El_Mac you need to elaborate. I know who that guy is, I think I know what broken system you're referencing but can you spell it out for those of us less informed?
My post was about two different things, so I will expand on both.
Shkreli is not the problem. For a longer summary, I recommend the article
Shrkeli is not the problem. He's merely unmasking the problem.
First off, generic drugs are THE trickle down wealth. Rich people act as customers (guinea pigs?) for 20 years, the drug goes generic, and then the treatment becomes available at a much lower price. There are hosts of drugs right now that are generic, and that mitigate so much human suffering it's amazing. We want medicine to accelerate, because the faster the discoveries are made, the faster they go off patent and start really saving lives.
But there are regulatory hurdles towards getting permission to produce a generic drug. Shkreli noticed a couple of drugs that were technically generic, but only had one licensed producer. So, he bought them and jacked the price.
This never should have been possible. Nearly any manufacturer is willing to add another product line if they can get sales. Walk through a dollar store,
every product was designed and produced on purpose. I sometimes marvel at the idea that people just say "hey, let's get into the business where we sell a blend of curcumin and apple spices ...", but they do. Free market.
Shkreli showed a crack in the system. A crack that essentially benefits no one, those regulatory hurdles could come way down and be way more transparent. Nearly any drug manufacturer would be willing to produce a product that had a normal margin level. And we should be able to get generics at small multipliers of their production cost.
Also what do you mean health care investment is chance for wealth creation? Are you saying that if we lower the amount of sick people then spending on medicare goes down and can be used for other stuff?
Essentially, yes. Look at something like food. Food has a linear benefit line. You need 2000 calories today. You'll need 2000 calories tomorrow. Anything that brings down the price of food helps everyone on the planet. But food has an exponential delivery curve. To give everyone 3000 calories will not cost 50% more than giving them 2000 per day. Luckily, we only need 2000. And Lord knows you'd not buy 20k per day, even if you could afford it, so you spend elsewhere.
Healthcare, though, shows
incredible diminishing returns. As people age, the diseases of aging pile up. And so, to get a marginal benefit we put an increasing amount of resources in order to merely
reduce the loss of quality of life. Those are two different outcome-curves we don't like (increasing cost and decreasing benefit). And, like food,
we will pay if we can. I might refuse to see a movie. I might not buy a painting. I might not buy a shirt. But you
know I'll spend money on slowing the pain of disease. So expensive.
And just like how you want food in the fridge when you get home, we want viable treatments invented
before we need them.
With your dollars, you have two choices on this front. Spend money to be more healthy (i.e., eating more salads haha) or targeting a saved-dollar towards your future medical needs. There will be a ratio of optimal spending. I can spend $10 on a blend of veggies or $50 on ones that are hand picked after being chewed on by baby kangaroos in order to activate "super-anti-oxidant polyphenols!
(TM)". I could also eat Ramen and KD and save every penny to buy Merck shares. There's a better ratio in there somewhere ... Each additional dollar I spend might have marginal benefit for me, but will do nothing for my mom, or your mom, or you, or my nephew.
This is why funding foundational research is so important. There are three broad wings: government, philanthropic, and for-profit. Each has different mandates. Each has different motivations. So, a diversified portfolio of investments is appropriate.
If you put aside $10 to save for mom's future healthcare, there's a millionaire out there who will take that as a signal to hire scientists to look for a marketable treatments. It's demand-side stimulus. Everyone after the drug goes generic is really benefited. And, obviously, me and the millionaire.
If you donate $10 to a research charity, the bulk of the money is used to hire a researcher to
move the ball forward. Companies will mine that data for profitable ideas. Charities will mine the data for low-cost solutions. Nearly everyone benefits. Me, all the people I actually don't mind helping, and people after the solution is found. It's supply-side stimulus.
In economics, a profit is indistinguishable (on some fronts) from a reduction in costs. Both benefit wages and quality-of-life. The major difference is that profits give an increased amount of legal power (i.e., monetary wealth trickles upwards).
Currently healthcare shows diminishing returns. But the majority of healthcare is an information technology, so there's no reason it needs to be. There's a finite amount of health that we need to find. We'd not consume 20k calories per day. And we have a limit on our health needs. Each problem just needs to be sequentially cracked.
If you're middle-class or higher, that targeted donation is essentially wisdom encapsulated. My target is 0.5% of my income
