SCARY: A Flaw in the Free Market?

[KevinWestern]

After decades of misuse and a lack of R&D/new drug development, the age of antibiotics is coming to an end. Infections that could once be treated quite easily are proving untreatable as "superbugs" enter into the scene at an alarming rate.

This got me to thinking; is this one of those flaws in the free market system that perhaps requires gov't intervention? Due to the fact that new antibiotic research isn't as profitable as penis-hardening drugs, society is now left with a vulnerability that could threaten its very existence.

I always thought that one of the main roles of the Gov't was to "patch up" areas that the free market cannot fix; do any of you agree? Would it be crazy to suggest a public fund (maybe $25-50 billion) to foster new research into antibiotics?

Thoughts?

The End of Antibiotics has Arrived

 

[Truthseeker420]

Sensible regulations are a benefit to business.

 

[boedicca]

It's not a flaw in the Free Market System.

Drugs are one of the most highly regulated aspects of the health care industry. It takes years to develop them and get FDA approval. And then we have the Byzantine prescription process.

The real flaw is turning Health Care into a RIGHT and making it a fertile ground for lawyers to plunder.

This results in a Sick Person seeing a doctor to DEMAND antibiotics for the sniffles. Due to the threat of malpractice, too many doctors have prescribed antibiotics for precautionary purposes.

Heckuva Job, Government!


If you want more research, get government off the back of researchers, and reform malpractice law and the FDA

 

[blastoff]

"...society is now left with a vulnerability that could threaten its very existence."

Well, not exactly all of society. Those of us in favor of dirty air and water because we've got our own secret supplies of clean versions stashed for personal use have also made plans to avoid being inconvenienced by pesky superbugs. It's all part of the final solution.

 

[martybegan]

It's not a flaw in the Free Market System.

Drugs are one of the most highly regulated aspects of the health care industry. It takes years to develop them and get FDA approval. And then we have the Byzantine prescription process.

The real flaw is turning Health Care into a RIGHT and making it a fertile ground for lawyers to plunder.

This results in a Sick Person seeing a doctor to DEMAND antibiotics for the sniffles. Due to the threat of malpractice, too many doctors have prescribed antibiotics for precautionary purposes.

Heckuva Job, Government!


If you want more research, get government off the back of researchers.

A systemic failure as we are seeing with antibiotic resistance doesnt happen from one thing, it happens from several. Not only that, but solutions can be from other sources, not just more antibiotics.

1. Overuse of antibiotics leads to resistance. that is well known
2. Use in agriculture helps with this.
3. Reliance on antibiotics to fix things after they go bad is both in the medical industry and the agriculture industry. Improving sanitiation and hygiene in both would lead to less need for anti-biotics.
4. We may simply be reaching a wall when it comes to viable anti-biotic compounds.
5. AB's are not money makers, that is true in some cases.
6. The approval process is arduous, particularly for things like antibiotics, which are basically cell poisions, that you have to make sure target the right cells.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's not a flaw in the Free Market System.

Drugs are one of the most highly regulated aspects of the health care industry. It takes years to develop them and get FDA approval. And then we have the Byzantine prescription process.

The real flaw is turning Health Care into a RIGHT and making it a fertile ground for lawyers to plunder.

This results in a Sick Person seeing a doctor to DEMAND antibiotics for the sniffles. Due to the threat of malpractice, too many doctors have prescribed antibiotics for precautionary purposes.

Heckuva Job, Government!


If you want more research, get government off the back of researchers, and reform malpractice law and the FDA

I disagree and DO think it's a flaw in the free market system. Does the FDA regulate drug makers in Canada, Mexico, India, China, Japan, etc? As far as I can tell, this is a worldwide problem, and if it was a moneymaker someone would be making them somewhere.

 

[depotoo]

Antibiotic Resistance Research

Anacor Pharmaceuticals to develop new antibiotics - UPI.com

AstraZeneca - New IMI projects to revitalise antibiotic development

New antibiotic offers hope against ?superbug?. - swissinfo.ch

Discovery, development of new antibiotics and delivery systems - Monash University

New IMI projects to revitalize antibiotic development | CenterWatch News Online

Procarta Advances Antibiotic Development on

 

[KevinWestern]

Antibiotic Resistance Research

Anacor Pharmaceuticals to develop new antibiotics - UPI.com

AstraZeneca - New IMI projects to revitalise antibiotic development

New antibiotic offers hope against ?superbug?. - swissinfo.ch

Discovery, development of new antibiotics and delivery systems - Monash University

New IMI projects to revitalize antibiotic development | CenterWatch News Online

Procarta Advances Antibiotic Development on

Interesting, but most of those are programs that are just hatching now and will not provide any benefit for years and years to come (if any).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

After decades of misuse and a lack of R&D/new drug development, the age of antibiotics is coming to an end. Infections that could once be treated quite easily are proving untreatable as "superbugs" enter into the scene at an alarming rate.

This got me to thinking; is this one of those flaws in the free market system that perhaps requires gov't intervention? Due to the fact that new antibiotic research isn't as profitable as penis-hardening drugs, society is now left with a vulnerability that could threaten its very existence.

I always thought that one of the main roles of the Gov't was to "patch up" areas that the free market cannot fix; do any of you agree? Would it be crazy to suggest a public fund (maybe $25-50 billion) to foster new research into antibiotics?

Thoughts?

The End of Antibiotics has Arrived

So you're saying that the heavily regulated drug industry, which has drugs and other treatments kept off the market for years at the behest of the FDA, is somehow a failure of the free market?

 

[KevinWestern]

After decades of misuse and a lack of R&D/new drug development, the age of antibiotics is coming to an end. Infections that could once be treated quite easily are proving untreatable as "superbugs" enter into the scene at an alarming rate.

This got me to thinking; is this one of those flaws in the free market system that perhaps requires gov't intervention? Due to the fact that new antibiotic research isn't as profitable as penis-hardening drugs, society is now left with a vulnerability that could threaten its very existence.

I always thought that one of the main roles of the Gov't was to "patch up" areas that the free market cannot fix; do any of you agree? Would it be crazy to suggest a public fund (maybe $25-50 billion) to foster new research into antibiotics?

Thoughts?

The End of Antibiotics has Arrived

So you're saying that the heavily regulated drug industry, which has drugs and other treatments kept off the market for years at the behest of the FDA, is somehow a failure of the free market?

I'm saying that if antibiotics were profitable, they'd be developed somewhere.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's not a flaw in the Free Market System.

Drugs are one of the most highly regulated aspects of the health care industry. It takes years to develop them and get FDA approval. And then we have the Byzantine prescription process.

The real flaw is turning Health Care into a RIGHT and making it a fertile ground for lawyers to plunder.

This results in a Sick Person seeing a doctor to DEMAND antibiotics for the sniffles. Due to the threat of malpractice, too many doctors have prescribed antibiotics for precautionary purposes.

Heckuva Job, Government!


If you want more research, get government off the back of researchers, and reform malpractice law and the FDA

I disagree and DO think it's a flaw in the free market system. Does the FDA regulate drug makers in Canada, Mexico, India, China, Japan, etc? As far as I can tell, this is a worldwide problem, and if it was a moneymaker someone would be making them somewhere.

Do those countries have their own version of the FDA? Of course.

 

[depotoo]

Antibiotic Resistance Research

Anacor Pharmaceuticals to develop new antibiotics - UPI.com

AstraZeneca - New IMI projects to revitalise antibiotic development

New antibiotic offers hope against ?superbug?. - swissinfo.ch

Discovery, development of new antibiotics and delivery systems - Monash University

New IMI projects to revitalize antibiotic development | CenterWatch News Online

Procarta Advances Antibiotic Development on

Interesting, but most of those are programs that are just hatching now and will not provide any benefit for years and years to come (if any).

Sooo, your thoughts are what then? If you are wanting us to subsidize research, it would just be starting, and if what you state is true, would result in even later benefit to us. Therefore, it is better to just wait for these companies results, as the benefits of their research will get to us faster. We pay plenty for rx's now which has a cost factor for continuing R&D and since there is a need and a company knows if they are successful in their antibiotic research to help kill these super bugs, they could expand their earnings by billions relatively quickly as the need is supposedly so great.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

After decades of misuse and a lack of R&D/new drug development, the age of antibiotics is coming to an end. Infections that could once be treated quite easily are proving untreatable as "superbugs" enter into the scene at an alarming rate.

This got me to thinking; is this one of those flaws in the free market system that perhaps requires gov't intervention? Due to the fact that new antibiotic research isn't as profitable as penis-hardening drugs, society is now left with a vulnerability that could threaten its very existence.

I always thought that one of the main roles of the Gov't was to "patch up" areas that the free market cannot fix; do any of you agree? Would it be crazy to suggest a public fund (maybe $25-50 billion) to foster new research into antibiotics?

Thoughts?

The End of Antibiotics has Arrived

So you're saying that the heavily regulated drug industry, which has drugs and other treatments kept off the market for years at the behest of the FDA, is somehow a failure of the free market?

I'm saying that if antibiotics were profitable, they'd be developed somewhere.

They are profitable, and they are developed. The problem is that regulations make them less profitable and create a huge barrier to entry for new firms and players to enter into the market.

 

[KevinWestern]

Antibiotic Resistance Research

Anacor Pharmaceuticals to develop new antibiotics - UPI.com

AstraZeneca - New IMI projects to revitalise antibiotic development

New antibiotic offers hope against ?superbug?. - swissinfo.ch

Discovery, development of new antibiotics and delivery systems - Monash University

New IMI projects to revitalize antibiotic development | CenterWatch News Online

Procarta Advances Antibiotic Development on

Interesting, but most of those are programs that are just hatching now and will not provide any benefit for years and years to come (if any).

Sooo, your thoughts are what then? If you are wanting us to subsidize research, it would just be starting, and if what you state is true, would result in even later benefit to us. Therefore, it is better to just wait for these companies results, as the benefits of their research will get to us faster. We pay plenty for rx's now which has a cost factor for continuing R&D and since there is a need and a company knows if they are successful in their antibiotic research to help kill these super bugs, they could expand their earnings by billions relatively quickly as the need is supposedly so great.

Well, just was responding to your post. What was the point you were originally trying to make (you only provided links w/no commentary)?

 

[KevinWestern]

So you're saying that the heavily regulated drug industry, which has drugs and other treatments kept off the market for years at the behest of the FDA, is somehow a failure of the free market?

I'm saying that if antibiotics were profitable, they'd be developed somewhere.

They are profitable, and they are developed. The problem is that regulations make them less profitable and create a huge barrier to entry for new firms and players to enter into the market.

Sure, I agree that the FDA certainly isn't helping the situation. However, I don't think that they are the entire problem here. I think the free market is the main culprit. Why?

1.) Regulations aside, antibiotics are difficult to develop and sell at a cheaper sales price than other drugs (like viagra). From a buisness standpoint it's simply more profitable for Pfizer to pour their resources into the "money makers". They're not here to save the world, they're here to make money. This is a free market problem.

2.) One of the reasons we're seeing a lot of superbugs emerge is due to years of abuse by the livestock industry. This is a free market problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm saying that if antibiotics were profitable, they'd be developed somewhere.

They are profitable, and they are developed. The problem is that regulations make them less profitable and create a huge barrier to entry for new firms and players to enter into the market.

Sure, I agree that the FDA certainly isn't helping the situation. However, I don't think that they are the entire problem here. I think the free market is the main culprit. Why?

1.) Regulations aside, antibiotics are difficult to develop and sell at a cheaper sales price than other drugs (like viagra). From a buisness standpoint it's simply more profitable for Pfizer to pour their resources into the "money makers". They're not here to save the world, they're here to make money. This is a free market problem.

2.) One of the reasons we're seeing a lot of superbugs emerge is due to years of abuse by the livestock industry. This is a free market problem.

1. They're only difficult to sell at cheaper prices because there's no incentive to do so as the FDA restricts competition. That the market develops drugs other than what you think is proper is not a failure of the market. Antibiotics are developed even now, and competition would make them more abundant and more affordable. People have always gotten sick and they always will, therefore there will always be demand for antibiotics.

2. You're going to have to elaborate on this point more.

It might help if you could give us your working definition of the free market.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After decades of misuse and a lack of R&D/new drug development, the age of antibiotics is coming to an end. Infections that could once be treated quite easily are proving untreatable as "superbugs" enter into the scene at an alarming rate.

This got me to thinking; is this one of those flaws in the free market system that perhaps requires gov't intervention? Due to the fact that new antibiotic research isn't as profitable as penis-hardening drugs, society is now left with a vulnerability that could threaten its very existence.

I always thought that one of the main roles of the Gov't was to "patch up" areas that the free market cannot fix; do any of you agree? Would it be crazy to suggest a public fund (maybe $25-50 billion) to foster new research into antibiotics?

Thoughts?

The End of Antibiotics has Arrived

So you're saying that the heavily regulated drug industry, which has drugs and other treatments kept off the market for years at the behest of the FDA, is somehow a failure of the free market?

See how that works?

Amazing, right?

 

[KevinWestern]

1. They're only difficult to sell at cheaper prices because there's no incentive to do so as the FDA restricts competition. That the market develops drugs other than what you think is proper is not a failure of the market. Antibiotics are developed even now, and competition would make them more abundant and more affordable. People have always gotten sick and they always will, therefore there will always be demand for antibiotics.

So you're saying that drugs like Viagra are artificially expensive because the FDA restricts other competitors from entering into the market, and if the FDA were to back off a bit Viagra (thanks to competition) would become just as cheap (if not cheaper) than antibiotics which would in turn make antibiotic development more lucrative? Sure, that's a fair point and the reason why I opened up this conversation.

2. You're going to have to elaborate on this point more.

The livestock industry's abundant use of antibiotics has resulted in superbugs emerging at a faster pace than if they were to use some other method to keep their animals healthy. In the absence of Gov't, this practice would go on indefinitely to keep costs down, even at the expense of the greater society who now has to pool more resources into continually creating antibiotics to combat these superbugs. The gov't - I argue - has a potential role here to limit the livestock industry's use of antibiotics to prevent this from happening (much like preventing a company from dumping waste into a river, because it ends up contaminating another's property downstream).

It might help if you could give us your working definition of the free market.

Free market is a place buyers/sellers can transact in any way they like with little or no gov't interference in the form of taxes/regulations/etc.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. They're only difficult to sell at cheaper prices because there's no incentive to do so as the FDA restricts competition. That the market develops drugs other than what you think is proper is not a failure of the market. Antibiotics are developed even now, and competition would make them more abundant and more affordable. People have always gotten sick and they always will, therefore there will always be demand for antibiotics.

So you're saying that drugs like Viagra are artificially expensive because the FDA restricts other competitors from entering into the market, and if the FDA were to back off a bit Viagra (thanks to competition) would become just as cheap (if not cheaper) than antibiotics which would in turn make antibiotic development more lucrative? Sure, that's a fair point and the reason why I opened up this conversation.

2. You're going to have to elaborate on this point more.

The livestock industry's abundant use of antibiotics has resulted in superbugs emerging at a faster pace than if they were to use some other method to keep their animals healthy. In the absence of Gov't, this practice would go on indefinitely to keep costs down, even at the expense of the greater society who now has to pool more resources into continually creating antibiotics to combat these superbugs. The gov't - I argue - has a potential role here to limit the livestock industry's use of antibiotics to prevent this from happening (much like preventing a company from dumping waste into a river, because it ends up contaminating another's property downstream).

It might help if you could give us your working definition of the free market.

Free market is a place buyers/sellers can transact in any way they like with little or no gov't interference in the form of taxes/regulations/etc.

Viagra is very likely artificially expensive as is any drug on the market thanks to the government restricting competition. Letting the free market do its thing would cause prices all around to plummet. Another thing to take into consideration here is that the price of drugs is high because people are so unhealthy to begin with. Lack of exercise and any semblance of a rational human diet among a majority of the population is going to lead to more illness and thus drive up the price of drugs. The government has played its role here as well subsidizing and promoting unhealthy diets like corn and other grains. Certainly not a free market at work.

The livestock industry, and industrial farming in general, is absolutely disgusting. No question. I pointed out before, however, how the government subsidizes these industries, and these subsidies come with a list of regulations on top of the already existing regulations. In other words, there is no free market here either. You have a market completely out of whack thanks to the government.

Your definition of free market is sound, but then you apply the term in places completely at odds with your definition.

 

[depotoo]

Interesting, but most of those are programs that are just hatching now and will not provide any benefit for years and years to come (if any).

Sooo, your thoughts are what then? If you are wanting us to subsidize research, it would just be starting, and if what you state is true, would result in even later benefit to us. Therefore, it is better to just wait for these companies results, as the benefits of their research will get to us faster. We pay plenty for rx's now which has a cost factor for continuing R&D and since there is a need and a company knows if they are successful in their antibiotic research to help kill these super bugs, they could expand their earnings by billions relatively quickly as the need is supposedly so great.

Well, just was responding to your post. What was the point you were originally trying to make (you only provided links w/no commentary)?

That there is research going on out there. And, by your own admission, the government getting involved, other than maybe through FDA being less a deterrent to their getting new drugs approved on to the market, would not bring about any faster results.

Seems to me, reading through search, some of the universities are pushing for more grant money. That has more to do with wanting grants, than actually wanting to come up with solutions. As well, as some of the pharmaceuticals are hoping for subsidies, rather than having to fund the research for themselves, which they are plenty financially capable of doing, without added tax payer dollars. Don't blame either for asking, but it would not further the speed in which they come to market. And would rest on the shoulders of us tax payers once again.