Government and Taxes: Chito Gascon

Showing posts with label Chito Gascon. Show all posts

Saturday, September 16, 2017

On the CHR P1,000 or $20 budget for 2018

The House of Representatives led by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez passed the proposed 2018 budget and it gave the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a mere P1,000, less than $20, budget for 2018. Key Duterte officials are displeased with the CHR, headed by Atty. Chito Gascon (a friend since the 80s in UP Diliman) because of its investigation of many murder cases where the main suspects are policemen.

Last Wednesday, September 13, while I was queuing at NAIA for my flight to the US via Korean Air, Chito called me, he would be on the same flight as mine. Picture muna :-)

The CHR was created by the 1987 Constitution, not by Congress and much less by the House of Alvarez. Alvarez wants Chito to resign as CHR head, then he will reinstate the proposed P600+ million 2018 budget. Now look at his reasoning below. Low life logic.

Another lawyer-friend from UP, Gigo Alampay, explained it well in his fb wall the other day.

It is the responsibility of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to protect the rights of the people from abuse BY STATE AGENTS such as the government, police and the military. As a response to our experience with Martial Law, the CHR was created to ensure that the government will not abuse and violate its duty to protect the primary rights of the people.

It is NOT the job of the CHR to investigate violations committed by a non-state or non-government actors, such as criminals. This is not because the CHR condones those heinous acts. Rather, it is simply because investigating crimes is the job of the police. Requiring the CHR to expand its responsibilities to these violations is not only redundant. It would also be a massive waste of manpower and resources. (Is Congress prepared to add the equivalent of the PNP's billion-peso budget to the CHR?)

Do not fall for what appears to be a systematic effort by the President, legislators in the majority, and by Pro-Duterte apologists to discredit the CHR by confusing the public on this issue, and insisting that the CHR must investigate ALL cases of human rights violations.

A former tv clown and entertainer and now Senator Tito Sotto added his equally low-life argument. Suggesting that all government officials including those heading constitutional bodies (CHR, COA, Comelec,...) should always obey the President's orders and wishes.

When I posted my photo with Chito in my fb wall, a certain Manuel Saludadez jumped in with this accusation.

The man did not provide any proof, even news link. I have a term for this type of attitude -- emotional or arrogant idiocy. If one should make a serious accusation of robbery or plunder ("nakulimbat"), one should present some reliable proof. Otherwise, remove the comment or say "sorry, I do not have proof, I take back my words" or similar statements. If there is humility. There is none.

Meanwhile, I think the Senate should also give a P1,000 2018 budget for many agencies that are favored by the President and the Speaker, like the DOJ. That way, a compromise can be made between the two chambers.

Monday, September 23, 2013

German Elections 2013: Big Defeat for the FDP

Last night, I joined some friends and staff of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) in a WahlParty, watching the German elections live, at the German Club in Makati.

Big defeat for the German liberals, the Free Democratic Party (FDP). A brief analysis of the party defeat from a good German liberal thinker and my former teacher/facilitator at an IAF Seminar in Gummersbach in 2008, Arno Keller below. Posted in German, translated by Bing:

1. The world has not gone under.
2. Liberal values have lost none of their importance.
3. A political party could use Germany. After self-proclaimed "radical Liberals" and apparent liberal opportunists have systematically destroyed the Liberal core of the FDP, the debate on values in the FDP must run new, so that she can once again assume the role of a Liberal Party. Yes, and then also the FDP should recognize that systematic strategy development can actually help.

Chito Gascon was also there last night. His brief analysis:

results from elections in germany are coming in, and it appears to be historic in some key aspects... the conservatives gained more votes and will most certainly return her to the position of chancellor well on the way to being the longest serving woman leader of a major european country... AND, perhaps for the first time since after world war 2, the liberals who have thus far served in government longest as junior partner alternating with either the social democrats or conservatives, may (should the trend be validated) be finding themselves totally out of parliament... by far their worst result ever with them losing 2/3rds of their support compared from the last elections... time for some soul-searching, i hope they are able to bounce back... in the meantime, the conservatives will have a coalition partnership either with the social democrats or the greens or both these parties... the liberal voice will be missed in parliament this governing cycle...i applaud the democratic process... the people have spoken!

A disaster for the FDP yesterday, first time since WW2 and the party founding that they are out of the National Parliament, not a single seat, for failing to get the minimum 5 percent of the votes, they got only 4.8 percent.

Result of the exit poll is almost identical with the actual result. Photo from Spiegel International.

Wikipedia (accessed today) described the party

The FDP, which strongly supports human rights, civil liberties, and internationalism, has shifted from the centre to the centre-right over time. Since the 1980s, the party has firmly pushed economic liberalism, and has aligned itself closely to the promotion of free markets and privatisation.

And here's a summary of its electoral performance, from its best-ever 2009 achievement to its worst result yesterday. Data from wiki.

It will be a big soul searching for the FDP and the European liberals. Should they push for more explicit free market policies? A Filipino friend and fellow IAF alumni in Gummersbach, Kareen Oloroso, mentioned last night that many Germans were angry at the liberal /FDP Foreign Minister's plan to cut German foreign aid.

I agree with Arno's analysis above. Liberalism as a philosophy to advance individual freedom and limit the State's coercive power has not lost its value. German liberals in the government made something wrong that turned off many of their supporters.

Meanwhile, a surprising performance by the Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-Euro, back to Deutschhmark, other protest party. Formed only in February this year, they got 4.9% of the votes. It is possible that many previous votes for the FDP went to AfD.

While climate alarmist Greens Party was also among the losers, though not as bad as the FDP

http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/22/germanys-green-party-takes-a-beating-in-national-elections-climate-fear-no-longer-issues/
-------------

Update: I like these postings by two FNF guys:

From Jules Maaten:

A bitter election result for the German liberals. Yet if the party gives itself a couple of weeks to mourn, and doesn't engage in pointless wars-on-a-square-millimeter or in I-told-you-so intellectualism, there is plenty of modern liberal thinking power, competence and commitment to bounce back convincingly. Simply pull up your sleeves and get going. That will be so good for Germany and for international liberalism.

From Bjoern Wyrembek:

Time to go to work. Time to make it better. Time to stand for freedom, for equal opportunities, for tolerance, for rule of law, against corruption, for property rights, for personal responsibility and markets that are open to everyone. Time to prove that these core values will create a better society, are standing for development and better living conditions and secure what we achieve. We just got a public demand note to get rid of much dead weight. So let's do it and move on. Time to go to work.

-------------

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

IPR and Medicines 24: Balancing Costly Innovation and Cheaper Drugs

A high government official, now UnderSecretary for Political Affairs at the Office of the President (OP), former Director-General of the Liberal Party, also a friend way back in the 80s at the University of the Philippines, Atty. Chito Gascon, posted my earlier paper criticizing the compulsory licensing (CL) scheme, in his facebook wall. I thanked him for doing it. Here is his posting and the subsequent comments.
----------

Chito Gascon

thanks to Bong Montesa, i shared a recent news item about india's compulsory licensing practice - the purpose of which is to make medicines accessible to the poor - the discussion about this matter on that wall post was lively (see below!)... some persons shared the link as i did... and it also prompted minimal government advocate Nonoy Oplas to write a blog about it... here is the link to that piece:http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/03/ipr-and-medicines-22-cl-on-anti-cancer.html ... as a social liberal (left liberal?), living in a developing country, i'm all for access & equal opportunity for all - particularly the poor as i also appreciate bong & peter's proposition for striking a balance to encourage innovation! share your own views about this important matter...

Government and Taxes: IPR and Medicines 22: CL on Anti-Cancer Drug Nexavar

funwithgovernment.blogspot.com

You, Peter Casimiro, July Teehankee and 18 others like this.
1 share
- Nonoy Oplas Thanks Chito. I argued from a (right) liberal, strict private property rights perspective. Private property is private property, it is not and should never be, government or collective property, whether physical or intellectual property.
  
  Sunday at 4:48pm ·
- Ipat Nonoy, there are private but collective property rights also. Don't confuse individual property as if it is the same as private. There are collective private property rights of many types.
  
  Sunday at 5:42pm · · 1
- Ben Just compare prices of drugs between the Philippines and India made by let's say Pfizer and see the big difference. Even drug price between Australia and Philippines you would see PH price is much higher. Now tell me should the government interfere when we are talking about life saving drugs. At one time the drug company Roche was price fixing vitamins:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffmann-La_Roche
  
  Expand Preview
  
  Sunday at 6:56pm · · 1
- Nonoy Oplas H Ipat,I hope you read my article as posted by Chito. I was referring to drug molecules that did not come out of thin air but were scientificallly invented. Oxygen or hydrogen molecules art part of nature, they are collective property. Sorafenib molecule, the one that composes the anti-cancer drug Nexavar,was invented. Not by any mediocre minds who can also say *I invented a new drug against breast cancer, it\s made out of mango extracts + salt + chicken intestines + avocado+ ... I sell it very cheaply, no patent and its very effective." That's why I said that not all ideas are the same, majority of the ideas around the planet are mediocre if not idiotic, they are not scarce, they are everywhere, they do not need protection. The bright ideas are scarce,they need protection. And CL is a violation of such private property rights.
  
  Yesterday at 9:20am ·
- Nonoy Oplas Bern, I keep hearing and reading that "drug prices inIndia and Pakistan are much much lower than in the Philippies." Can you provide the most updated studies, say Amlodipin molecule. Pfizer brand' Norvasc 5mg and 10 mg. The 10 mg here is about P22 per tablet,How much is it in India and Pakistan now? Provide actual numbers and prices,not guesses and assumptions, thanks.
  
  Yesterday at 9:23am ·
- Nonoy Oplas In comparing prices of the same or homogeneous product, say diesel, amlodipine, etc., one must show transparently the assumptions and factors used in converting one currency to the other. Like the prevailing exchange rate at the time of conversion price comparison,the taxesapplied. Here, drugs are taxed several times. import tax 3-5percent, VAT12 percent, local govt taxes,doc stamp tax I think, so that government taxes account for 16-20percent of the retail price of drugs. Or govt is responsible for expensive medicines by 16-20 percent,and people turn a blind eye on that. So how much taxes are applied in India, Pakistan, Australia?
  
  Yesterday at 9:31am ·
- Nonoy Oplas In the absence of reply yet from Ipat and Ben, I want to share a comment in our health yahoogroups, from James Auste of the Cancer Warriors Foundation (CWF). James wrote (he cc'd many other people aside from the ygroups members), "MDRP-- Mataas(M) ang Drug(D) Retai(R)l Price(P) ng gamot sa Pilipinas! number 1 in Asia na hindi maabot ng ating mga kaabayan." This is similar to Ben's concern above.
  
  I pressed to see the data -- a chart, a graph, a table -- showing that Philippine drug prices (say amlodipine or ibuprofen or carbocistein) by the same manufacturer (innovator or generics). Are people comparing the cheapest amlodipine in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. vs. the highest-priced amlodipine (P22 for 10 mg Norvasc) in the Philippines? If so that is a wrong approach in price comparison. Because there are also amlodipine 10 mg here that are sold at only P5 or less.
  
  If people should make statements like "the most expensive _______ price in the whole of Asia (or the world)" or similar claims, it is important that there should be hard data to show that are verifiable. Otherwise those are just allegations with zero proof.
  
  17 hours ago ·
- Nonoy Oplas The main reason why I pressed to see any data is because I also wrote once that the Philippines has "the most expensive power rate in Asia, at least for industrial users" as of 2011, and I showed a chart, which I got from a presentation by Dr. Jop Yap, the head of PIDS, a government think tank. See that chart and related data here, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/11/welfare-economics-philippine.html.
  
  Government and Taxes: Welfare Economics: Philippine Institutional Issues
  funwithgovernment.blogspot.com
  
  16 hours ago · ·

There were other comments from Peter Casimiro but these were not related to the original thread, which is about IPR, private property rights, patent and medicine innovation. Peter's posting is about advocacy for a government monopolization or single payor, of the healthcare system. I said that I want to challenge that philosophy too, but in another thread, not here.

I did not get a reply from James Auste in our CHAT yahoogroups about my query -- where is that data, a chart, a table, or a graph, showing that Philippine prices of medicines for the same generic molecule, same brand, from the same manufacturer, are the highest in Asia. I doubt that Ben or other readers of this blog and researchers who claim the same, can produce that data. So since that data is non-existent, that claim is therefore not correct. The truth is that the prices of the cheapest generic drugs in India, Pakistan, China, etc. for the same molecule, are not that far from the cheapest generic drugs in the Philippines. If one will ask the officials and members of the Philippine Chamber of Pharmaceutical Industry (PCPI), the federation of local generic manufacturers and drugstores in the country, PCPI guys will be confident in saying that they are doing their part in producing among the cheapest drugs in Asia now. So where's the issue?

The bigger issue for them, are government taxes of medicines (the active pharmaceutical ingredients, the finished products, the packaging materials, etc.), the existing drug price control policy where many of their niche lower-income markets are being "raided" unintentionally by the branded products of the innovator companies, and the mandatory 20 percent discounts for senior citizens and persons with disabilities (PWDs). These discounts are not tax creditable, the drugstores and drug manufacturers have to absorb such price cuts with no counterpart burden sharing from the government.

On another note, my 78-years old mother in the province, has Alzheimer's disease. This was confirmed by her physicians more than a month ago to my sister who acts as the main caregiver to her and my 84-years old and equally sickly father. We were very sad to hear this. I have read some stories of friends and other people whose parents have this disease, and it indeed is a cruel disease. It slowly kills a patient's brain cells, leading to various phases of forgetfulness, even forgetting his/her children's names and faces, ultimately leading to mental, and physical shutdown. Isn't that a very cruel disease? And yet there are no medicines or vaccines against Alzheimer's yet. I personally wish too, that a "magic medicine" that is affordable will soon be developed against this disease -- for my mother, for other patients who are suffering the same illness. But that is just a dream for now.

I have read of the nearly 100 different medicines against Alzheimer's on various stages of R&D by the innovator and biotech companies in the US. That's the good news. The bad news is that these medicines are not yet mature and proven to be really effective in killing the disease as they are still in various R&D stages. Besides, the prices of those medicines should they come on stream, will be very high. Only the rich patients should be able to afford them but even then, there is no assurance that they will be totally saved by those future medicines. Each disease has its own way of mutation and evolution, the same way that our immune system has its own way of dealing with those evolving diseases too. Medicines and various treatment are external interventions that are meant to augment our immune system to help defeat various diseases.

But then again, human life by default, is meant to end somewhere, sometime. We can only wish to have a life longer by a few years compared to the average lifespan of the rest of humanity.

Here's what I wrote more than two years ago about this disease:

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2009

Alzheimer's and medicine innovation

In one of my yahoogroups, I just learned that a number of my friends (age mid-40s to 50s) have parents who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. It's a "cruel, cruel disease" in the words of one friend, as her mother can hardly remember a number of things about her, about their family, and so on. And I didn't know that AZ is a growing disease among Filipinos. I know that cancer is, along with hypertension, dengue, etc.

In that yahoogroups, we were earlier discussing oil price control as a socialist policy adopted by the current government of the Philippines. And speaking of socialist policies driven by envy, the new "cheaper medicines law" is one such scheme.

One policy contained in that law that is currently being implemented by the Philippine government, is medicine price control. Unlike the recent oil price control of freezing oil prices to their Oct. 15, 2009 levels, the drug price control is a mandatory, obligatory, confiscatory, 50 percent price cut by Aug. 15, 2009. And the affected products are the most popular, most saleable products. For instance, there are about 200 medicines in the Phil. market against hypertension, but the target of price control was on the most popular brands, also the more expensive ones, like Norvasc. So it doesn't matter that while there are anti-hypertension drugs selling at P10 or even less -- thus poorer patients have the option to buy these cheaper drugs for the same ailment -- but the policy targeted Norvasc that was selling at P44, a few other popular drugs made by multinationals.

Another confiscatory policy is intellectual property rights (IPR) and patent confiscation via compulsory licensing (CL) of a patented drug or vaccine. This scheme is a technical term for saying, "Your huge cost of medicine R&D is yours and yours alone; your losses for unsuccessful research, losses for less saleable medicines are yours and yours alone. But your successful and saleable medicine invention is also MY invention." And the government made it a policy in the new law.

So now the world is facing various diseases, new and emerging or re-emerging diseases. For instance, before that was only "ordinary flu". Later on we have bird flu, cat flu, cow flu, swine flu, etc. Tomorrow we'll have dog flu, tiger flu, horse flu, etc. And people are becoming more demanding. They want to get cured of their debilitating diseases if possible within 1 week, not 1 month, not 1 year, not 10 years. So people demand more powerful, more disease-killer drugs and vaccines. But the medicine innovators, the only companies who can bring such more revolutionary medicines, are being painted as profit-hungry capitalist multinationals, so that their products should be subjected to confiscatory policies like CL and price control.

In such an environment, we are discouraging the innovators from inventing more powerful drugs. But the richer countries respect IPR and patent, so innvoation should continue somehow, but such innovators will think twice in bringing their more powerful but more expensive, new medicines, to countries like the Philippines with socialist medicine policy. So Filipino patients in need of such medicines will have to buy such drugs in other countries like HK, Singapore, Korea, the US, Europe, etc. Which makes treatment become more expensive, not cheaper, as envisioned by the new law. The generics manufacturers are cute, they give us cheaper generic, off-patent but useful drugs. But they invent no new powerful medicines. They're no innovators.

People's lifestyle evolve, our communities evolve, diseases evolve, so the medicines to kill or neutralize those diseases should also evolve. More strains of AZ, Parkinsons, cancer, swine flu, leptospirosis, etc. should be emerging. Probably more debilitating and more cruel. The need for more new disease-killer medicines and vaccines should continue, endlesslessly. And socialist health and medicine policies are not the way to encourage such innovation.

-----------

* See also:
Alzheimer's, getting old, and new drugs, May 01, 2011
IPR and Medicines 23: Profitability of Innovator Pharma Companies, March 16, 2012

Friday, March 16, 2012

IPR and Medicines 23: Profitability of Innovator Pharma Companies

After I posted IPR and Medicines 22: CL on Anti-Cancer Drug Nexavar on Chito Gascon's wall where the discussion started, another friend or relative of him came in and we extended the exchanges. Here they go, I inserted the images in their larger size.

March 16-19, 2012

Peter Great piece! Cuz..thanks for posting. Interesting thread here on the paradox of capitalism. I thought the sole purpose of a business is to create customers not kill them off? Don’t get me wrong I’m all for capitalism (and borrowing from Churchill’s quip about democracy, I’d say the same of capitalism, it’s undeniably the worst economic system except for all others) and I respect, honor and defend the tenets of private property with some exceptions for sure, but I also don’t delude myself that capitalism is a moral system (amoral in fact at best). However, I can’t understand the rabid attacks against advocating a more balanced approach in cases where the product plays a critical role to the immediacy of such a critical thing like sustaining life…I mean to me it’s just principle isn’t it? For such critical circumstances, there’s just no arguing in my book that unfettered capitalist model should take a back seat to a more equitable and balanced solution for all, otherwise what’s the point of providing the service/product when the most needy of it (the target customer) are essentially forcibly blocked from receiving it all in the name of profit..a denial of service resulting in a loss of life all because profit margins are threatened?..c'mon!! Anyway, all in, I’m fascinated by my own tug-of-war between the intrinsic empathic response and the equally intrinsic libertarian convictions…like the proverbial angle and demon sitting on my shoulders whispering to my ear. Problem is neither the angel nor the demon is entirely good or bad, and there’s the rub ;)
Nonoy Oplas ‎" I can’t understand the rabid attacks against advocating a more balanced approach in cases where the product plays a critical role to the immediacy of such a critical thing like sustaining life"

The rabid attack started from the government and the various groups that prod govt to issue CL, to confiscate private property rights (in this case, a drug molecule used to fight liver cancer) and give such right to some other capitalists (usually cronies of those in government). If such attack and coercion was not initiated in the first place, then people do their own things. More innovator companies will challenge existing innovator firms with their new products and services, like a new cell phone, a new flat tv, a new medicine or vaccine. Generic producers wait their turn, all patents expire, they are not forever. Once a product or a molecule is off patent, generics come in, they compete among each other along with the original innovator company, in producing a different product using the same molecule, have their own marketing schemes.
Peter Sorry Mr. Oplas, I just can't see it that way..lives are at stake..nuff said.
Nonoy Oplas Yes, lives are at stake. So many killer diseases, some are old, some are new, some are mutants of old, and not too many vaccines or treatment to kill these killer diseases. People would rather be in telecom, in transpo, in energy, in real estate, etc., never in medicine innovation. The few innovators are evil because they want to make money and profit out of their investments.
Peter Ok will dabble a bit here. Would you agree that most of the innovation in pharma research and production is done not by private enterprise but through govt and public money (i.e. taxes)?
Nonoy Oplas No. public spending on medicine R&D is small compared to private spending, at least in the US,http://phrma.org/private-public-rd-spending

Private and Public R&D Spending
www.phrma.org

Total biopharmaceutical company R&D, PhRMA member R&D, and NIH operating budget: 1995-2009
Peter Of course..that's a study paid for by Pharma lobby. Try this on for size.http://bostonreview.net/BR35.3/ndf_pharma.php
the fist link..not sure what the 2nd one is about.
Peter Anyhow..this is like politics and religion..it's a stale mate. I'll respect your personal opinions and would just hope that you find a way to seeing things from desperate destitute dying patients view some day. Cheers!
Nonoy Oplas There's no chart or table to the link you gave. Meanwhile, stick to issues, not on emotion. My brother died of prostate cancer, my sis in law died of colon cancer. My mother and father are now sick with variious diseases due to their old age. But I won't throw those scenes in a discussion on health policy.
Peter It's ok Mr. Oplas, data abounds on either side of the argument. In the end to me there's more than enough space in the profit margins of the single most profitable industry in the developed world (where most meds are created and produced) to give up a bit for those who most need their products...that's not accounting for emotions.
Nonoy Oplas Again, no data shown or wrong data. In the US for instance:

Top 10 Industries Producing U.S. Billionaires, 2012:

1. Investments: 100 billionaires2. Technology: 51 billionaires
3. Media: 37
4. Energy: 35
5. Food and Beverage*: 31
5. Service*: 31
7. Fashion and Retail: 28
8. Real Estate: 27
9. Manufacturing: 18
10. Sports: 15

Seems no billionaires came from the pharma sector? What happened? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2012/03/13/how-americas-wealthiest-get-rich/

How America's Wealthiest Get Rich - Forbes
www.forbes.com

What's the best route to becoming a billionaire? B-school professors weigh in.
Peter Hahaha..omg..so the list of billionaires dictates that the source industry ranks in the same position with respect to profitability? Can you give me some insight then on what Industry does "investments" fall into? and "manufacturing" for that matter? profitability is not measured that way good sir. Anyhow, believe what you wish and I wish you good luck in hoping and fighting for this industry to keep forcing the kind of profit margins they insist for critical care drugs. I will in turn pray for the opposite and hope that the aging demographics of many countries (Russia, China, US, Japan, etc.) will squeeze this industry from usury heights to something more ethical.
Nonoy Oplas It's obvious you did not read that short article, it says
"...Number one is the hodge-podge category of investments, which includes hedge fund tycoons but also a wide assortment of others like Warren Buffett..."
Yes, to each his own, but when it comes to public policy on health and use of government coercion, the stated goal should be placed in contrast with the unintended and often negative consequences.
Peter Yes I did Mr. Oplas, and that's precisely why I asked the question. Take a look at the market cap of the top 10 pharma ..better yet ask the question of what portion of said investments are parked in stocks of pharmaceutical companies?..I’ll give you a hint. Just one (yes 1!) of Buffet’s funds has over $100 million allocated in two pharmaceutical firms (other investment houses are even more heavily weighted in this sector for many! funds)..why? because it is extremely profitable. So in short, the underlying facts of that list which will take a lot of investigation to uncover is likely involving the pharmaceutical industry and simply because it is one of the (and on occasion it is THE ) most profitable industries anywhere. Now, I’m not and never have in this thread, arguing that Pharmaceutical firms should not be profitable, on the contrary, without profit they would seize to exist to the detriment of all, but the argument is how profitable they should be. With a product that is integral to sustaining life (in many instances) excessive profit margins are a barrier to achieving its end goal – providing better health care. It’s a captured market, so the natural free market competitive models don’t apply and its as simple as that. Apologies for being argumentative Mr. Oplas, I do understand your position and agree to some degree...you just struck a nerve :)...but in any case I hope you’d reconsider. I'll send you some links that may help persuade you that striking the right balance is the key. Btw, Chito..sorry for hijacking your wall cuz...but you know me naman I can get carried away :) Oh sya! God Bless and good health to one and all. Cheers!
Nonoy Oplas Am wondering who should determine what is the socially or economically "acceptable" or "tolerable" profit rate that an innovator pharma, a generic pharma, a drugstore chain, a hospital, a drug wholesaler and importer, a health insurance firm, etc. -- should make? The UN, WHO, DOH, Bill Gates, Mang Pandoy,... who? On what ground that such person or office can determine what is that socially acceptable profit rate? I can only think of a central planning and near-socialist economy to be able to do that.

----------

Free riding attitude is everywhere. People want some subsidies from somewhere else, whether public or private. In healthcare in particular, they want government to provide affordable if not free healthcare (medicines, hospitalization, physician visit, etc.) to people even if would mean large-scale borrowings and perennial budget deficit every year. They want private enterprises in the health sector to be heavily regulated -- their products and services, their pricing and promos. That is how drug price control, issuance of compulsory licensing (CL), special CL and related government policies, are created and expanded.

Meanwhile, here's another chart from http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/159/phrma_chart_pack.pdf,
where the above chart of R&D spending was lifted.

Peter Casimiro Good question Mr. Oplas, let me ask a counter question to that then. Would you agree that the current Pharma industry sets it's own price NOT to what the market can bare as a free market model would dictate for critical care drugs? In short the current market isn't a free market anyhow, so for now yes that pseudo central planned market needs intervention to break the barrier...without it people DIE..it's as simple as that. Critical care drugs is not like any other product; tv, house, shoes, jewelry, car, etc. which people can forego without. A cancer patient (even with average means) can't afford these drugs, and are literally forced to dream foolish dreams like "oh $50,000 a year? ok thank's Doc maybe next year I'll buy me that Avastin to help rid me of my cancer, just give me tylenol for now". I hear you loud and clear, I don't like market interventions like price controls either but it's the lesser of two evils at this point (the other being price gouging)
Chito Gascon hey guys!!! loved the thread... a lively and engaging debate indeed... interestingly enough between two persons i value and respect who crossed the path of libertarian thinking at different stages of their lives... democracy and the dialogue it engenders is great! cheers to veryone
Nonoy Oplas Chito, thanks for your original posting, I was able to write a long post out of it, hehehe. cheers.
Rolex Suplico I wrote the Cheaper Meds Act when I was a first term congressman. In fact, I also coined its short title -Cheaper Meds Act. I based it in the Indian law. It was for a mandatory price regulation. But a senator deliberately castrated and weakened it. It became optional. Sayang...
Peter Casimiro Thanks! Chito..yeah enjoyed my lively exchange with Mr. Oplas..aha! so we're more alike pala! Mr. Oplas :) Cheers! Cuz..thanks for allowing us to make a mess of your wall :)
Peter Casimiro Interesting Mr. Suplico, would like to read the Act you wrote, is it available in a public domain site? As for it being castrated..not unusual..that happens all the time here (US) since Pharma is one of the top lobbying groups in the beltway (energy/oil, and finance are the other two..the rest pale in comparison to these 3 musketeers :) As you can see on the thread above I'm open to both sides of the argument, but wary and watchful of either one overreaching their bounds..as in all things..striking a balance is key to a sustainable and equitable model for all.
Nonoy Oplas Hi Rolex, I wrote a book, "Health Choices and Responsibilities", published in January 2011, 233 pages long, mainly a critique of the drug price control policy and other provisions of the Cheaper Medicines Law RA 9502), http://minimalgovernment.net/media/HealthChoicesandResponsibilities.pdf, thanks.

About Me