesn’t make sense to a shark. Getting mad at a shark for having what we presume is the wrong motive is utterly futile. Besides, we could be all wrong about the motive. We couldn’t trust what the sharks say about it. There might not be a motive other than simply feeding. So if we want less feeding, we would be better served by looking into how the tank permits over-feeding. We can change the tank. We can’t very well change the shark without making it not a shark. We could pass legislation outlawing profits, but at what cost? We want some feeding. We are convinced that we need some sharks in the tank. The question is how to prevent over-feeding at our expense.

Presuming the shark will respond to our charges of its immoral motive is a non-starter, but we can redesign the tank, which the shark must take as a required constraint. For example, we can apply anti-trust law such that any sharks that become too big for the tank get chopped up and become shark-food. We can install steel bars in the tank to limit where the sharks can feed (i.e., maximum prices or profits). That the drug companies are price-setters rather than takers strongly points to the need for anti-trust enforcement. Of course, if the sharks are threatening to eat our representatives, we can’t count on our politicians to give us straight talk on significant reform of the tank any time soon. Rather, they will try to convince us that they have sufficiently modified its structure, when in fact they are enabling the sharks to continue over-feeding. Perhaps the officials are sharks themselves? Sharks policing a tank of sharks, while the rest of us wonder why the over-feeding goes on. Maybe we deserve to be gouged.

]]> By: euandus2 http://straightarrow.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/troubled-waters/#comment-313 euandus2 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:02:53 +0000 http://straightarrow.wordpress.com/?p=165#comment-313 The drug companies claim they are raising prices because some of their patents will expire soon. However, it is convenient that they are doing so before the planned health insurance reforms go into effect. I recommend the following post: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/drug-companies-as-feeding-machines/ The drug companies claim they are raising prices because some of their patents will expire soon. However, it is convenient that they are doing so before the planned health insurance reforms go into effect. I recommend the following post: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/drug-companies-as-feeding-machines/

]]>