[ahoyhere]

Yes, exactly: if pharma is good business, and not philanthropy, then they have to focus on the people who will pay the most, the most readily, and the most often. End of story.

Case in point: I'm an American who lives in Vienna, Austria, and I have recurring upper-respiratory/immune system problems.

Here, I am treated with a so-cheap-it's-almost-free immune system booster called Broncho Vaxom. It's nothing but dead bacteria, but it's extremely effective (essentially an oral vaccine).

It's used to save lives of children in the poorest of nations -- but it's not available in the US, because it's not profitable, whereas continuous rounds of antibiotics are.

http://www.google.com/search?q=broncho%20vaxom

[Vivtek]

Coral snake antivenom is a similar thing - the last manufacturer left a supply of a few years that is now running out, but the process for approving a new manufacturer for the same drug is so expensive that the market won't support it.

So first responders in Florida have a problem. No coral snake antivenom.

A similar market situation applies to flu shots.

The current system favors "maintenance pharmaceuticals", not cures. Who wouldn't prefer to have a cash cow that costs the customer a few hundred dollars every month for the rest of their life, in comparison with something that actually cured them? A cure isn't very lucrative at all.

Generally, free marketeers protest that this isn't true, in the face of all evidence I can see, but look at the business logic; it's inescapable.

[ahoyhere]

Excellent examples.

A free marketeer, as you say, would say that the reason nobody is making more antivenin is because the "process for applying" is so expensive - but of course, there has to be quality control, and more importantly, there's every reason to believe that the manufacture would be more expensive than the applying.

Govt regulation is used as a scapegoat. The market for creating this product is just not desirable, because snake bites are extremely rare compared to just about every other medical malady. There was a reason the original manufacturer willingly gave it up in the face of no competition.

Public health is a public concern, and should be funded with public money. It is cheaper in the long run because of increasing working years/tax dollars, and reducing bankruptcies, and reducing the number of orphans, etc.

Even Mr Invisible Hand, Enlightened Self-Interest himself wrote that the whole edifice of his economic philosophy had to rest on the foundation of respect for human life -- and compassion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments

[stretchwithme]

I am not against government or rules. I am against the idea that coercion is the means. Voluntary cooperation, not the use of force, is the means by which we create solutions to all sorts of problems.

Health is no different. It suffers over the long term when people think the use of force to get some short term benefit.

Somehow we live our lives with the understanding that forcing those around to do what we want would destructive, even if it was somehow benevolent. But collectively, we've convinced ourselves that this cannot be the case.

Perhaps it is because the dominant opinion is actually propagated with our own money even if we don't agree and alternative perspectives buried by the mesh of financing and media access of government.

[Vivtek]

Yes, voluntary compliance with regulations works so well to preserve the Commons - it was clearly in BP's interest to comply with regulations in the Gulf, for instance, and clearly in Goldman-Sachs's interest to preserve the global financial structure. Only idiots would choose short-term savings or profit-taking over long-term global stability, after all; enlightened self-interest will take care of everything!

I like your overall philosophy that coercion is wrong, and in principle I agree with it. I wish that human nature didn't contradict it. Sadly, on every hand I see that actual, real live human beings must be coerced to do good if even the slightest amount of consistency is required.

[stretchwithme]

I'm not talking about voluntary compliance to government regulation.

I'm talking about regulation and government freely agreed to by people when they decide to engage in an activity in an area. And these rules should be decided upon by those whose property is at stake, not by people who just collect tax revenue off in Washington.

The problem is that no system of property has been worked for territorial waters. So no one has any direct financial stake or right to investigate and sure over pollution from rivers. That must wait until the government decides to give it its fully divided and compromised attention.

Human beings only need to be coerced when they fail to live up to their agreements or when they violate the rights of others. But that is not the wrong use of force I seek to stop. Its authorized by your human rights and by the contracts people freely agree to.

Beyond that, coercion is destructive and should be avoided. There is no right that authorizes its use.

[Vivtek]

What you are implying is that because nobody owns the Gulf of Mexico, BP had no reason not to kill it.

I call that insanity.