Tariffs

[tom66]

Aren't American drugs expensive because the market will bear almost any expense? Privatised healthcare with a heavily segmented insurance market sort of has that effect. In the UK, the NHS is very strict about what they will pay for drugs.  You can buy some drugs on a private prescription, but they will cost a lot more than the subsidised £9.90 you pay for a standard prescription in the UK.

I was a bit curious about the prices of certain weight loss drugs, because some podcast was talking about it. It's all the rage in Hollywood now. So it's something like 70 EUR in Europe, 1300 USD in the US. This is per month.
You know, he is right. It's wild-west capitalism, and shouldn't cost that much. And this is just one example, there are several where a life-saving drug is sold at prices that bankrupt people.
Government steps in and regulates the prices, everyone goes crazy because "muh freedom" and takes the side of big pharma. Against some poor chap who needs insulin to stay alive because big food sold him kilograms of sugar.

Yeah, I agree, T is actually right about this.  Stopped clocks and all.  But, I wonder how the US will regulate drug prices when a drug is only sold in the US, or only in a limited market.  There are also lots of variations on drugs, maybe one market has approved pills and another has approved injection, but the drug is fundamentally identical, that could create pricing discrepancy if it is of benefit to the pharmaceutical firms to manipulate the market in that way.  Because they will want to keep their golden goose.

I did see a proposal of a drug funding system that would move away from the likes of Martin Shkreli and the wild west. Basically, drugs should be 'tendered' a bit like a competitive process.  European Medicines Authority or whomever it is puts a proposal forward saying, "we would like a drug that substantially cures the side effects of type 2 diabetes, it should do this, it should be compatible in 99% of the diabetic type-2 population, it should have no worse side effects than <list>, it should cost no more than 5 euros per dose to manufacture" and so on.  Drug companies would then receive a large amount if they submit a successful drug after it had been tested by the authorities.  The amount would be on the order of billions of euros for some drugs, reflecting the high cost of research and development and the high risks taken.  But, the drug would then become the property of the state.  They could charge 1 euro for each dose if they wanted.  Other countries could choose to participate in a marketplace like this, but only by contributing that initial funding would they gain rights to those drugs.  EMA could give away drugs with humanitarian benefit too.  Suddenly, a drug that had limited commercial opportunity, like a drug to cure AIDS, as a hypothetical, might be funded where it would not otherwise have been commercially viable to do so.

It sounded like a good proposal, and far better than the existing system, but I have no idea if anyone is thinking seriously about changing the marketplace in this way.   

[tszaboo]

Yeah, I agree, T is actually right about this.  Stopped clocks and all.  But, I wonder how the US will regulate drug prices when a drug is only sold in the US, or only in a limited market.

For me it looks clear that it has been a huge mistake to let companies build de-facto monopolies. Capitalism works if all you need is a hammer to make shoes. It doesn't work if you have a billion dollar approval process as entry. And if you even start doing it, then your competitor purchases your company from your investors.
I don't have a good way to resolve it, only bad ways.

[zapta]

So Trump blinked first.

Of course not, it's was Jinping that blinked first.

This video illustrates well the negotiation with China:

https://youtu.be/9ENyPxCwQZA?si=K34QX9kXdXZZGYMu&t=37

[themadhippy]

So Trump blinked first.

No NO NO. His superior  business skills backed china into a corner forcing them to accept the most terrific,very  beautiful, tremendous deal.

[tggzzz]

For me it looks clear that it has been a huge mistake to let companies build de-facto monopolies. Capitalism works if all you need is a hammer to make shoes.

After a capitalist becomes successful, they start to hate capitalism. They do everything they can to prevent new entrants competing with them.

[zapta]

Anybody knows if the US de-minimis (waiver on small personal imports) was restored for imports from China?

For small maker's order, this is the biggest impact since it requires handling fees (e.g. to DHL) for the custom clearance.

[tom66]

Pharmaceutical companies spend about twice as much on advertising as on research and development. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK advertising prescription only medicines to the public isn't allowed so that, partly at least, explains why our prices are cheaper. a) I'd object to the UK subsidizing adverts to US consumers, and b) If Trump wants to reduce the cost of prescription drugs in the US he could ban them from being advertised to the public and make the pharmaceutical companies reduce prices accordingly.

That's a crazy statistic.  There are only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical advertising.  USA and New Zealand.  Not sure why NZ hasn't banned them yet given they're quite progressive on other measures.  Every time I visit the USA, I am amazed by their ads.  "Try trenzadiaphadaline for the treatment of mild acne.  Side effects include sudden death, stroke, heart attacks, seizures, and an allergy to the colour green." 

At least until recently, the pharmaceutical companies were bribing doctors too.  Indirectly, by inviting them to "seminars" with all the costs covered, and the seminar happens to be hosted at an all-inclusive resort and the conference is a week long but only one hour a day, and, well, yeah I guess you can bring your spouse and kids because that's only fair.

[Analog Kid]

So Trump blinked first.

No NO NO. His superior  business skills backed china into a corner forcing them to accept the most terrific,very  beautiful, tremendous deal.

Riiight.
The "art of the deal" my ass!

[Wallace Gasiewicz]

Where are these free seminar getaways??? I would like to attend one or two.

[TimFox]

Pharmaceutical companies spend about twice as much on advertising as on research and development. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK advertising prescription only medicines to the public isn't allowed so that, partly at least, explains why our prices are cheaper. a) I'd object to the UK subsidizing adverts to US consumers, and b) If Trump wants to reduce the cost of prescription drugs in the US he could ban them from being advertised to the public and make the pharmaceutical companies reduce prices accordingly.

That's a crazy statistic.  There are only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical advertising.  USA and New Zealand.  Not sure why NZ hasn't banned them yet given they're quite progressive on other measures.  Every time I visit the USA, I am amazed by their ads.  "Try trenzadiaphadaline for the treatment of mild acne.  Side effects include sudden death, stroke, heart attacks, seizures, and an allergy to the colour green." 

At least until recently, the pharmaceutical companies were bribing doctors too.  Indirectly, by inviting them to "seminars" with all the costs covered, and the seminar happens to be hosted at an all-inclusive resort and the conference is a week long but only one hour a day, and, well, yeah I guess you can bring your spouse and kids because that's only fair.

Shortly after prescription drug advertising was legalized, there were good TV commercials for a brokerage firm that specialized in after-hours trading for clients who learned something before the exchanges opened in the morning.
My favorite showed a client watching evening television, when a drug ad listed the possible side-effects, including "possession by the Prince of Darkness" and promptly phoned in a sell order for that pharma firm.

[vad]

That's a crazy statistic.  There are only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical advertising.  USA and New Zealand.  Not sure why NZ hasn't banned them yet given they're quite progressive on other measures.  Every time I visit the USA, I am amazed by their ads.  "Try trenzadiaphadaline for the treatment of mild acne.  Side effects include sudden death, stroke, heart attacks, seizures, and an allergy to the colour green." 

At least until recently, the pharmaceutical companies were bribing doctors too.  Indirectly, by inviting them to "seminars" with all the costs covered, and the seminar happens to be hosted at an all-inclusive resort and the conference is a week long but only one hour a day, and, well, yeah I guess you can bring your spouse and kids because that's only fair.

Oh, absolutely, we need more fast food, alcohol, motor vehicle and sports betting commercials to make up for the TV networks’ loss of ad revenue from the pharmaceutical industry.

[PlainName]

Ads are not the only way to gain revenue.

[vad]

So Trump blinked first.

No NO NO. His superior  business skills backed china into a corner forcing them to accept the most terrific,very  beautiful, tremendous deal.

Riiight.
The "art of the deal" my ass!

A poor man with 7 kids complains to his rabbi:
“Our house is tiny, there’s no room for anyone!”

The rabbi says: “Buy a goat and let it live inside with the family.”

A week later, the man returns, miserable: “We’re even worse off now. The goat runs around, knocks things over, and chews everything in the house!”

The rabbi replies: “Now sell the goat.”

The next week, the man returns beaming:
“It’s a miracle! The house feels spacious and peaceful!”

We’ve just sold half the goat.

[tom66]

Oh, absolutely, we need more fast food, alcohol, motor vehicle and sports betting commercials to make up for the TV networks’ loss of ad revenue from the pharmaceutical industry.

Well I don't even watch live TV any more, but the ads in the UK are positively reasonable compared to American pharmaceutical and other unusual or banned ads in the UK.  I've never seen individual lawyer ads in the UK - we don't really have those - we get the "if you've had an accident" firms but nothing like the Better Call Saul style ones that seem to permeate the waves stateside.  One might think the FCC has some strange priorities.  You daren't swear or show boobies before 9pm, but you can sell viagra and cialis if you like.  Political advertisements are also almost unheard of.  In the UK, every political party over a certain size (determined by the last election results) gets a small amount of air time to broadcast a so-called party political broadcast around election time.  These 'ads' are even broadcast on the BBC, famous for otherwise being ad-free.  And they only run for about 5 minutes a day. 

Perhaps this is all quelling the free speech of politicians and corporations, so constitutionally challengeable, I don't know.  But it is quite the contrast and I think it goes somewhere to explain the significant differences in America compared to other European countries.

[zapta]

The rabbi replies: “Now sell the goat.”

The next week, the man returns beaming:
“It’s a miracle! The house feels spacious and peaceful!”[/i]

Nice story but not relevant.

If the data in the screenshot below is correct, there was a significant reduction in Chinese tariffs on US products even compared to Biden's era.

[vad]

Well I don't even watch live TV any more, but the ads in the UK are positively reasonable compared to American pharmaceutical and other unusual or banned ads in the UK.  I've never seen individual lawyer ads in the UK - we don't really have those - we get the "if you've had an accident" firms but nothing like the Better Call Saul style ones that seem to permeate the waves stateside.  One might think the FCC has some strange priorities.  You daren't swear or show boobies before 9pm, but you can sell viagra and cialis if you like.  Political advertisements are also almost unheard of.  In the UK, every political party over a certain size (determined by the last election results) gets a small amount of air time to broadcast a so-called party political broadcast around election time.  These 'ads' are even broadcast on the BBC, famous for otherwise being ad-free.  And they only run for about 5 minutes a day. 

Perhaps this is all quelling the free speech of politicians and corporations, so constitutionally challengeable, I don't know.  But it is quite the contrast and I think it goes somewhere to explain the significant differences in America compared to other European countries.

Well, my point is that I don’t see why the public advertising of pharmaceutical products, whose efficacy has been proven through evidence-based research and which improve the quality of life for people, should be banned, while the advertising of alcohol and junk food (major causes of chronic diseases and early deaths), sports betting (a major cause of financial ruin and mental health issues), and motor vehicles (one of the leading causes of mortality due to unintentional injuries) is allowed.

There are several layers of safeguards in place. Unless we’re talking about over-the-counter medications, drugs require a prescription from a physician, who will use their judgment to determine whether you need it. Additionally, unless you’re uninsured, insurance companies can deny coverage if they deem a therapy unnecessary.

In my opinion, it’s beneficial for pharmaceutical companies to improve public awareness of new products so that people can proactively ask their physicians if a particular medication could help them. A good example of this is Ozempic, where many people learned about its effects through media and advertising.

P.S. The US and Europe have their differences. For example, in Germany, the legal drinking age is 16, in Portugal smoking is permitted in places like restaurants, and prostitution and brothels are legal in the Netherlands…

[Analog Kid]

In my opinion, it’s beneficial for pharmaceutical companies to improve public awareness of new products so that people can proactively ask their physicians if a particular medication could help them. A good example of this is Ozempic, where many people learned about its effects through media and advertising.

That's totally bass-ackwards. Upside-down. Inverted. Wrong.
I go to the doctor because they are a trained medical professional and I am not.
They're the ones who should be doing the suggesting as to what medications and treatments to use, not their patients who happened to hear a random commercial, for chrissakes.
They read medical journals; we don't.
They follow current research; we don't.

Of course, we need to factor out the undue influence that Big Pharma has on our physicians in their inducements to have them prescribe their products. But apart from that, the last thing we should be relying on to ensure good health outcomes is the Big Pharma--> ad agency--> patient--> doctor grapevine.

[BravoV]

In my opinion, it’s beneficial for pharmaceutical companies to improve public awareness of new products so that people can proactively ask their physicians if a particular medication could help them. A good example of this is Ozempic, where many people learned about its effects through media and advertising.

That's totally bass-ackwards. Upside-down. Inverted. Wrong.
I go to the doctor because they are a trained medical professional and I am not.
They're the ones who should be doing the suggesting as to what medications and treatments to use, not their patients who happened to hear a random commercial, for chrissakes.
They read medical journals; we don't.
They follow current research; we don't.

Of course, we need to factor out the undue influence that Big Pharma has on our physicians in their inducements to have them prescribe their products. But apart from that, the last thing we should be relying on to ensure good health outcomes is the Big Pharma--> ad agency--> patient--> doctor grapevine.

But in Ughmerica, the MIC (Medical Industrial Complex) will shout out loud with great public campaign to the peasant as they're all easily to be brainwashed ... "HAVE YOUR OWN FREEDOM TO CHOOSE ON MEDICATION ! <chant> ... USA ! USA ! USA !"   

[vad]

Of course, we need to factor out the undue influence that Big Pharma has on our physicians in their inducements to have them prescribe their products. But apart from that, the last thing we should be relying on to ensure good health outcomes is the Big Pharma--> ad agency--> patient--> doctor grapevine.

Oh, sure, the Big Farma and ad agencies are conspiring to poison you and bankrupt your insurance company.

[Analog Kid]

Of course, we need to factor out the undue influence that Big Pharma has on our physicians in their inducements to have them prescribe their products. But apart from that, the last thing we should be relying on to ensure good health outcomes is the Big Pharma--> ad agency--> patient--> doctor grapevine.

Oh, sure, the Big Farma and ad agencies are conspiring to poison you and bankrupt your insurance company.

No, they're conspiring to line their pockets at our expense.

What, are you a fan of Big Pharma?

(Big Farma, aka Big Ag is another kettle of fish altogether.)

[vad]

Of course, we need to factor out the undue influence that Big Pharma has on our physicians in their inducements to have them prescribe their products. But apart from that, the last thing we should be relying on to ensure good health outcomes is the Big Pharma--> ad agency--> patient--> doctor grapevine.

Oh, sure, the Big Farma and ad agencies are conspiring to poison you and bankrupt your insurance company.

No, they're conspiring to line their pockets at our expense.

That’s exactly what I said - they’re conspiring to extort money from your insurance company to the point of bankrupting it, unless, you are uninsured.

[vad]

The rabbi replies: “Now sell the goat.”

The next week, the man returns beaming:
“It’s a miracle! The house feels spacious and peaceful!”[/i]

Nice story but not relevant.

If the data in the screenshot below is correct, there was a significant reduction in Chinese tariffs on US products even compared to Biden's era.


(Attachment Link)

I apologize, I made a mistake. We didn’t sell the half of the goat; we rented it out, and it’s coming back in 90 days.

[vad]

Of course, we need to factor out the undue influence that Big Pharma has on our physicians in their inducements to have them prescribe their products. But apart from that, the last thing we should be relying on to ensure good health outcomes is the Big Pharma--> ad agency--> patient--> doctor grapevine.

Oh, sure, the Big Farma and ad agencies are conspiring to poison you and bankrupt your insurance company.

No, they're conspiring to line their pockets at our expense.

That’s exactly what I said - they’re conspiring to extort money from your insurance company to the point of bankrupting it, unless, you are uninsured.

… and surprise - every other advertiser is doing exactly the same: marketing their fast food, alcohol, trucks, and other goods and services to line their pockets. It’s called a market economy. Why is that bad (aside from bourbon being bad for your health)?

[zapta]

I apologize, I made a mistake. We didn’t sell the half of the goat; we rented it out, and it’s coming back in 90 days.

Your goat story is cute but it doesn't fit here because the Chinese tariffs on US products are objectively lower now than during the Bidens administration.

As for the longer term, I would wait and see.

[BravoV]

Anybody knows if the US de-minimis (waiver on small personal imports) was restored for imports from China?

For small maker's order, this is the biggest impact since it requires handling fees (e.g. to DHL) for the custom clearance.

Quote ...

"Trump slashes tariff on small parcels sent to US from mainland China, Hong Kong, to 54%

The new duties on small packages priced up to US$800 is lowered from 120 per cent, effective from Wednesday"

Source -> https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3310097/trump-reduces-tariff-small-parcels-sent-us-mainland-china-hong-kong-54?module=top_story&pgtype=homepage