Did you know that Prop. D contains the following language?
"Proposition D would also establish as policy that the
City ask its state and federal government representatives
to sponsor legislation to reduce by one-third the
drug prices paid by all levels of government."
(from http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2013/Nov2013_VIP_Web_EN.pdf )
Now we know as economically literate libertarians that the government cannot affect market prices simply by passing legislation! So the logical interpretation of the above paragraph is that it calls for requiring drug companies to give governments a 33% discount on all drug purchases.
This would not be market-driven action, but just the opposite. Companies both in and out of the pharmaceutical industry normally DO set their own prices, and there's nothing wrong with that. If prices are too high, it's because of factors like government erecting too many barriers to entry in the industry, or the intellectual property laws that allow the developer of a drug to maintain a monopoly on it rather than allowing knock-off versions to be legally sold by others.
If drug companies are required to give steep discounts to governments that they would not willingly give on their own, their revenues will obviously take a hit. How would they make up these losses? By charging higher drug prices to non-government customers? Laying off employees? Cutting back on research? Clearly not good outcomes!
Why would we NOT oppose such a measure?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))