[tomohawk]

The negotiation goes like this: "Here's what we'll pay you for that. If you don't like it, we'll ignore your patents and intellectual property and manufacture it ourselves."

The companies would rather prevent Canada from funding competition, so they just jack up prices in the US to compensate.

If the US passed a law requiring sales of drugs in the US to match the lowest sale price in any other country, one of 2 things would happen.

The likely thing is that innovation would come to a standstill. Money goes to where it can make the most money. No money in drugs? No new drugs.

Or, the companies would get a lot more hard nosed about sales in countries with price controls, and there would be trade wars between the US and those countries. And then you would see higher prices in Canada.

[orra]

> If you don't like it, we'll ignore your patents and intellectual property and manufacture it ourselves

Citation?

> so they just jack up prices in the US to compensate.

Pharmaceutical companies charge as much as they can anywhere, including in the US. They wouldn't entertain reducing prices in the US even if the Canadian market were different.

[tomohawk]

Any time there are price controls, there is scarcity. That is, unless the price controls are subsidized in some way like in the situation we're talking about.

I like the innovative drugs that are being made, so I'm not in favor of price controls.

If you think drugs are too expensive, then do something about it. Create some useful drugs and sell them for a cheaper price.

[wwtrv]

> Any time there are price controls, there is scarcity

That's not true. It would be the case for (close to) perfectly competitive markets with lower margins, like petrol, basic foodstuffs to some extent etc. It does not apply to markets controlled by oligopolies/monopolies. Especially pharmaceuticals where margins are extremely high and producers of some drugs would still be able to make a profit if they cut (list) prices by a magnitude or two.

Only argument against is that it might decrease available funding for developing new drugs, which might be a legitimate concern. But in no way would reasonable prices controls result in a scarcity of almost all currently available drugs.

[djbebs]

It is objectively true though.

[kennend3]

Actually.. the negotion goes like this:

" When inventor Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1923, he refused to put his name on the patent. He felt it was unethical for a doctor to profit from a discovery that would save lives. Banting’s co-inventors, James Collip and Charles Best, sold the insulin patent to the University of Toronto for a mere $1. They wanted everyone who needed their medication to be able to afford it.

"

There is no "IP in Canada for Insulin given UofT "owns" the patent.

Most of the price differences between US and Canada stems from the difference in patents and trademarks. Canada has far more "Generics" vs the US.

[tomohawk]

Actually, the health system that Canada has did not start until 1947, and the product you are talking about is literally not the product under discussion.

[mcphage]

> The companies would rather prevent Canada from funding competition, so they just jack up prices in the US to compensate.

If Canada raised their insulin prices, do you think Eli Lily would lower their prices in the US?

[ehnto]

> The likely thing is that innovation would come to a standstill. Money goes to where it can make the most money. No money in drugs? No new drugs.

There are pharmaceutical companies all around the world, while it's true that the US currently has the largest market cap for pharma companies, it's not like the rest of the world is sitting on it's hands. Of the top 15 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, 8 are in the US, and 7 abroad. But market cap is a poor metric for impact, especially in the US, where it seems the market can price a social media company with no profit at 44billion, I'm not particularly convinced by valuations on pharmaceutical companies who's share pricing rely on price gouging and a indentured customer base to stay high.

Another perspective is that while they're able to sell insulin at 40x cost, something they developed decades ago, what's their incentive to develop new drugs? In countries where companies are required to provide licensing for generics after a certain time period, they would be incentivized to continue developing new drugs in order to keep products on the shelves that are in the exclusive licensing window.

Regardless of any of the above, what you're essentially advocating for is fleecing US citizens to the benefit of the rest of the world. I'm just not sure how this could possibly be a good thing for the US.