PF Nov 2018 - Pharma Price Controls - Introduction

Resolved: The United States federal government should impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry.

For PRO and CON and other PF topics, click here.

Introduction

This year, every one of my PF debaters are novices. Its good because, PF is continuing to attract new debaters to the category. It is bad because I don't have the benefit of having varsity members mentor the novices. And that is good because I can hopefully delay the development of bad habits. But it is bad because, I have to put a lot more time and attention to developing the novices which limits my time with our LD and Policy debaters. Add to this, the problem of juggling schedules around football, soccer, and baseball and the result is often more work and time commitment for the coach. Thankfully, the net positives tend to outweigh the negatives. 

Our PF meeting to discuss this resolution was active. I guess that means, the topic, on face, is basic enough for typical, suburban, public-schooled, 14 year old debaters; even those working hard to standout in other extracurricular activities. When looking at new resolutions, our team will identify basic information such as who is the principle actor and what action should be taken by the actor. We then take a stab at trying to surmise why the resolution author is suggesting said actor needs to take the required action. In other words, what is the current situation in the area of interest which necessitates this resolution. Most of the time, a debate resolution advocates a change in course. Sometimes, and perhaps more often in PF, they suggest the continuance of a course of action, implying there is sufficient opposition to warrant a resolution to resist change. Regardless of how the resolutions are stated, there are usually implied benefits or harms left unstated which the alert student will uncover as the topic is researched and analyzed. It is the support of these advantages or disadvantages which provide the warrants which support pro or con advocacy. Thus debate is educational by nature and switch-side debate even more so. (Remember that, NSDA, as you contemplate changes in PF! Ahhh, but I digress.)

This resolution limits the debate scope to the United States. This is important because it ultimately examines where we draw the line between government intervention and free-enterprise when public interests are at risk. It allows us to take a positive or negative view of the U.S. "flavor" of free-market capitalism. In many nations, major industries are financially subsidized by the government and so a certain amount of government interference or regulation may be justified. In the U.S., most businesses desire to operate with little or no government intervention and allow the free-market to regulate pricing in accordance with the law of supply and demand and competition. It is also possible this debate could touch upon the support or critique of the modern resurgence of laissez-faire economics, commonly called neoliberalism.

Key Definitions

impose

Merriam-Webster defines this as "to establish or apply by authority", "to establish or bring about as if by force".

price controls

According to Investopedia:

Price controls are government-mandated legal minimum or maximum prices set for specified goods, usually implemented as a means of direct economic intervention to manage the affordability of certain goods. Governments most commonly implement price controls on staples, essential items such as food or energy products. Price controls that set maximum prices are price ceilings, while price controls that set minimum prices are price floors.

industry

Merriam Webster defines an industry as "a distinct group of production or profit-making enterprises"

pharmaceutical industry

Expanding the previous definition for industry, we claim this term to mean the distinct group of enterprises which produce pharmaceuticals. Science Daily provides the following: 

A pharmaceutical company, or drug company, is a commercial business licensed to research, develop, market and/or distribute drugs, most commonly in the context of healthcare.
They can deal in generic and/or brand medications.
They are subject to a variety of laws and regulations regarding the patenting, testing and marketing of drugs, particularly prescription drugs.
From its beginnings at the start of the 19th Century, the pharmaceutical industry is now one of the most profitable and influential in existence, attracting praise and controversy.

Interpretation

This resolution claims the United State federal government, as opposed to local or state governments, should mandate unspecified price limits on the group of enterprises which research, develop and market drugs used for health-care. While, on face, it seems clear what the resolution states, it is noteworthy to point out what the resolution does NOT state. We are not told what kind of price controls should be employed. Will they be price floors or price ceilings or some combination. While it may seem intuitive that price ceilings may be useful in reducing the out-of-pocket costs for consumers of the pharmaceutical products, it may not be obvious that price floors are useful for stimulating competition both for in-kind and alternative products. Additionally, we are not told whether the price controls should be applied across the board or selectively, targeting specific classes of pharmaceutical products. It is intuitive, based on recent headlines, most debaters and recent sources will be focused on limiting the cost of a range of life-sustaining products which have limited supply or minimal to no competitive alternatives. For example, the USFG should impose price limits on certain pharmaceutical products for which a particular company possesses exclusive manufacturing rights (that is, competitors are restricted by patent rights) and these products are essential to sustaining the life or productivity of afflicted U.S. citizens who may or may not possess adequate health-insurance to cover the cost of the products.

Riding the Main Course

As stated previously, I believe the main course of this debate will center around the justification for government intervention in the cost of life-sustaining drugs used to treat disease of other conditions affecting the quality of life in afflicted individuals. Pro will typically focus upon the protection of life being more important than profits while the Con will focus on the chilling effect of regulations and governmental heavy-handedness on research and development of new products. If, what I have described turns out to be the central track of the debate, there are potentially many interesting side roads, which can invoke criticisms of neoliberal policies, the expanding wealth of corporate entities and the top 1%, free-market economics in general, governmental over-reach, and the so-called welfare state; all of which, under certain conditions could serve to derail opponents while generating a range of responses from sympathetic judges.

Our young novice is now beginning the arduous process of researching and writing their very first cases which they will debate in their first sanctioned tournaments, this month. This is how we do it. The students do their own research and they write their own cases and I will guide them. Later, as they gain experience they will ask about the use of briefs, and about more progressive arguments and I will deal with those issues when they are ready.  Until then...

Welcome to the 2018/19 season.