This is what you get when the U.S. government gives more and more monopoly power to Big Pharma (through patents and other means), restricts generics, and bans imports.
This is what happens when your government is weak and has been infiltrated with lobbyists that represent the very companies they should be protecting you from.
No, this is what happens when the government is too strong.
To expand a bit, what is going to prevent your new "stronger" government from getting captured by the very same lobbyists, except now they'll have even more power to distort and manipulate the market?
In this specific case, the fundamental problem appears to be that only one company has jumped through the FDA hoops (which can cost billions) to sell "prescription" niacin. How is piling even more regulation on top of that going to make the problem go away?
Right. So what exactly do you think happens when you take the referee out of a UFC match?
The core idea of governance is not the issue, which is somewhat buried beneath the idea that "government is too large" hints at.
Ultimately, the problem is cultural, ethical, and contextual. In this case, later era capitalist "market drives everything". Everything is a market. Everything a transaction. Including how to sway politicians.
As a counterpoint, in Canada our government has regulated against[1] these sorts of issues. We aren't an ideal by a long shot[2][3], but we sure as hell value it when our government leans on corporate entities. I believe the same happened in the EU with regards to cellular roaming?
> Right. So what exactly do you think happens when you take the referee out of a UFC match?"
There's no longer any "referee" to bribe? The fans get to vote on the winner in a free market?
> Everything is a market. Everything a transaction. Including how to sway politicians.
The less power politicians have, the smaller the return on buying them. And vice versa.
> We aren't an ideal by a long shot[2][3], but we sure as hell value it when our government leans on corporate entities.
There is essentially zero drug development in Canada. Have you ever wondered why that might be? Do you think it might be a problem (for Canada) if the same policies were applied in the U.S.?
> There's no longer any "referee" to bribe? The fans get to vote on the winner in a free market?
Bzzt.
People end up dead.
In the case of Big Pharma, it is a fitting analogy.
> There is essentially zero drug development in Canada. Have you ever wondered why that might be? Do you think it might be a problem (for Canada) if the same policies were applied in the U.S.?
So you are suggesting that Canada doesn't participate in drug research? Or are you suggesting that government monitored pricing prevents Martin Shkreli types from making mega purchasing rights to drugs they had nothing to do with to inflate the pricing and profit so they can spend two million dollars on important Wu-Tang (?) album research?
Not sure which sort of statement you are hinting at.
> So you are suggesting that Canada doesn't participate in drug research?
I'm suggesting that the type of regulation you seem to favor stifles drug research, yes. If the entire world adopted your policies, there simply wouldn't be any new drugs.
> Martin Shkreli types
The only reason the "Martin Shkreli types" are able to do what they do is that government regulations make it difficult or economically impossible for competitors to enter the marketplace, even with drugs for which the patent has long expired.
Let me just get this straight because I really want to make sure I understand your point. The act of the government defending the people it represents stifles the creation of new drugs. Am I missing something?
If the above is what you meant to say then what is so bad about these drugs that getting them into the market is detrimental to the population? Drug companies will always make drugs. To say they won't is patently false, most of their research is paid for through the government grant system anyways, the trials on the other hand can be expensive, bu they already conduct their shady trials in poor countries and only bring them to developed countries when they have the best chance to succeed. I'm not really sure what a percentage cap on profits would prevent especially since most of the complaints are against existing drugs becoming more expensive. Few people complain when cutting edge drugs and therapies are expensive, everyone understands progress is expensive. No one understands a well established drug suddenly becoming 800% more expensive for what only seems like profit motive. Greed is not acceptable when it comes to human life for most developed countries.
As far as I can see, there are no Canadian companies on this list. It's heavily dominated by the U.S. and Switerland, with an occasional outlier in the U.K., France, etc.
https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-pharma-companies-game-the-system...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160823124857.h...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552619