[johnea]

So, for those of us down here at the bottom of the karma ladder, after 5000 lines of comments about giving antibiotics to cows, which had nothing to do with the article, there is some actual discussion of the topic.

This inability to bring a product to market is in fact an artifact of the for-profit healthcare system.

Besides the obvious aspects of weight-loss and erectile-dysfunction drugs being more profitable, there is also an issue with imaginary property.

Pharma will not bring a drug to market unless they can own exclusive rights. Since this is a naturally occurring molecule, some tweak will need to be made before the chemical is eligible for a patent.

So until some company can make a custom modification, without disrupting the efficacy, it won't be considered a viable product.

[ninalanyon]

> This inability to bring a product to market is in fact an artifact of the for-profit healthcare system.

If that were the only, or principal, problem then surely we would notice that single payer systems do better by demanding production of other therapies.

[johnea]

How would they "demand" this?

Large pharma is going to develop in the US, where tax dollars fund a significant portion of research, and they get exclusive ownership of the resulting product.

Single payer systems do still display advantages for the drug's users.

Surely you've heard of people in the US buying prescription meds from Canada?

[ninalanyon]

> How would they "demand" this?

By asking a drug company to develop a therapy for a specific condition and offering to pay for it? Couple that with refusing to pay for drugs that do not offer good value for society as a whole.