Don't Blame Capitalism for your pricey Epi-pen

[on_the_hill]

Buyers are seriously disadvantaged when the suppliers are few, or there is a large “complexity” or knowledge imbalance between seller and buyer.

Well, eventually the market works itself out. After enough people start dying from a particular drug, the savvy consumer will know to stay away from it. Kind of like the good ol’ days of trial & error with wild mushrooms.

 

[Rau]

Well, eventually the market works itself out. After enough people start dying from a particular drug, the savvy consumer will know to stay away from it. Kind of like the good ol’ days of trial & error with wild mushrooms.

Dangerous goods need not be the issue. The market often does not work it out and typically the side with less power does not come out well.

 

[philipl]

Can you really say that pure capitalism created the EpiPen when government funded it’s research?

Oh, I forgot: government subsidies for poor individuals is bad; government subsidies for companies is good.

Yes, or something like it and no I am against all subsidies. For people or businesses.

 

[on_the_hill]

Dangerous goods need not be the issue. The market often does not work it out and typically the side with less power does not come out well.

Oh, believe me. I’m all about that. A really interesting study would be the effects of environmental regulation on industry innovation. I would be willing to bet a dozen donuts (or a likewise donation to your favorite Catholic charity) that absent regulations we’d still be living in an environment horribly polluted by mills, factories, acid rain, etc,. and that it is the regulations that drive innovation as much as market forces–in fact, I’d wager that regulations are themselves powerful market forces that drive innovation and investment.

As much as people complain about government oversight and regulations, there are whole industries built around health, safety, quality, environmental inspectors, etc.

 

[Brendan]

Can you really say that pure capitalism created the EpiPen when government funded it’s research? .

The government funded the development of the first autoinjector, which was a dual chamber injector for anti-chemical warfare (nerve agent) use.

The Epi-pen is similar, in that it injects medication, but different operation.

So stating that the Epi-pen research was government funded is incorrect.

 

[Theo520]

Who is asking Mylan to be charitable? Charging $600-800+ for a product that costs less than $20 to manufacture is price gouging, which is illegal in many states. I wouldn’t be surprised if federal price-gouging laws don’t result from this and the Turing price increases.

If corporations are people, then they certainly do have an obligation to act ethically.

The ethical lapse here was with the congressmen who wrote the law that gave Mylan exclusive rights in key markets, and with the FDA for not enabling competition. The generic of this product should sell for <$100.

 

[punisherthunder]

Which is the better of the three?

Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism?

 

[Theo520]

The epi-pen is the product of our military industrial complex,
developed to counteract nerve agents in the 70’s

Can you really say that pure capitalism created the EpiPen when government funded it’s research?

Oh, I forgot: government subsidies for poor individuals is bad; government subsidies for companies is good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Subsiding research gets over “the hump” to the creation of new wealth, because some goods require high “upfront” costs that will not be amortized for years.

But the decision of which research to subsidize is questionable. Some research leads to great benefits. Other research leads to just a dead end. Why should the government be in a position to decide which is which? It is often called “picking winners and losers”.

Conversely, subsidizing poverty leads only to more poverty.

Actually, it is the same thing as helping some company over “the hump”. If a young person in poverty is given an chance to go to college, that person can become very productive.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Who is asking Mylan to be charitable? Charging $600-800+ for a product that costs less than $20 to manufacture is price gouging, which is illegal in many states. I wouldn’t be surprised if federal price-gouging laws don’t result from this and the Turing price increases.

If corporations are people, then they certainly do have an obligation to act ethically.

It’s simple business. If you have a product, you are the only one who makes it and people want it you’re free to charge as much as you want. I know I would.

Economics 101. Supply and Demand.

 

[philipl]

The idea that Mylan is justified in raising its prices because it “can” glosses over the fact that companies have an ethical obligation not only to its stakeholders but to society in general. Passing the blame to Obama because he incentivized schools to stock EpiPens (and thereby save lives) is at best disingenuous.

Am I the only person around here who remembers how grateful this country was because the FDA’s Dr. Frances Kelsey refused to approve Thalidomide for use in the U.S. even though it was used in many other countries? How many babies would have been born deformed if we didn’t have this type of government “interference?”

The EpiPen itself owes its existence to government funding for its research and development.

As the grandmother of a small DGS who is probably alive today because of two emergency uses of the EpiPen, I am eternally grateful that we have Big Government who can and does pay for life-saving research that develops products like this, while Big Pharma accepts government grants and then turns around and prices the product out of the reach of many poor people. (And then points to these price increases as the result of Obamacare!).

BTW, my daughter got two new EpiPens yesterday; the price was $835, not $600+. For a product that costs less than $20 to manufacture.

Your daughter paid the full amount of $835?

 

[Book_Worm]

It’s simple business. If you have a product, you are the only one who makes it and people want it you’re free to charge as much as you want. I know I would.

Economics 101. Supply and Demand.

And if people cannot afford to buy your product, which was developed using their taxpayer dollars, and they die, that’s just good business.

That’s the best argument against capitalism I’ve ever heard.

The idea that companies have no obligation to act ethically is the reason government regulations exist.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

And if people cannot afford to buy your product, which was developed using their taxpayer dollars, and they die, that’s just good business.

That’s the best argument against capitalism I’ve ever heard.

The idea that companies have no obligation to act ethically is the reason government regulations exist.

As harsh as this may sound, medical care is not a necessity.

There are only three things a human being needs to survive: A roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food in your belly. Everything else is a luxury.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As harsh as this may sound, medical care is not a necessity.

There are only three things a human being needs to survive: A roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food in your belly. Everything else is a luxury.

It seems to me that medical care is more necessary that clothes or a roof. You can live without those last two items. But when you need medical care, you really need it to live.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

As harsh as this may sound, medical care is not a necessity.

There are only three things a human being needs to survive: A roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food in your belly. Everything else is a luxury.

Medical care is certainly a necessity. You die without it in many cases.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Medical care is certainly a necessity. You die without it in many cases.

Mankind lived without it for thousands of years. I had a Great x4 grandfather who fought in the Revolutionary War. Smoked, ate fatty foods, etc. and lived to be 106.

It’s all in how you define “necessity.” Without a roof, clothes, or food, you will die. Without medical care you may die.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

It seems to me that medical care is more necessary that clothes or a roof. You can live without those last two items. But when you need medical care, you really need it to live.

See my response to Regular Atheist.

 

[LethalMouse]

This is not the only reason for large government–if a reason at all. Much government regulation is the direct result of the bad behavior of many of the countries citizens–

Actually most often there may be a problem sure, but to then rile up the stupid and get support to add a thousand over the top laws.

The citizenry need all but one bad thing to happen and have it given a buzz word label and they will let the gov do anything that even remotely seems connected to the buzz word.

Imagine telling the founding fathers about the NSA data collection! lol they’d be going ape.

Yet the gov uses the fancy word “terrorism” and we collectively sort of kind of like “eh that ins’t nice…but yeah terrorism OKAY! DO IT”

The gov can say terrorism, drugs, child safety and near pass any legislation if they sell it well.

Sure the mass populace who doesn’t know any better goes forth thinking they are stopping terrorism, stopping drugs, or helping kids…

but surprise! they rarely are. And the smart people who laugh at their subjects, know what corruption they have just had the people greenlight.

The greatest subjects for them is not those they must fight to hurt, but those who they can convince to beg to be hurt.

Mankind lived without it for thousands of years. I had a Great x4 grandfather who fought in the Revolutionary War. Smoked, ate fatty foods, etc. and lived to be 106.

It’s all in how you define “necessity.” Without a roof, clothes, or food, you will die. Without medical care you may die.

Yes, and I think they are often missing a point.

One has equal capability to get clothes, food, shelter etc

NOT affirmative equal distribution

As do they have equal capability to get medical care and not equal distribution.

It is also that the government does not allow actual healthcare.

For example if I am a smart guy I can fix cars on the side if I learn how, I can buy all the parts and tools I need.

If I am a smart guy and learn some doctoring and offered free healthcare and tried to acquire what I need, I would be thrown in jail…

What blows my mind is all these near communist healthcare for everyone types do not seem to care they can not buy penicillin for an infection. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO by the same government you want to control your health :banghead::banghead:

AND IF the gov did not MANDATE monopolies on access, then the prices of these things would be more laughable…

In fact proof is that if you buy pet medicine from a company that uses human grade, and literally puts the exact same pill just in a diff bottle, the costs are rather cheap. WHY??

Because you can just go buy it like everything else… ugh.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

See my response to Regular Atheist.

You did not respond to my challenge of why you need a roof. Many people around the world live without a roof. Same thing for clothing - at least $600 clothing.

 

[BobCatholic]

Of course, the best solution to this kind of problem, is to ban any human sinners from having anything to do with either business or government. We could even enforce that on pain of death. Very soon enough we won’t have any more crony capitalism, since we won’t have any people left on the Earth.

I disagree.

We can have sinners in the government. We just won’t have them that have the sin of “I want to sell my power to the highest bidder.” (i.e. cronyism, accepting bribes)

There are many types of sins, and only some of those sins cause crony capitalism.

OK, so Politician A keeps cheating on his wife. But he’s honest about serving the people and doesn’t take bribes. Let him serve, even though he’s an adulterer.

Politician B is wrathful and angry, takes revenge against anyone who hurts him. But he’s honest about serving the people and doesn’t take bribes. Let him serve, even though he’s an angry kind of guy.

Politiciian C says insulting and uncharitable things. But he’s honest about serving the people and doesn’t take bribes. Let him serve, even though he’s a big mouth.

For the above, I define “bribe” as “pay to play” (i.e. I pay money, I get something out of it) - this includes campaign contributions given with the expectation that a favor is going to be returned.

So no, we won’t have nobody left in the government or business.