It's very different from when I last looked at it, which was also a small sample size (a drug I was taking). It would appear, at worst, that an mostly unregulated market is just as effective as a highly regulated one? What, then, is the value of this regulation?
Huh?
Let's ignore the cipro, as that's not going to be a maintenance medication, and take a look at a 30-day supply of all those drugs. If you were paying for yourself, you'd be out $240.30. If you were paying for your dog, you'd be paying $437.40. That's 82% more for veterinary medicine than, uh, human medicine. (Not that I had to multiply by 30 to get that number, but merely to put it in a familiar context.)
That said, I'm unfamiliar with any pricing regulations on pharmaceuticals. I am familiar with collective lobbying for prices via insurance companies.
I was going to say that I no longer know what I'm arguing for, but, in reality, I'm not taking a side at the moment. I'm just trying to set the record straight as best I can.
I guess how this applies to this argument, though, is that you claim that prices are inflated when insurance companies are involved, because no one has a horse in the pricing race. But it would seem that prices are actually lower when an insurance company is involved. Again, hardly a scientific measurement, and I'm not inclined to draw a conclusion (not least because I don't want to be commending the insurance companies
).
It's very different from when I last looked at it, which was also a small sample size (a drug I was taking).
You weren't self-medicating with veterinary drugs, were you?
Why is that repellent? Do I really think that pharmaceutical companies' quality standards lower when making veterinary medicine? Maybe I do. If it's true, that sucks.
Previous Topic
Index
