Power of the Market - Medicine

[SevenSixTwoNato]

We may disagree on the specifics, and indeed, as Friedman mentioned in the Consumer Protection video, we can't outlaw accidents. Nonetheless, governments or similar agencies should at the very least ensure the transparency and accessibility of information.

No market can put a price on the truth.

[SevenSixTwoNato]

Furthermore, with respect to the medical establishment, suppose the conglomerate that produces the potentially-lifesaving drug in question also employs thousands of physicians and finances prominent medical journals. What guarantees does the consumer have that they're being properly informed of the risks they are taking?

One need not compromise on safety or efficacy. Consumers deserve to know the risks associated with their choices, and therein lies the necessity of regulatory oversight.

[SevenSixTwoNato]

Ah, yes--the "free market" steps in to resolve consumers' medical demands.

...By allowing them to travel to another country, with an even more extensive bureaucracy regulating the product in question. Which is subsequently paid for by the taxes of the citizens of that country.

Where does the free market enter into this equation again?

[halladaylover]

anyone know what year this series is from?

[coletrainwvu]

His logic is totally irrelevant here. Someone is always going to have to rely on risk to provide a new product to a capitalistic system, be that system monetary or political. If the FDA didn't require pharmacists to create drugs that worked instead of drugs that just addicted their patients, liquor(or worse things) would still be the prime ingredient in most medicines and the need to create healthy cures, in order to make money, wouldn't exist.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@coletrainwvu again--- you fail to understand what competition is; let us suppose a free market health care system

if a company brings a wonderdrug to market (no fda anymore now) and the drug fails and ends up killing 10,000 people then what?

there would be a giant class action suit and the company would be out of the game

the market is what generates innovation

there would still be "whistle blowers" and investigations to insure quality control by making it unprofitable to make poor products

[coletrainwvu]

@2dum2getsocialism It seems very idealistic to assume that just because a company deserves to be sued, that someone will actually manage to sue them. Keep in mind if a company manages to sell a "wonder drug" and makes massive profit, that they could stall the case for an indefinite amount of time and would have much better lawyers. Most likely they would just pay the families off and consider them as collateral damage and never reinvest in fixing the drug. It's not profitable to "care".

[2dum2getsocialism]

@coletrainwvu in my example, the wonderdrug was connected to 10,000 dead; public outcry; class actions; and the subsequent loss of customers would penalize the company much more effectively then some heavy handed, top down mandate/regulation

also, you are forgetting the value of a viable competitor of "wonderdrug" inc.; the competitor would make sure that any chicanery be uncovered; it is in his interests to do so; also, it is very profitable to care if the customer is free to choose it

[coletrainwvu]

@2dum2getsocialism there would have to be A LOT more than 10,000 dead for people to be able to do anything about it. For example, cigarettes kill nearly 5.4 million people each year and none of the larger firms have ever been in serious danger from law suites or healthier competitors. Also, cigarettes don't even have the hook that pharmaceuticals do, ie "your survival may rely on the consumption of this drug"

[bramcorleone]

What's the greatest country in the world? There are no great countries, only great people (thought of that myself just now, definitely heard it (more than) once, I guess)

[eurohim]

The abolishment of the FDA should be in the healthcare bill. I can think of a bunch of things and I bet there are way more things that would help that I have no idea exist to restrict the market from working.

[gcraft74]

Read the book "World Without Cancer", and then make a decision.

[gcraft74]

Natural cures are the only way. Look up Vitamin B-17, it controls/cures Cancer!! But it is found in nature, therefore the FDA cant patent it! It's found in apricot seeds, read the book World Without Cancer.

[TimeWarp66]

Oh please. It does not cure cancer, it might aid a bit, but come on now.

[dakgoalie38]

So then how do you prevent another "Thalydomide" from entering the market?

And yes, I know that's spelled wrong.

[danbison]

The free choice must be made by the patient and doctor. There will always be hazards in any system, but the only way the government can remove those hazards is by removing our choices.

[TimeWarp66]

I consider myself a Libertarian, but what really is the harm of having the FDA check the safety of new medicines before they hit the markets? I don't really see how, in this case, the government would be limiting our choices?

[gdbalck]

higher research costs for one? over regulation to the point in which medicines freely available elsewhere are arbitralilly supressed despite showing effectiveness in other nations.

[TimeWarp66]

Look at the flip side of that example. What if you no one checks the safety and people start dying in droves? It's absurd. Higher research costs for what? Consumer safety? They should be paying those regardless of regulation. It's not even a regulation in my mind, it's a standard of safety.

[picapauengracado]

There is always risk, and someone has to decide how much testing is enough. Should that not be the patient and her doctor? Many times a patient dies because a drug has not been tested enough; the patient would gladly trade off the risk of dying a few months sooner for the chance of living long enough to see her grandchildren. For the state of course, the extra 2% that could be saved had the new drug version been approved years earlier is merely a statistic. Not so for the family.

[dannidandannikins]

If a drug company releases a drug that turns out to be ineffective/unsafe then the consumer can sue the company. True, the patient might have died by then but the fact that the drug company would have to limit its exposure to lawsuits to remain profitable would give them a huge motive to check their products before putting them on the market.

[TimeWarp66]

Do you know how paranoid that would make society? Always wandering if you're going to be that person whose going to get sick from an untested drug, and then has to go through the decade long motion of sewing a multinational drug corporation? How does the FDA severely increase cost of production and output?

[dannidandannikins]

'Do you know how paranoid that would make society?' I don't think it would be paranoid at all, it'd be in the self-interest of the drug company to test its products before releasing them. People who wanted more security would provide a market for a private company, independent of the drug producer, to independently test the product. You'd still have all the security you have now but with the advantage of greater freedom and a wider range of available drugs at lower cost. What's not to like?

[TimeWarp66]

Just keep the FDA, but don't force drug companies to go through that meat grinder before they can release their drugs on the market. I believe it is a role for government to request information of industries like this to make sure consumers are aware of risk when purchasing drugs. If it says not FDA approved on the label, they should be free to buy it.

[dannidandannikins]

That would be decent as a half way house, but I still think the government has no business getting involved in this in the first place.

[TimeWarp66]

The free market alone didn't stop Thalidomide, the FDA did.

[dannidandannikins]

True, but I highly recomend that you watch the whole of this episode of free to choose (not just the segment here); the discussion at the end addresses that issue.

[TimeWarp66]

ugh, I don't have the time, how does Friedman address the Thalidomide debacle?

[dannidandannikins]

i) you should make the time. It's only a one hour episode and the knowledge you'll get from it is priceless

ii) to briefly summarise, the fda did a good thing by blocking Thalidomide, but there are opportunity costs involved by delaying the approval of new drugs (eg Aids drugs). A statistical comparison of the lives saved by the fda blocking dangerous drugs and the lives cost by fda blocking safe drugs makes the case against the fda absolutely damning.

[MigDanskeren]

@TimeWarp66

You don't need a government monopoly for that. If the FDA was closed down, private organizations would rush in to cover the marked for drug safety and they'd undoubtedly do a much better job.

[kgwickings]

great video!! I loved Milton.

[Tidoublemy]

Everyone in America should be made to sit down and watch a video of Friedman speak for 2 hours then we'll get some fresh candidates and have a presidential election.

[lloydismint]

@Tidoublemy We should do the same in Britian too.

[winnah2314]

@Tidoublemy you still don't understand the idea of liberty, you shouldn't force anyone to do anything even if it is favourable for them to do so. you can only do it by persuasion. to force people to watch what you think is a way of thinking may not be the idea of others, even if you are 100% correct. It is your duty to convince them that through liberty and the ideas of people like Dr. Milton Friedman that them and the society they live in would be more favourable to live in.

[twanablevins]

We need to put this plan in action.