Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Joe Biden

Biden's Drug Price Controls Will Kill More Patients in the Long Run

And increase total health care costs to boot.

Ronald Bailey | 2.9.2023 2:55 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
President Biden's drug price controls are a lose-lose proposition that will end up killing more patients while increasing total health care spending. | Jacqueline Martin / Pool via CNP/AdMedia
(Jacqueline Martin / Pool via CNP/AdMedia)

Federal government interference has massively distorted American health care costs for decades. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Joe Biden touted how the misnamed Inflation Adjustment Act (IRA) will further warp medical care costs by "finally giving Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices." The result is essentially putting price controls on prescription drugs. And price controls will do for prescription drugs what they do for all other products upon which they are imposed: create shortages, queues, black markets, and rationing.

Even worse, drug price controls will have the additional baleful effect of increasing disease, disability, and deaths while simultaneously raising the total costs of health care. How? Because price controls substantially reduce the incentives for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to research, develop, and deploy innovative new medicines that would prevent and cure illnesses and cut overall costs.

These are the conclusions of a November 2021 study by the University of Chicago economist Tomas J. Philipson and his colleagues that analyzed the impact of the IRA on biopharmaceutical innovation and patient health. The study calculated that through 2039, the IRA will reduce pharmaceutical revenues by 12 percent, resulting in research and development (R&D) spending being cut by $663 billion. According to the authors, the decreased R&D spending would lead to 135 fewer new drug therapies, resulting in a potential loss of around 331 million patient life years through 2039. In comparison, through January 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in the loss of about 13.5 million life years in the United States.

Biden also asserted that new price controls on prescription medicines "will cut the federal deficit, saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars on the prescription drugs the government buys for Medicare." Maybe so, but an August 2022 study by Philipson and his colleague calculates that what Medicare and other health care payers might save on prescription drugs over the next 20 years will be more than offset by increased spending on other sorts of medical care.

That study analyzed data showing how over time, the development of new drugs has significantly reduced overall health care costs from what they otherwise would have been. The researchers find that new drugs save money by reducing the need for other costly treatments such as hospitalization, surgeries, and disability care. Applying those findings to the consequences of developing 135 fewer drug therapies through 2039, the researchers calculate that the "average increase in total health care spending would be about $50.8 billion over a 20-year period."

The actual way to lower prescription drug prices and incidentally slow health care cost increases while maximizing patient outcomes is to increase competition. This can be accomplished by speeding up Food and Drug Administration approvals and reining in patent abuses and other drug company shenanigans such as paying off would-be competitors to delay introducing generic versions of their patented drugs. Biden's drug price controls will instead decrease patient welfare and increase overall health care spending. That's a lose-lose for us all.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Biden’s Foolish Rush To Regulate How Kids Use Tech

Ronald Bailey is science correspondent at Reason.

Joe BidenPharmaceuticalsState of the UnionPrice controlsHealth CarePatientsMedicarePrescription DrugsPoliticsDrugs
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (92)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Moonrocks   2 years ago

    Biden's Drug Price Controls Will Kill More Patients in the Long Run

    It's the New York nursing home treatment.

    1. AmandaThomas12   2 years ago (edited)

      Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
      .
      .
      Just open the link————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com

      1. LeahThomas   2 years ago (edited)

        I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
        🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂

        Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM

  2. Chumby   2 years ago

    Biden (D) looks like Cornholio in that picture.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

      He needs TP for his bunghole. Either that or he just pooped 'em.

      1. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

        I think he needs TP for his bunghole either way.

        1. JenniferSilva   2 years ago

          saf asf

        2. JenniferSilva   2 years ago (edited)

          I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..

          HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM

      2. markm23   2 years ago

        Perhaps he needs surgery for his obvious case of cranial-rectal inversion.

    2. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

      God dammit! I should've skimmed the comments first.

      1. Chumby   2 years ago

        Dammit Beavis!

  3. A Thinking Mind   2 years ago

    One of the big problems is that most of the rest of the world has instituted price controls for medicines. So for all the years of R&D the drug companies do, they're only chance to make profits is by raising costs in the US, where they are allowed to do that. US customers are there subsidizing drug costs for every socialist country where those drug companies do business.

    Healthcare is a central planning shitstorm in the way agriculture was 100 years ago, and if it doesn't get better, it's going to kill many, many people.

    1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

      Doubly egregious is that the USA has made it illegal to reimport price-controlled drugs.

      Banning this removes the pressure on the foreign countries to abandon their commie price controls.

      1. A Thinking Mind   2 years ago

        That doesn't even really solve the problem-it would just make price controls essentially universal and suddenly supplies would dry up drastically. It's a huge fucking mess. You can't hope that the socialistic shitholes eventually negotiate themselves out of having certain drugs-patents expire and then everyone can buy the generic version for a fraction of the price. The actual cost of the drug isn't in the materials of it, but the development, research, and trials necessary to bring it to market.

        We're getting extremely close to shutting down all incentive to innovate and being locked in with our current understanding of medicine until there's a complete overthrow of socialist medicine.

        1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

          I think the opposite would happen. Drug companies would HAVE to refuse to sell at the price-controlled levels to foreign countries.

          Then they would HAVE to pay regular prices. No way around it.

          One can never know how markets would work but I'm pretty sure this is how it would play out.

          1. xiyaci   2 years ago (edited)

            Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.

            More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM

    2. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

      Yep. The only “price controls” we need are to mandate that drug companies can’t charge more here for drugs than they charge elsewhere - forcing drug companies to renegotiate elsewhere.

      1. markm23   2 years ago

        Better: No price controls, but no regulations preventing re-importation from countries where the prices are lower and no American government assistance to other countries in keeping their prices low. Also, drugs and medical devices approved in other countries should be allowed here under those approvals, except for countries that are notoriously lax.

        Sometimes medical innovations are done first in America because we have more wealth, and sometimes they are done first in other countries, but years and $tens of millions in testing has to be duplicated here because the FDA is trying to maintain a monopoly on approving drugs and medical devices in the USA - at great cost to the health of Americans waiting for the new treatment. This should end.

        If your first thought when you see a problem is "more regulation", you're an anti-libertarian. And more so when government caused or contributed to the problem in the first place.

        1. SophieHall   2 years ago

          Beautiful 2 bed apartment in Maidenhead. Sleeps 5. Close to M4 motorway that straight goes to Heathrow airport. Only 10 min to Windsor. available now to book.
          If you are a local family and need a home for a short period due to renovation to your own home then we can promise you this could be perfect choice for you.
          This place is setup in a way that it would work perfect for any contractors or business travellers.
          Simply click at the link below
          https://www.easy2manage.co.uk/property-details/64

  4. SRG   2 years ago

    I have little confidence in Biden's ability to apply intelligent regulation in complex cases. However, while competition is efficient in many consumer markets, it cannot possibly be effective in pharmaceutical markets where IP is an all-or-nothing proposition and the demand for a given drug may well be highly inelastic. This is where non-pragmatic libertarians get stupid.

    If Pfizer invents a drug to treat previously incurable and unpleasant disease X, no competition is realistic. It's patented, and the price Pfizer charges will no doubt have a floor at the overall cost of capital, research, etc. but will in all likelihood be determined by a model driven by how many people have the disease and what they'd be willing to pay for it to go away. Competition may not factor into it. For treatment of a disease there is no reason to suppose that if drug A can treat it, some unrelated drug can also treat it.

    1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago (edited)

      Your whole argument boils down to “what if someone invents a drug but wants to charge more than some people can afford?”

      Replace “drug” with anything else and it’s the same argument.

      Sorry to be a non-pragmatic libertarian here but forcing price controls on the supplier is just commie idiocy. Always is.

      1. A Thinking Mind   2 years ago

        And if someone did that, it's ultimately good for the market because then there's a market incentive for someone to develop another drug for the same group of unserved people and undercut the big drug company. But the government tends to actually depress competition, which is why there hasn't been any successful start up selling insulin for 40 bucks a pop.

      2. SRG   2 years ago

        Replace “drug” with anything else and it’s the same argument.
        Nope. You miss two key points. First, patent protection thwarts competition. Second, the demand for many drugs is highly inelastic and there is no good alternative. In a market with plenty of producers, consumers, and choice of alternatives, price controls are indeed counter-productive. But that isn't the case in the market for many drugs - or to be accurate, markets, because often enough each drug is its own market, Generics are a different matter, of course.

        a non-pragmatic libertarian here

        It shows. You have a model of how markets work that like many models is wrong but useful and is often enough extremely useful and applicable in very many markets. But the drug markets have properties that differ from other consumer markets and hence the model is simply inapplicable.

        1. NOYB2   2 years ago

          But the drug markets have properties that differ from other consumer markets and hence the model is simply inapplicable.

          You have failed to demonstrate any "property" that differs from other "consumer markets". You are not entitled to taking other people's private property against their will even if you need their property to prolong your life. That's true whether that property is a Volvo or some new drug.

          1. MyWag13   2 years ago

            RE: You are not entitled to taking other people’s private property against their will even if you need their property to prolong your life.
            >>>
            Tell that to all the Red States.

            They take and use the internal property of some women to save the lives other Human Beings.

            Equal Rights for fetuses, not special rights.

            They use the Power of the State
            to force some women to remain
            pregnant and force them to undergo the major
            medical trauma of childbirth …. to save a life.

            1. NOYB2   2 years ago

              That is a red herring. We are not taking about abortion.

              Furthermore, I think abortion should be legal, for the simple reason that fetuses aren’t persons under the Constitution.

              But you’re analysis in wrong anyway. A woman who gets pregnant and does not abort within the first few weeks has made a voluntary choice and commitment to carry that child. Furthermore, the state isn’t forcing her to do anything, the state is merely outlawing a particular medical procedure.

    2. Sevo   2 years ago (edited)

      “I have little confidence in Biden’s ability to apply intelligent regulation in complex cases. However, while competition is efficient in many consumer markets, it cannot possibly be effective in pharmaceutical markets where IP is an all-or-nothing proposition and the demand for a given drug may well be highly inelastic. This is where non-pragmatic libertarians get stupid.”

      You remain
      Full
      Of
      Shit.
      Fuck off and die, lefty shit-pile.

      1. SRG   2 years ago

        Why do you even bother posting? At least the rest of the Trumpenproletariat here present arguments, shitty and poorly thought-out though they generally are. All you do is fling poo.

        I guess you go with what you know.

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

      I have little confidence in Biden’s ability to apply intelligent regulation in complex cases. However, while competition is efficient in many consumer markets, it cannot possibly be effective in pharmaceutical markets where IP is an all-or-nothing proposition and the demand for a given drug may well be highly inelastic. This is where non-pragmatic libertarians get stupid.

      "Healthcare isn't like a normal market"

      Here, let me show you how it's exactly like a normal market...

      *shows results of heavy-handed interventions*

      There. See? Normal market.

      1. mad.casual   2 years ago (edited)

        In a meager, tangential defense of SRG’s statement:
        Normie: “Widgets aren’t like a normal market.”
        Libertarians: “Here, let me show you how it’s exactly like a normal market… [shows results of heavy-handed interventions].”
        …
        Normie: “IP isn’t like a normal market.”
        Libertarians: “That’s right, the government has to protect it. Otherwise nobody would ever invent anything.”

        1. perlmonger   2 years ago

          The only reason to defend the concept of IP for drugs is the very, very expensive government mandated testing process (which I am rather fond of, admittedly) that makes development of drugs a stupidly pricey prospect.

          I'm not sure how to deal with the conundrum.

          1. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

            It's not the patents the first time around but the "improvements" that extend the entire patent that are the problem. Copyright is a bit different, but that can be lifetime + 10 years or some such with a flat period for corporate owners.

          2. A Thinking Mind   2 years ago

            If you stripped away a lot of the government requirements, companies would still do a lot of testing and go through extensive development because they don't want to be sued if their drug cripples or kills people. What happened with the COVID vaccine was the government promoted it, gave a complete shield for all liability, and then even forced it on certain populations. Given this revenue stream, the most natural thing happened, the people making the vaccine decided to keep promoting more and more frequent boosters so they could sell more and more of the vaccine.

            And it doesn't even matter if people actually stop willingly taking it, the government is still stockpiling the shit out of it. Government workers and military are still either compelled or very strong encouraged to take more boosters so the train keeps on rolling.

            You strip away the protections of saying they've abided by FDA rules, and now the companies themselves have to make sure their safety policies are sufficient. They need to be able to keep records that aren't bureaucratic hurdles but necessary liability shields and the company itself is the enforcement mechanism on its employees.

            You can't completely remove the costs associated with drug development, is what I'm saying. Even if someone came in gung-ho without doing any trials or safety checks, they're going to get sued into oblivion so it's still not going to substantially lower drug costs. Not when we're up against the hurdle of them losing money selling drugs to Canada and the EU and they're forced to jack up prices in the US to compensate.

        2. SRG   2 years ago

          It's as though some of you have never encountered the concepts of price inelasticity or asymmetrical bargaining power. Sheesh.

          This is the real world.

          1. NOYB2   2 years ago (edited)

            For every disease, you always have the option of getting the cheap generic treatment of 20 years ago.

            Just because drug companies have come up with something better doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it or that the government needs to make the bargaining position “symmetric.”

        3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

          You're onto something. Let me try my hand at this.

          Normie: The war on drugs is a complete failure
          Libertarians: You're right, everything should be legal with no restrictions or regulations.
          Normie: Why would that fix everything?
          Libertarians: Because when you buy heroin, it would be regulated by the FDA and you'd know what's in it.

        4. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago (edited)

          Mariana van Zeller: The war on drugs is a failure, it’s had the opposite effect.
          Rogan: Yeah, man, it should all just be legal.
          Zeller: You’re right, I agree 100%. Oh, the worst drug crisis in the history of humanity was created bydrug companies and legal drugs.
          Rogan: Far out, man.

    4. Rossami   2 years ago

      Oh no, the market fails! Government must get involved because ... (checks notes) ... because intellectual property rules are out of balance. Remind us again who set up the IP rules as near-permanent all-or-nothing propositions?

      1. SRG   2 years ago

        Remind us again who set up the IP rules as near-permanent all-or-nothing propositions?

        Pharmaceutical companies paying off politicians. Duh. See also, "Disney".

      2. NOYB2   2 years ago

        Intellectual property rules are perfectly fine: a 20 year drug patent lifetime is quite reasonable.

        The problem in the pharmaceutical markets arise from the FDA licensing and permitting, making it difficult for many generics to be brought to market.

    5. NOYB2   2 years ago

      If Pfizer invents a drug to treat previously incurable and unpleasant disease X, no competition is realistic.

      Pfizer coming up with such a drug makes you no worse off than if they hadn't come up with such a drug. So, if you can pay what they ask for, you pay it, and if not, you die. I don't see the problem.

      In practice, Pfizer will engage in variable pricing, maximizing the amount of money it can extract from everybody, all the way down to manufacturing costs.

      For treatment of a disease there is no reason to suppose that if drug A can treat it, some unrelated drug can also treat it.

      Again, so what? The fact that Pfizer can cure your disease doesn't mean you are entitled to their cure. And if you force them to provide the cure to you at a price the government sets, they will be disincentivized to develop new cures.

    6. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

      The elephant in the room is that there is no incentive to create any actual cures - so they don’t. Our IP system is rotten to the core.

  5. Earnesto Concernada   2 years ago

    Medicine is expensive, when it should be free. I'm glad we finally have a president who's willing to try common sense price controls. I know that republicans never do that.

    1. Sevo   2 years ago

      Sarc or stupidity?

      1. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

        Hard to say. I have little faith in humanity anymore, so I'm gonna say it's probably stupidity.

        1. A Thinking Mind   2 years ago (edited)

          Pretty sure it’s parody. “Common sense price controls” is a play on “common sense gun controls.” Plus Nixon, a republican, famously installed price controls and freezes back in the day.

          1. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

            Makes sense. I had forgotten about Nixon's price controls.

            1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

              Wonderful times.

    2. Minadin   2 years ago

      That's a good way to make something scarce.

    3. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

      Wow. Another totalitarian longing for slaves.

      Exactly who is it you imagine “owes you” these miraculous “free medicines?” Who will be these selfless individuals (slaves) who will gather the resources, synthesize the formulation, package them and deliver them to your door free of compensation?

  6. swillfredo pareto   2 years ago

    drug price controls will have the additional baleful effect of increasing disease, disability, and deaths while simultaneously raising the total costs of health care. How? Because price controls substantially reduce the incentives for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to research, develop, and deploy innovative new medicines that would prevent and cure illnesses and cut overall costs.

    And because drug shortages and rationing will guarantee more people will not have access to existing drugs that could “cure illness or cut overall costs” and “reduc[e] the need for other costly treatments such as hospitalization, surgeries, and disability care”. Never allow yourself to believe an agent of government will altruistically use his or her power to help you.

  7. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

    Picture caption time:

    "I am the great Cornholio. I need TP for my bung hole!"

  8. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

    Let me unpack this for you.

    According to the authors, the decreased R&D spending would lead to 135 fewer new drug therapies, resulting in a potential loss of around 331 million patient life years through 2039. In comparison, through January 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in the loss of about 13.5 million life years in the United States.

    Biden also asserted that new price controls on prescription medicines "will cut the federal deficit, saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars on the prescription drugs the government buys for Medicare." Maybe so, but an August 2022 study by Philipson and his colleague calculates that what Medicare and other health care payers might save on prescription drugs over the next 20 years [ and 331 million patient life-years] will be more than somewhat offset by increased spending on other sorts of medical care.

    1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

      The savings will be huge. Dead people don’t need drugs.

      1. perlmonger   2 years ago

        It'll also help out with the Social Security costs.

      2. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

        Precisely!

  9. Dillinger   2 years ago

    anyone who believes that asshole at this point is just fucking retarded.

  10. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago (edited)

    So the WHO just came out with a PSA which breezily said the quiet parts out loud, stuff that got people struck from social media during 2020-2022. Focus on the vulnerable, over 65 with comorbidities. And then for the coup de grâce they claimed we need better vaccines that… actually work by preventing infection and transmission. The whole message was packaged in a salad of other words and syllables, some of which made little sense and some which were like, WTF? Like, we need “better protective equipment for women”.

    What, your mask and face shield isn’t fitting you right if you identify and are female-presenting?

    Perplexing.

    Stop the world, I want to get off.

    1. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

      Like, we need “better protective equipment for women”.

      Maybe since COVID is spread through "droplets" it can also be spread through droplets of pussy juices? Or jizz? I don't know.

      1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

        Maybe since COVID is spread through “droplets”..

        It’s not. Aerosols is the mode of travel.

        1. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

          I know. I was making a joke based on how Fauci used to talk about aerosol "droplets" while pimping his mask bullshit.

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

            And wearing a cloth mask.

      2. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

        How can we better protect women when nobody knows what a woman is? Very perplexing…

  11. Public Entelectual   2 years ago

    " Pharmaceutical Pay-for-Delay Deals?"

    Any relation to Presidential Pay-for-delay deals, as in Trump paying the National Enquirer not to dish on his raunchier affairs?

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/02/hopes-rise-for-climate-tabloid-revival.html

    1. Unicorn Abattoir   2 years ago

      Still pointing people to your phony website by replacing the "w" with a "vv", I see.

      1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

        I flagged him. Maybe if it happens often enough .... but naw, more obvious spammers don't get banned, he'll stick around for a while.

        1. Public Entelectual   2 years ago

          Still touting the abbatoir by replacing the
          "Á àß äẞç " with a "àßäẞçäẞâÞ¢Đæ€Ðëf ". I see.

        2. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

          Maybe if enough of us flag him? NewSpeak has a clever feature for their snowflakes - if enough of them flag you on any given article you can no longer respond, doesn’t seem to matter that zero of your posts actually violate any guidelines. That way they get to claim “they aren’t censoring.”

    2. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

      No, and neither has any pharmaceutical company come up with a treatment for, let alone a cure for, your debilitating TDS.

  12. John Burchardt   2 years ago

    It's amazing how many are supporting maintaining the status quo of the industrialized world's most expensive health care system, who's patient outcomes are nowhere near the top, in a country that has seen its life expectancy rate.
    The fact is that the creation of a Medicare for anyone who wants it would create the largest pool patients & as such gives it the most power of any of the for-profit Ins. Co.s' Pharmacy Managers. Basic business, but we can't trust ourselves, after all, we are the government.

    1. Rossami   2 years ago

      The status quo sucks. Now let's look at the closest analogs we have to the single-payer system you apparently want. Do you really think the VA provides top-quality health care at affordable prices? Are people on Medicaid actually happy about it? What's the satisfaction level of existing Medicare patients? How's it working out for the healthcare providers? Are doctors clamoring to get into the program? What do you think of Canada's quota system? Do you really want your health care decisions made by the same people who are running other highly successful customer service institutions like the IRS and the Post Office? Oh by the way, what are those other countries you keep lauding going to do once they can no longer free-ride off the US market?

      The existing system is less than perfect. But it's a whole lot less bad than every alternative offered so far.

    2. JeremyR   2 years ago

      The problem is that Medicare also sucks.

      1. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

        If only the collectivist asshole were on the VA healthcare and only that.

    3. Homer Thompson   2 years ago

      far from perfect but easily the tallest midget, least dirty shirt and strongest horse at the glue factory 🙂

  13. NOYB2   2 years ago

    Most Americans die not from high drug prices, but from obesity and other lifestyle choices.

    1. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

      Careful, facts will get you cancelled…

  14. JimCherry   2 years ago

    Price controls always - always - result in shortages of the goods controlled.

  15. Roberta   2 years ago

    How is Medicare negotiating the price they'll pay for drugs the same as price controls? Isn't it common for government to put contracts out for bid?

    Insurance either covers certain products and services, or it covers up to a certain amount of reimbursement. I seem to recall some libertarian analysts thinking it would be good to reform Medicare by covering certain amounts for certain diagnoses, giving doctors an incentive to save costs. Why would drug reimbursement not follow the same logic?

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

      How about results oriented medicine? You get paid $x for certain verifiable outcomes?

  16. JeremyR   2 years ago

    We have sky high prices and drug shortages right now.

    I actually would not be surprised if in the near future, there is talk of nationalization, since what we have now is not going to last.

  17. MeganRiley   2 years ago (edited)

    Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier.They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill.It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…

    Visit following page for more information……………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

  18. ajf   2 years ago

    This is one of the least libertarian positions I've seen in Reason. Yes, by calling the proposal "price control" it seems libertarian to argue against it, but the current system is an out of control federal give away to the pharmaceutical industry. No libertarian should support such uncontrolled federal subsidy. The idea that medicare, or any other consumer, should be legally denied the right to negotiate price should be an anathema to every libertarian. I understand that medicare is such a massive consumer of drugs that they will have tremendous leverage in negotiation, but that is not the same as price control; and a difficult negotiation is far better than no negotiation at all.

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

      Medicare isn’t “any other consumer”, it’s the government.

      The correct position is to simply abolish Medicare.

  19. Liberty Lover   2 years ago

    Biden already killed millions of Americans with his mask and vaccine mandates, why would he stop now? The goal is world depopulation and a dictatorship of the left.

  20. TJJ2000   2 years ago

    Nothing kills more people than Nazi-Empires.
    Get a F'En clue already National Sozialists.

  21. StevenF   2 years ago

    Price controls ALWAYS destroy the incentive to innovate. The also reduce the supply and quality of whatever is available.

  22. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

    No government ever added any value to any good nor service. Ever. The very BEST you can ever hope for is that it only adds a LITTLE cost. There are few if any examples in history of the best cases.

  23. Osiris43   2 years ago

    Just think how much more money will be saved from Medicare and Medicaid costs if 331+ million life years are lost!

  24. ThomasD   2 years ago

    Man, Bailey can you proggy retards pick em or what?

    And a hearty fuck you to you from the rest of us.

    But hey, no mean tweets amirite?

  25. Liberty Lover   2 years ago

    "Biden's Drug Price Controls Will Kill More Patients in the Long Run"

    Well that fits in perfectly with the Bill Gate's liberal elites depopulation agenda. Dementia Joe is no more than a puppet of these people.

    1. silomim416   2 years ago (edited)

      My last month's online earning was $17930 just by doing an easy job obout 3 months ago and  in my first month i have made $12k+ easily without any special online experience. Easiest home based online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 2 to 3 hrs a day. I have joined this job aEverybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website........

      See this article for more information————————>>>OPEN>> OPEN>> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM

  26. jack_algoworks   2 years ago

    Hire Salesforce developers and consultants for your Salesforce CRM development, Appexchange Apps, customization, and integration. We have salesforce certified team to deliver high quality product that suits your pocket too. Connect now for Free Quote.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Britain's Protectionist Trade Policies Created Valley Forge

Eric Boehm | From the June 2025 issue

Brickbat: Reading Problem

Charles Oliver | 5.13.2025 4:00 AM

Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Destroy Thousands of Acres of Tomato Crops in Florida

Autumn Billings | 5.12.2025 5:14 PM

Defenders of Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order Offer an Implausible Take on a 127-Year-Old Precedent

Jacob Sullum | 5.12.2025 4:52 PM

Why DOGE Failed

Eric Boehm | 5.12.2025 3:20 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!