I don't understand why everyone on this website blames the free market for all the problems in the world. Okay, so maybe not all the problems, but it seems to me that the majority of articles in Sojourners Magazine and on sojo.net criticize those of us who believe that free markets with reasonable and explicit guidelines to protect against fraud and corruption can create an economic system that gives all the ability to provide for themselves and their respective families. In all fairness, I am concerned that the recent post about the drug companies fails to take into account that drug companies themselves spend billions of dollars (that's right billions) in research to make sure the medicine we use is safe. If you watch movies like The Constant Gardner, then you would think these companies are evil, manipulative, and cruel. The movie is just that a movie, made for entertainment and yes a profit! Profit is not bad, profit gave us the automobile, profit gives us bookstores, profit encourages business growth, which in turn provides jobs. I understand that profit can lead to greed and that greed is the root of all sin. However, this is a condition of the heart, that cannot be fixed by any government policy. Johnson & Johnson is a company that has shown that responsible leadership can make medicine safe and innovative. J&J isn't perfect, but could hardly be considered a bad company. In fact, I would argue they are good for America because they provide medicine for so many of us. You think about that.

I think there is a fundamental problem with healthcare that is for-profit in the first place. It is horrible that we can have an actual economy based on - not people being well - but people getting sick. I was pre-med in college and after much soul-searching decided not to go to medical school. Instead I found out about naturopathic medicine (I go to Bastyr University for their ND program), and I am incredibly happy. We learn about the amazing ways that God gave us to heal our bodies. It should be no surprise that the plants God created heal us just as well (and sometimes better) than man-made pharmaceuticals.

Working in the pesticide industry, I frequently see the excise and or abuse of power by the multinational drug and pesticide firms. (Same industry, just different markets/products and volumes.) The model which has delivered the huge range of products is based on large investments in R&D, together with a stable Intellectual property environment.

However, I find it rather disconcerting that the firms which claim that they need the huge profits to fund R&D spend more on advertising in the US and other first world nations. Their lobbying is extensive - rumour here suggests 2 lobbyist per congress person in Washington to wine dine and some times bed people of influence to ensure that the rules, patent systems, regulations etc run there way. In Australia it does not seem to be this intense, yet it is happening. The aim is to influence regulators to advantage their industry.

It is interesting to see the huge discrepancies in prices being charged in the US compared with Australian customers for drugs and pesticides. Some is due to publicly funded schemes which subsidise pharmaceuticals for the Australian people. (PBS system in Australia) To place a new drug on the list, it must be demonstrated to be significantly better than those which that drug is replacing. Interesting how much lobbying has been undertaken by Big Phama to reduce these criteria to allow for the next generation of slightly tweaked higher cost products still under patent protection, to replace the well functioning generics.

For pesticides, anyone can set up a distribution system in the US like one can in Australia, apart that the new comers must buy into some very expensive “exclusive club memberships” in the USA which totally inhibit small players.

Both countries, like most other first world nations require extensive registration approvals for the pesticide prior to sale. These can be quite expensive for ‘new’ actives, but for a copy of a well established generic, it is normally not a prohibitive exercise. In Australia, one just has to satisfy the regulators that your product is the same as one already on the market. Yes, there are problems here too with undue influence by the dominant companies.

Where regulations are influenced by dominate cooperate insiders to keep new players out of the market, is that not monopolistic abuse ( fascism (?) or poorly applied socialism) not free enterprise?

I wonder some time just who in the US is watching this issue. As far as the third world is concerned, to maintain patents and to charge first world prices for these products for all, and so preventing the poor form accessing these drugs, one may as well drop bombs. The effect is similar. To prevent the access by new players with quality generics is again to restrict competition and rob your own people.

Once the patents runout competition applies. Prices will drop by a factor of 5 to 50 depending on the product. That does not mean a loss of quality. That is a problem for the regulators to manage. Big companies can have disasters as well. The patent should protect the innovation, but also remember that many of the tools, much of training and some of the discoveries exploited were originally developed though public funded Universities etc. Ever greening patents should be highly restricted. These companies are not separate from our civilization, but are creatures of it. They must be good citizens as well.

Time also for a good review of IP and genetics – another time.

Please note the recent anti monopolist activities by the EU re artificially high drug prices
.

Free Market? The healthcare system, or rather the disease state management industry, has absolutely nothing to do with free markets. Those with market power through patents, regulatory and other setup costs, and lobby power set the prices, not any ideal free market.

I don't believe that big Pharma and the insurance industry are evil for the sake of being evil. They are only evil in that they put the profit motive above the well being of those they serve. (Actually, I suppose that is not true as they actually serve the stockholders and not the patients.) Of course, drug companies need to be able to recoup research costs, but when they are the most profitable industry in the world, something is wrong.

If you wonder what my perspective is for this analysis, I am a pharmacist. I struggle every day with efforts to get insurance companies to pay for medicine and with efforts to find cheaper drug alternatives because consumers don't have power in the market and don't have the information necessary to make a free market decision. Pharmacists are trained to be responsible to patients for their healthcare. I believe that most of us are in the profession to help people. Unfortunately, this patient care focus is not instilled in the disease state management industry executives.