Don't Blame Capitalism for your pricey Epi-pen

[styrgwillidar]

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.

A better solution would be to draft our representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate like we do a jury vice electing them.

Takes the loyalty to a party for career support/progression out of the equation. It also takes the money factor out, the politicians aren’t dependent on funds from donors to get elected. They’re not beholden to them in office, most folks will just want to serve their 2 or 6 years and get on with it. Government would be more representative of the people than the millionaires/inside the beltway club we have now.

They also would probably be more energetic and skeptical in auditing/supervising the executive agencies and holding them accountable.

No more revolving door between government, corporations, lobbying firms.

 

[styrgwillidar]

By the way,

Anybody know the breakdown for the company in terms of actual cost for the product-- not just manufacturing but overhead? And whatever percentage goes back into investment in R&D for other products? How much is the medical device tax instituted under ACA for an epi-pen?

The other kicker- what are insurance companies actually paying vice the sticker price to consumers? Always amazes me how much less my insurance company pays for things compared to the actual billed amount. Big problem with our non-competitive health-care system and the forced insurance method. Everything is geared towards the big insurance companies making deals over prices that individual folks can’t.

Not saying $600 is anywhere near the correct pricing- but I don’t think ~$20 manufacturing cost is a good basis for estimating either.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

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.

But what about those people who will certainly die without medical care? Are they not entitled to it? What if you have a very high chance of dying without it?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

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.

No they don’t. The rich have better access to medial care than I do, and also access to better medical care. Not everybody has the same chance of becoming rich, and capitalism is a system that relies on some people not owning capital so they can work for those who do. Not everybody can be a CEO.

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…

I mean regardless of the way the state interacts with capital, nobody would ever do that on a scale large enough to make healthcare free for everyone anyway, because capitalism does not make that sustainable. If I’m a trained doctor I can’t give away healthcare for free under capitalism because then I won’t be able to feed myself.

The point is not to just hope for some kind of idealistic altruism were people make sacrifices within capitalism for the good of others, it’s to change the economic system to one where people can help others without hurting themselves. The point is to create an economy where the needs of the collective does not conflict with the needs of the individual.

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:

The way capitalism works makes this inevitable. Monopolies are an inevitable product of capitalism. The only way to prevent it would be to somehow prevent people accumulating too much capital. The state is not the antithesis of capitalism, it is a product of capitalism. Those with lots of capital are able to influence the state to protect their own interests.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

By the way,

Anybody know the breakdown for the company in terms of actual cost for the product-- not just manufacturing but overhead? And whatever percentage goes back into investment in R&D for other products?

That would be very difficult for an outsider to determine. However we can infer what the Epi-pen costs Mylan by considering that in 2008 they were selling them for $100. We can assume they were not doing this to lose money. The only apparent cause for the price hike would have to be the lack of competition and the increase in demand. This allowed the company to raise the price, gradually to $600. They would have been making substantial profit if they had just raised the price from $100 to $200 and stopped there. After all, Mylan was not incurring any higher cost on their end. The most obvious reason for the higher price is that they can.

 

[styrgwillidar]

That would be very difficult for an outsider to determine. However we can infer what the Epi-pen costs Mylan by considering that in 2008 they were selling them for $100. We can assume they were not doing this to lose money. The only apparent cause for the price hike would have to be the lack of competition and the increase in demand. This allowed the company to raise the price, gradually to $600. They would have been making substantial profit if they had just raised the price from $100 to $200 and stopped there. After all, Mylan was not incurring any higher cost on their end. The most obvious reason for the higher price is that they can.

Well, if they’ve sunk money into research in other areas which haven’t panned out they need to cover those losses in products they sell. Additionally, the ACA levied a tax on medical devices, so that would have to be factored in, but I have no idea what the amount of tax was, I just remember folks in the discussion surrounding enactment talking about it.

And again, we have the issue of ‘sticker price’ and what insurance companies will actually agree to pay.

I agree that the price seems excessive, but I’d like to see the break-out of other costs and what the insurance companies are actually agreeing to. They certainly didn’t pay the $15 for a couple of ibuprofen that appeared on my daughter’s bill. Hospitals and pharmaceutical companies routinely jack up the price of items because everything gets negotiated down with the various insurance companies. Which is why forcing folks to get insurance through their employer and not having it be portable/direct purchase turned out to be such a bad idea. Individual folks can’t negotiate on the price.

ETA: found a couple of sites indicating the medical device tax (I’m assuming that’s the only applicable one) was only 2.3 percent of the sales price, so it’s negligible compared to the price increase.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

Really? So in a time of catastrophe you’d be the guy out there selling generators that normally sell for $300 for a $1,000 or more just because you could? Nice to know. Consider these words of Pope Leo XIII from Rerum Novarum:

“-- that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine.”

While the pope is specifically discussing the payment of wages I think it can also be applied to the selling of goods.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[GEddie]

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.

Depends where you are. Under the jungle canopy of our biological ancestors, one could live without clothing or shelter.

There are few if any places in NA or the European countries where that would be the case.

Try wintering nekkid in the open in MN.

I agree that medical is to an increasing extent a necessity.

ICXC NIKA

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

Interesting. Why are clothes necessary? We lived without them for years–I’d say that makes them a luxury. I’d say it depends on what you mean by roof over your head–because really all you need is temporary shelter occasionally depending on the weather–an actual roof over your head is a luxury. Now medical care? You cannot survive without if if you are injured or sick. Many diseases kill without proper treatment–that care is not a luxury–it is necessary to survive.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[GEddie]

Really? So in a time of catastrophe you’d be the guy out there selling generators that normally sell for $300 for a $1,000 or more just because you could? Nice to know. Consider these words of Pope Leo XIII from Rerum Novarum:

“-- that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine.”

While the pope is specifically discussing the payment of wages I think it can also be applied to the selling of goods.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Careful though. Someone pointed out to me how that line of thinking fails.

Consider that after a storm the generators are needed, and none are to be had. So someone outside the storm area buys some (at retail value) to supply to the people under the storm.

The only way he can sustain this effort is to charge substantially more than the normal price, but if he isn’t allowed, or comes to believe that it is wrong to do that, the need would remain unmet.

ICXC NIKA

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

How do you define medical care? Those living at the time of the revolutionary war received medical care–you know that right? The ancients Greeks had medical care – it’s been around a long time–the Hippocratic Oath was written in the 5th century BC for Pete’s sake. You right like medical just arrived yesterday.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Rau]

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.

Define necessity.

As I understand it, should one be shot on the way to the corner store, medical care may become necessary if one is to survive.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Careful though. Someone pointed out to me how that line of thinking fails.

Consider that after a storm the generators are needed, and none are to be had. So someone outside the storm area buys some (at retail value) to supply to the people under the storm.

The only way he can sustain this effort is to charge substantially more than the normal price, but if he isn’t allowed, or comes to believe that it is wrong to do that, the need would remain unmet.

ICXC NIKA

I’d say a small/reasonable markup over what he paid plus the cost of his transportation–I doubt that would amount to a substantial increase. And I am referring to those in disaster areas–who have them as a part of their business and pay wholesale for them and normally sell them for say $300–in times of crisis these businesses often jack up the price just because demand is temporarily outstripping supply in that area.

Additionally why can’t businesses outside the storm area that sell them sell them to the storm area for what they normally sell them for plus shipping? First come, first serve–its a temporary spike in demand cause by a crisis. Substantial increases in price in these situations are not really called for in my opinion.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Book_Worm]

Careful though. Someone pointed out to me how that line of thinking fails.

Consider that after a storm the generators are needed, and none are to be had. So someone outside the storm area buys some (at retail value) to supply to the people under the storm.

The only way he can sustain this effort is to charge substantially more than the normal price, but if he isn’t allowed, or comes to believe that it is wrong to do that, the need would remain unmet.

ICXC NIKA

No one is saying the seller has a right to make a profit. It’s the definition of “substantially more” that is open to debate. The entrepreneur deserves a profit for the effort he’s exerted. A 100% profit would motivate a good number of people to enter the market. A 333% profit seems excessive.

Mylan sells EpiPens in Canada and Europe for one-sixth the price they charge here in the U.S. I’m sure they wouldn’t continue to market them there if they were not realizing a satisfactory profit.

They also skipped out on paying much of their U.S. tax bill by acquiring company in the Netherlands in 2014 and moving its tax domicile there, what is known as an inversion. Then they had the audacity to ask the U.S. government to declare it a U.S. company to fend off a takeover by Teva. All the while boasting on their mission statement that they are a company that acts with integrity and always does the right thing, even when no one is looking,

 

[Book_Worm]

Your daughter paid the full amount of $835?

No, she paid a deductible, but I don’t know how much that is. Her bill from the pharmacy lists the full amount and the amount for which they are responsible. She’s very worried because their insurance will change in September and she doesn’t know how much the new deductible will be.

She needs six of them as my DGS’s school does not carry them and she supplies two for his classroom and two for the cafeteria.

 

[Theo520]

No, she paid a deductible, but I don’t know how much that is. Her bill from the pharmacy lists the full amount and the amount for which they are responsible. She’s very worried because their insurance will change in September and she doesn’t know how much the new deductible will be.

She needs six of them as my DGS’s school does not carry them and she supplies two for his classroom and two for the cafeteria.

She should have taken a holiday in Canada, paid for with her savings.

 

[LethalMouse]

I’d say a small/reasonable markup over what he paid plus the cost of his transportation–I doubt that would amount to a substantial increase. And I am referring to those in disaster areas–who have them as a part of their business and pay wholesale for them and normally sell them for say $300–in times of crisis these businesses often jack up the price just because demand is temporarily outstripping supply in that area.

Additionally why can’t businesses outside the storm area that sell them sell them to the storm area for what they normally sell them for plus shipping? First come, first serve–its a temporary spike in demand cause by a crisis. Substantial increases in price in these situations are not really called for in my opinion.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Actually that is not how supply and demand always works. If the production and supply lines are outdone, the business could go an unforeseen period losing a product to sell.

Note during the gun rush and price spike, many gun stores went sometimes over a year saying they literally could not get certain ones. And if they could get one, it was the one that people would buy, they charged a markup and then everyone who wanted one didn’t “just buy other products” but they shopped around and sought used.

Think if you standardly sell something making 2K a month, and now you sell 3 months worth in a month, but because of epic demand so does other stores. Especially big box stores who will get first. Now you go 4 months with no generator sales, and you are hurting. And the nnext month you can only get in 500 worth and they sell out. But also in your area since now other areas flooded with merchandise you spend the next year only selling about 500 worth.

What do you do if your business needs that other 1500? And that is just one item.

There is undoubtedly immoral price gouging that happens and I do NOT defend that, but often people over simplify how a business works

 

[StudentMI]

Free market capitalism has never existed in history. It never will, unless the more ideologically consistent anarchist left-libertarian free market is tested. Sadly, anarchism isn’t practical (and I mean it when I use the term ‘sadly’).

Every time any failure or problem with capitalism is addressed, proponents immediately respond with “that isn’t capitalism.” Yes, yes it is capitalism.

 

[GEddie]

Free market capitalism has never existed in history. It never will, unless the more ideologically consistent anarchist left-libertarian free market is tested. Sadly, anarchism isn’t practical (and I mean it when I use the term ‘sadly’).

Every time any failure or problem with capitalism is addressed, proponents immediately respond with “that isn’t capitalism.” Yes, yes it is capitalism.

You and I are on the same page when it comes to anarchism, and I’d be first to admit that capitalism has severe flaws.

It still is better than any modern alternative, which is some kind of command economy.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Theo520]

Free market capitalism has never existed in history. It never will, unless the more ideologically consistent anarchist left-libertarian free market is tested. Sadly, anarchism isn’t practical (and I mean it when I use the term ‘sadly’).

Every time any failure or problem with capitalism is addressed, proponents immediately respond with “that isn’t capitalism.” Yes, yes it is capitalism.

Free Markets and Capitalism are not systems of political governance.

Capitalism has always included some amount of regulation, if only to set standards of exchange.

It’s very appropriate to highlight when the regulation hinders competition rather than enables it.

For medicine:

• regulations setting standards of product quality and purity are essential
• regulations that grant exclusivity for generics completely defeat principles of competition.