Regarding question #3, as I first heard it:

“As the price of anything approaches zero, demand trends toward infinity.”

Or, as I’ve seen it written subsequently:

“As price approaches zero, demand approaches infinity.”

And again…whose responsibility is that? I’m taking care of myself and my family, do I have to hold the “poor” persons hand at the DR as well? You can’t regulate a persons personal decision, it is purely up to them, and if they make the wrong decision….shit happens. I go into combat everyday, if I make the wrong decision and something “bad” happens, am I going to blame someone else????

And this is whose responsibility??? Being poor is not an excuse for ignorance. This is our problem, the slow creeping up of the welfare state is creating a worthless herd of sheep. If I’m too poor to afford health care, I’ll make damn sure to take as good of care of myself as possible. If don’t have $ but make the decision to have a child I’ll save money to pay for it, not expect someone else to. The welfare state only cheapens the value of our success and our accomplishments. If you want health insurance, join the Reserves, tricare reserve select. Now if the Government wanted to offer tricare reserve select to the nation I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Monthly premium, based on whether you want 80/20 or 90/10 cost sharing and an out of pocket cap. People don’t appreciate or respect what they don’t work or pay for. I have tricare prime, which is free, and if my child coughs I say take her to the DR, why? Because it “won’t cost me a thing” but the $ has to come from somewhere……but subconsciously it is there, whether I like it or not…
Grow up, make good decisions, take care or yourself and your family. Count on friends and families before you look for a handout and don’t forget to work hard but remember family comes first. We have absolutely destroyed the fabric of our society, or at least most of you have.

I think that if:
(A) you find yourself a lone example of certain policy when everyone else has adopted a different policy,
and
(B) you assume that everyone (including yourself) are reasonably rational actors and none with absolute grasp of the truth,
then
(C) simple Bayesian statistics clearly justifies increasing one’s prior estimate of the desirability of the policy everyone else is following.

Of course, we can’t answer analytically how much it should increase one’s prior estimate. But it seems uncontroversial that it should be increased.

(2) It has been widely reported in the literature for years that pharma subsidized studies are biased, thereby reducing the value of the trials, and pharma’s incentive to invest in them.

(3) Apparently pharma companies’ experience is that sales and marketing more than pays for itself. Otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. Are you suggesting there would be an even greater return if they spent more of that on basic research? Do you know something about the business that they don’t?

Device and drug company safety standards are typically higher than the FDA’s (due in part, I’m sure, do liability fears), but supplying FDA documentation does constitute additional expense and risk, without benefit. Risk, because some bureaucrat can always cause delays or decide to pursue a political agenda; and no benefit, since there is no liability protection. This cost goes toward the public benefit of false sense of security. That apparently has value to some people.

There may be room for patent reform, but you’re likely to get more cost savings by removing the prescription drug classification. If people can freely buy Drano and kerosene over the counter, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be trusted to figure out how to properly use atenolol or simvastatin. Everyone is free to hire medical advice. If drug companies could realize OTC profits from the start of their patent protection, they would be less inclined to lobby for extended patent protection. And drug companies can always make their sales to pharmacies contingent upon resale restrictions, if they judge that to be appropriate. Also, drugs would be cheaper to consumers.