Democrats plot the end of medical progress

WSJ: the results of the Democrat plan to control prices

Highly financially risky projects require a high rate of return, or they just don’t get done.

As the article points out, were this plan in effect a decade ago, there would be no Moderna, or mRNA vaccines.

But that’s OK, if you believe that today’s level of medical treatment is all we’ll ever need.

We should be very grateful that COVID came along before Democrats were in control.

11 thoughts on “Democrats plot the end of medical progress

  1. RE: “Highly financially risky projects require a high rate of return, or they just don’t get done.”

    Some might say that’s why we have governments; they can finance anything.

    Of course, whether governments are smart enough to make good bets on the future, whether it is morally acceptable for governments to bet with public money, and what the consequences might be when government can’t deliver a necessary rate of return — all these, to name a few — become open questions.

    Like

    1. Further, when government sets out to fund research, if they find that left handed, albino, Tibetan nuns are underrepresented in the field of research, that’s where the grants will go, not to the most likley to produce results.

      Like

  2. FYI:

    Only 16 of the top 50 pharmaceutical companies are US.

    Only 5 of the top ten are US.

    So who is funding all the big foreign nationals?

    Moderna and J&J are US, but Pfizer partnered with a German company. Astra-Zeneca is British. Who funded them?

    Why are Americans funding the world’s pharmaceutical companies through high prices while the rest are getting price controls? It is not coincidence that we have the most expensive healthcare that millions can’t afford.

    Yes, it costs money to develop drugs. That is the nature of the business. But are they hurting financially so that Americans have to subsidize them through artificially high prices? I don’t think so.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Regardless of where they are based, they all sell in the US.

      It is unfair that we bear the brunt of the costs. I happens because we are the big market for cutting edge drugs. The drug companies can look at Canada as a marginal cost customer.

      If only we had a businessman as President to negotiate a getter deal.

      But who is it in the US who doesn’t get treated with the Standard of Care medicines?

      Like

        1. Getting a better deal means other countries carry their share of the load.

          Cutting the price we pay for the successful drugs that pay the research costs for the next generation of wonder drugs, and those that don’t make it, means those drugs will never be developed.

          Like

        1. So?

          I’m sure people bitch about the cost of dental care and wedding photos. That has nothing to do with the reality of producing them.

          Do you want the next generation to have the same drugs we have today or drugs that will give them better and longer lives?

          If you really want to lower the cost of drugs without killing innovation, get rid of the FDA and leave the question of safety to the product liability insurers and the question of efficacy to doctor guided by their journals.

          The marketplace will take care of costs.

          Like

          1. “… leave the question of safety to the product liability insurers and the question of efficacy to doctor guided by their journals.”

            The explosion of lawyers and court cases would choke out any savings. That is the point of having an FDA.

            Our torts system is out of whack. But that is another topic.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Not really.

            Loser pays if arbitration is refused would solve that problem very quickly.

            But there is nothing that could be worse than having a billion dollars and 10 years between a life saving innovation and the public.

            I promise you, there is no net gain for having the FDA instead of the normal market mechanisms that protect you when you buy a toaster.

            Like

          3. A bad toaster makes bad toast. A bad drug can kill you. (Yes, I know a bad toaster can kill you too, but that is rarer than recalled drugs.)

            Like I said, we need to reform torts. And this is whether or not the FDA is the cop on the beat or not.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Don Tabor Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s