$84,000 Hepatitis C Drug For $1500 by Buying It From India

No. Cetirus paribus, they can't change how I value things.

So can you explain what you mean by "negotiated value" and "imposed value"?

 

Some questions require discussion as part of the answer. I can tell you the answer, but I'd rather discuss the answer.

 

Please proceed with the discussion. What is the difference between "imposed value" and "negotiated value"?

 

This story didn't happen in a country with a single payer system. I don't understand what point you're trying to make

 

Apparently Pinochet was a communist. News to me

 

Imposed value is the attempt to force you to value a hamburger the same as prime rib. Single payer systems are predicated on the idea that people can be told how to value things.

The opposite of that is how value is actually determined; through negotiation. No two people have the exact same value hierarchies. If you're trying to aquire a prime rib, you're looking for someone who values prime rib less than you do. You negotiate a price that is less than the amount you value the prime rib, and more than the amount the seller values prime rib. You gain prime rib, the seller gains whatever value you traded.

Now if someone wants to give you prime rib at the price of a hamburger, you're going to say "Hell yeah, give me 10 of em." The price doesn't change how you value the thing. There's only so much prime rib in a cow, however, so such a price cannot represent the value of the cow. The cows run out, and you end up with neither burger or rib.

 

Price fixing is alive and well and thriving in our healthcare system.. a practice that is supported and made possible by the Establishment elite that run this nation.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand you, but it sounds like you're using the term "imposed value" to mean prices being controlled by government force, and you're using the term "negotiated value" for free market prices.

If you oppose prices being controlled by the government, then I would think that you and @Belch would be on the same page. As would I.

 

Unregulated markets rely on competition for moderation. If the single payer system is better at producing products that people need, it's solutions would naturally be more competitive. In short, if you were right this story could not exist.

 

Made possible by the state using force to impose said price fixing.

Isn't statism grand?

 

I'm not on a different page. I'm trying to reframe the argument in a way that can't be denied by the other side.

The other side wants a disconnect between value and price. They highly value this medication, so they think it should be cheap. We have to get them to understand the error in this thinking.

 

Right. Just because I want a pair of shoes to cost $0.02 doesn't mean I have a right to force a shoemaker to sell me shoes for $0.02.

 

Yup ... its actually illegal to use our purchasing power to get better prices.

I call it the Oligopoly Bureaucracy Fusion Monster - an unholy alliance between the Oligopolies and the State where the Oligarchs control economic affairs through the Establishment political and bureaucratic elite.

 

They need to have their tool taken away.

 

Well you can force him to sell them, but you can't force him to produce them if he values the shoes at a higher price.

 

Of course no one complains about the cost of shoes that don't exist.

Likewise no one complains about the million dollar cancer cure that doesn't exist.

 

You may have missed: "I have NO RIGHT TO force a shoemaker to sell me shoes for $0.02"

Of course, if I have the ability (i.e. power), I can MAKE HIM price his shoes for $0.02, but, as you say, he will not be particularly interested in making shoes under such circumstances.

 

Ah, Bastiat's seen and the unseen. Good point.

 

...But people get healthcare in the countries they live in. And this person lives in a country with private health insurance.

 

I didn't miss it, but I can guarantee you that our opponents can rationalize such a right in the context of this argument. They think that everyone should have a right to that medication, and they believe the price violates that right. They believe that taking the medication from the person that owns it and giving it to the person who needs it is just.

Thats the problem we have. I'm sure we could get them to agree with us about the shoes, but to them the medication argument is different somehow even though it's no different logically.

 

Then they'll have to explain why they have the right to the property of other people. And once a person makes the claim that he has the right to the property of others, that opens up a whole can of worms for him. Because, unless he argues that rights aren't universal, then that means that every other person in the world has a right to his property.

 

occupancy and use property norms are a concept.

 

Very hard to do. It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed. We have a pay to play system ... when you play - you get paid.

It is not like a kickback or bribe though. The pay comes later so it is all copacetic. It is not for her good looks and charming personality that Hilly gets paid 250K a pop for a 15 min speech at some wall street banker luncheon. It is for a job well done. When you play - you get paid - and everyone knows it.

Generals get lobbyist positions .. other bureaucrats get a seat on some board of directors. Many ways to live a very easy life if you play ball.

Every time a tax law or regulation is being made the Oligopoly is sitting at the table - and perhaps they have a right to be there. The problem is that the one who is supposed to be serving the interest of the people is either in the pocket of or influenced by the Oligopoly.

Its not like the Oligopoly wins ever table but, over time, table after table, the rules of the game are skewed in favor of the Oligopoly. Its the natural outcropping of self interest and greed .. eventually someone (and in fact it is the case most of the time) that can be swayed by influence will be sitting in the decision makers seat.

If that influence and/or pressure is coming both directions ... the Oligopoly and the Political elite dowh through your boss ... it gets tough to resist.

Play ball and you win ... or .. you can choose to run against a herd of stampeding bulls.

 

Would you care to elaborate?

 

What does that have to do with competition? Private insurance must compete with other private insurance providers and single payer systems. If the single payer system is better at producing care, then it must be more competitive. If it's more competitive, then it wouldn't have produced a solution that private systems could use to compete with each other.