We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Freedom of Trade in Pharmaceuticals III
Details
Submitted by[?]: AM Radical Libertarian Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2159
Description[?]:
| WHEREAS the subsidization of any industry leads to innefficiencies in the industry, higher prices to the consumer, less original development of new product, and increased avenues of government control and corruption, AND the Pharmacutical industry in our great land has the potential of being one of the best in the world, thereby increasing our favorable balance of trade and bringing in increasing amounts of hard foreign currency, THEREFORE we of the RLP propose allowing the invisible hand to direct our research and pricing strategies, not the all too visible hand of the bureaucrats. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The research and development of pharmaceutical drugs.
Old value:: The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs and regulates their prices.
Current: The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs and regulates their prices.
Proposed: The government neither subsidizes research and development of drugs nor regulates their prices.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:21:11, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmaceuticals III |
| Message | We would support this bill if research was still subsidized. We are against the regulation of drug prices though. |
| Date | 16:46:37, December 15, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmaceuticals III |
| Message | We are concerned about two possible problems with government subsidies on research, both dealing with the selection of what to subsidize. First is the everpresent fear of corruption in some future regime. It would be too easy for a company to offer kickbacks to a corruptable bureaucrat or even a Senator should that company have thier research subsidized over that of a rival. Second, even in an honest environment such as we currently possess, the selection of research projects by those with little to gain by success and much to lose by failure leads to very conservative research. Can you imagine the reaction of a long term bureaucrat if someone came to him with the silly idea of curing infections with moldy bread? I fear that Sir Alexander Fleming would have been tossed out on his aristrocratic butt with that idea. A capitalist who can make a large profit might be more likely to take a chance. |
| Date | 04:13:58, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmaceuticals III |
| Message | On the contary, the AAS believes that it is the very safety-net of government subsidy, that has encouraged some of our pharmaceutical companies to take part in not-immediately-profitable researches. As to the regulation of prices... it is the ONLY thing that has kept medical help in the hands of our less wealthy Likatonians. Market forces are all well and good, but the medical indusgtry charges so much for individual processes, and such high premia for drugs, that they don't NEED to sell to every Likatonian. What this means is, when we don't regulate, the poor are priced-out of the market... except for vital medical work, which they end up paying for, for the rest of their lives. It isn't GOVERNMENT corruption that (we believe) is the problem... it is corporate greed. |
| Date | 14:30:13, December 16, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmaceuticals III |
| Message | It is in the nature of bureaucracies to fear innovation. No regulator was ever punished for saying no, because that saves money and keeps things on an even keel. It is only 'corporate greed', in so far as it leads someone to invest in something with the hope of realizing a great profit to himself, that will encourage innovation and change. That is why we feel that research must procede free of the stifling hand of the government. |
| Date | 00:45:17, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmaceuticals III |
| Message | This is pretty unlikely to actually get resolved... elections being only a month or two away....? |
| Date | 19:22:58, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Edelweiss Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmaceuticals III |
| Message | The CdH is not willing to support this bill because the proposals that has been made is to radical as we would rather see a compromise: "The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs but does not regulate their prices." The pharmaceutical industry enjoys a certain amount of subsidies in a free market economy, that means that the subsidies provided by the governments budget is not installed with a potential result of a raise in the product prices. On the contrary, expenses in this industry can be defrayed by the subsidies they are provided with which has no reflection on the prices of those products. The Likaton pharmaceutical industry can be the greatest in the whole of Terra, thats why our government needs to keep in the support for it. |
| Date | 03:08:36, December 21, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom of Trade in Pharmaceuticals III |
| Message | The AAS agrees with our friends in the CDH... there is no reason to dis-incentivise forward thinking in the medical field... indeed, we SHOULD encourage the progression of the field. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 17 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 319 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 164 |
| Random fact: The voters enjoy active parties who take upon themselves the initiative to create laws. |
| Random quote: "If you cannot convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement." - Leon Trotsky |