The prices of drugs in the USA are especially high. This is interesting because the USA claims to pursue a maximum capitalistic society - but if this were the case, you'd have competition in a free market. But you don't have that. You have a cartel (or rather more than one).

A pure capitalistic society works on assumptions that are not real. People are often cheaters. This would have to be taken into account. But when you have an orange Al Capone in charge, it is pillage day. Even before the orange King you had heavily overcharged prices in the health care system. You need to realise that you have a mafia in charge that does not want to change this system. Why kill the cow that you can milk for free?

▲ wk_end 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> This is interesting because the USA claims to pursue a maximum capitalistic society

No it doesn't. This is silly.

Drug prices in the US are high for non-generic drugs because patent law gives the patent holder an artificial government-granted monopoly, which is blatantly not "pure" or "maximum capitalistic".

Generic drugs - where the free market does apply - in the US are as cheap or cheaper than in other countries. See [0]:

  U.S. prices for brand-name originator drugs were 422 percent of prices in
  comparison countries, while U.S. unbranded generics, which we found account for 90
  percent of U.S. prescription volume, were on average cheaper at 67 percent of
  prices in comparison countries, where on average only 41 percent of prescription
  volume is for unbranded generics.

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11147645/

▲

none2585 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I believe you two are arguing the same thing. Maybe the poster could have better worded it "general thought among most people is that the USA ..."

Because you are both absolutely right.

▲

simiones 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The maximum libertarian alternative to patents isn't free-for-all copying, it's trade secret formulas - e.g. Coca Cola. Drug patents actually exist as a compromise given the clear need for the state to force companies to publish their drug formulas for research. Allowing companies to just keep their drugs secret would be even more capitalistic, and would increase drug prices even more.

▲

ItsMonkk 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is where prizes come in. If you create a drug and keep it secret, the government can grant you a large prize as an offer to reveal your secret.

This is a much better compromise. The company will end up with more money(and faster!) as a result of this prize than under a patent system - since the patent system induces dead-weight losses, and the government will end up with more lives saved.

▲

mothballed 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They keep their processes secret instead under the current system, achieving a "trade-secret" like result for some drugs. For some drugs it achieves the same thing because finding a practical economic synthesis is the hard part rather than coming upon a small bit of chemical that is proven to be effective. For others it wouldn't matter whether you kept it secret or not, someone would isolate and characterize it and reverse engineer a practical synthesis.

The biggest value protector arguably of the patent-FDA approval process is on the FDA side, who create massive barriers to entry that mitigate close unpatented chemical competitors from outside the pharma oligopoly from competing.

	▲	NoMoreNicksLeft 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Is the patent not for the synthesis route itself, rather than the drug? Someone can't just plop down a chemical formula on a piece of paper and patent that, can they?
	▲	simiones 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm not really happy with the current system either - I tend to think that the state should just mandate that all medical research be fully published, and either have companies compete on research and manufacturing, or pay for it directly if it can't be made to work as a private business. My point was just that this is very much not a capitalist or libertarian position.

▲

vjvjvjvjghv 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Drug prices in the US are high for non-generic drugs because patent law gives the patent holder an artificial government-granted monopoly, which is blatantly not "pure" or "maximum capitalistic"."

This is very much capitalistic. It's not competitive markets (which are good for consumers) but capitalists hate competition once they have made it to the top.

	▲	parineum 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Capitalism doesn't serve capitalists. It's built to create an environment where the capitalist, doing what they do best, also serves the community. Monopolies are anti-capitalism, despite it being something that capital strives for. This is like being upset that bug spray doesn't actually spray bugs, in fact, it actually deters them.

▲

datsci_est_2015 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And yet, the defense of the status quo often relies on the supposition that the US is a capitalist nation, perhaps even a “maximally capitalist” one.

I’ll have to keep this in mind the next time it comes up…

▲ Aurornis 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This is interesting because the USA claims to pursue a maximum capitalistic society

I don’t know why you think this. The US is not a maximally capitalist society. The reason drug prices are so high is due to regulations restriction who can manufacture them due to government-granted temporary monopolies through patent law.

If the US was maximally capitalist it would be a free for all with no patent protection.

	▲	simiones 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If the US was maximally capitalist it would be a free for all with no patent protection. The much more likely alternative in a maximally capitalist / free market maximalist society would be keeping all drug formulas as trade secrets, and thereby having all drugs as branded, no generics whatsoever (or few - perhaps some substances could be reverse engineered). In such a society, having the state force companies to publish their formulas would be seen as unacceptable interference in the free market, almost certainly.
	▲	vjvjvjvjghv 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You are confusing capitalism with competitive markets. These are very different things.

▲ MrBuddyCasino 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Look at the development of price and quality of something that is outside the regulated medical system, like eg Lasik, and everything within that system. Its like night and day.

If we had proper competition and price discovery, things would be much better.

▲

Geeek 6 hours ago | parent [-]

On the other hand, dental work, especially anything above basic filings, are prohibitively expensive. I'd say Lasik is the exception, not the rule.

	▲	MrBuddyCasino 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Are you under the impression that dentists are under competitive pressure? The labour supply is artificially limited, similar to other doctor specialisations.
	▲	Der_Einzige 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Dentists are only slightly more honest as a profession than Chiropractors. More than half of the one's you meet are outright fraudsters/charlatans/scammers. Most who work in that business will reincarnate as cockroaches or durian fruits.
	▲	mothballed 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Are you in the US? This is not my experience at all. I've paid in US <2000 for dental invasive surgery including general anesthesia straight cash. That's approaching prices for medical care in Mexico.

▲ bluGill 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The US is not a capitalist society, it is a liberal society. Capitalism is a consequence of that but it isn't the reason.