Don't Blame Capitalism for your pricey Epi-pen

[Lost_Sheep]

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

You cannot survive the elements without clothes. Even cavemen wore animal skins to protect them from the harsh sun and bitter cold. Same it true for shelter. The need for food speaks for itself.

If you are are injured or sick, it is not automatically a given that you will die. Some people have survived sickness and injury with no treatment at all, so one cannot assume it is required in every case.

 

[LethalMouse]

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.

There is a difference between anarchist free market and reasonable.

But this is a 50/50 split between socialism and free market. there is a big diff.

 

[Rau]

You cannot survive the elements without clothes. Even cavemen wore animal skins to protect them from the harsh sun and bitter cold. Same it true for shelter. The need for food speaks for itself.

If you are are injured or sick, it is not automatically a given that you will die. Some people have survived sickness and injury with no treatment at all, so one cannot assume it is required in every case.

The distinction you draw is academic. As a practical matter, health is a necessity, at some stage, for essentially everyone.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

You cannot survive the elements without clothes. Even cavemen wore animal skins to protect them from the harsh sun and bitter cold. Same it true for shelter. The need for food speaks for itself.

If you are are injured or sick, it is not automatically a given that you will die. Some people have survived sickness and injury with no treatment at all, so one cannot assume it is required in every case.

So? There are many cases where people will definitely die without medical care. What then?

And I mean access to good healthcare makes people live longer, that is for sure. Isn’t that enough reason for it to be available to everyone?

Are property rights more important than the right to life?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So? There are many cases where people will definitely die without medical care. What then?

Nobody lives forever. Just as some people can survive without medical care, some people will die even with medical care.

And I mean access to good healthcare makes people live longer, that is for sure. Isn’t that enough reason for it to be available to everyone?

Sure. But who is going to pay for it?

Are property rights more important than the right to life?

I don’t see where that is relevant.

 

[styrgwillidar]

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,

They didn’t ‘skip out on paying much of their U.S. tax bill…’

They made a business decision based on US laws including a high corporate tax rate. They took the action which the laws incentivized. If you have a problem with them fulfilling their fiduciary duty to their stockholders by legally lowering their tax bill-- contact your representatives. Of course, in the era of crony capitalism (Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ looks more and more prophetic in that regard every day) our politicians seem more interested in taking care of their friends in business than serving the US taxpayer interest. And many corporations see more interested in manipulating government to further their interests than producing products in a competitive environment.
Big government benefits big corporations.
taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/08/kleinbardtreasury-publishes-white-paper-defending-brazen-tax-avoidance-by-apple-other-us-multination.html

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Nobody lives forever. Just as some people can survive without medical care, some people will die even with medical care.

So if someone dies from a young age from a treatable illness, your attitude is “nobody lives forever?” I mean there are many cases where people could have likely avoided death with adequate treatment.

Sure. But who is going to pay for it?

Well firstly I think you’re obfuscating the main issue, since your original argument was that a business should be able to charge whatever they want for a product or treatment without any regard for the actual cost of making the product itself. It doesn’t cost around $600 to make an EpiPen. The issue here is with the profit motive, not with actually financing the cost of medical treatment. It would not be hard to subsidize just the cost of producing an EpiPen.

Secondly, money isn’t something intrinsic to economies. It is possible to imagine an economy where money doesn’t exist and the distribution of goods is managed in some other way. The EpiPen is something that can be mass produced far beyond its demand, only this is not something that can be achieved under capitalism since it would lead to Mylan making a loss. However in an economy without exchange value there would be no such risk, and there would be no need to charge for the EpiPen.

I don’t see where that is relevant.

You’re arguing that Mylan’s ownership of the EpiPen and the means to produce them, and their need to make a profit off of this, is more important than the people who need the EpiPen for the sake of their health. You’re arguing that Mylan’s property rights are more important than the lives of those who need the EpiPen.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So if someone dies from a young age from a treatable illness, your attitude is “nobody lives forever?”

Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that it was part of God’s plan?

Well firstly I think you’re obfuscating the main issue, since your original argument was that a business should be able to charge whatever they want for a product or treatment without any regard for the actual cost of making the product itself. It doesn’t cost around $600 to make an EpiPen. The issue here is with the profit motive, not with actually financing the cost of medical treatment. It would not be hard to subsidize just the cost of producing an EpiPen.

It may not cost $600 to make an Epi-pen but it sure as heck cost $millions in research and development to create the Epi-pen. Somebody has to pay for that. Ultimately, it is the consumer who pays; either out of pocket, through insurance premiums, or through higher taxes for government subsidies. Anyway you look at it, it isn’t going to be free, or even cheap.

Secondly, money isn’t something intrinsic to economies. It is possible to imagine an economy where money doesn’t exist and the distribution of goods is managed in some other way.

The EpiPen is something that can be mass produced far beyond its demand, only this is not something that can be achieved under capitalism since it would lead to Mylan making a loss. However in an economy without exchange value there would be no such risk, and there would be no need to charge for the EpiPen.

And how exactly would you propose to do that?

You’re arguing that Mylan’s ownership of the EpiPen and the means to produce them, and their need to make a profit off of this, is more important than the people who need the EpiPen for the sake of their health. You’re arguing that Mylan’s property rights are more important than the lives of those who need the EpiPen.

And you are suggesting that after spending millions of dollars in research and development they have no right to recoup their costs? If they spend all this money and then give their products away at a loss, where are they going to get the capital to invest in more research and development for the next generation of medicines?

Maybe in your Utopian moneyless world that can happen but in the real one I live in it can’t.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that it was part of God’s plan?

Well obviously that’s not going to have any impact on me. But what do you mean by this? It’s part of God’s plan for other human beings to deny a sick person adequate health care? Surely if you believe in freewill, you can’t believe that to be true?

It may not cost $600 to make an Epi-pen but it sure as heck cost $millions in research and development to create the Epi-pen. Somebody has to pay for that. Ultimately, it is the consumer who pays; either out of pocket, through insurance premiums, or through higher taxes for government subsidies. Anyway you look at it, it isn’t going to be free, or even cheap.

The EpiPen was entirely funded with taxpayer money, so money spent on research doesn’t account for the price hike:

usuncut.com/class-war/epipen-taxpayer-money/

rawstory.com/2016/08/revealed-american-taxpayers-funded-100-of-research-used-to-develop-big-pharmas-epipen/

You’re right that someone has to pay for that, but they already have. There’s no need for Mylan to “recoup their losses” on research since they didn’t put a cent into the research.

And how exactly would you propose to do that?

Abolish private property in the sense of privately owned means of production, and place all property in the ownership of all of society as a whole. Goods would no longer be produced to be exchanged but would just be produced to be used. People would be able to take whatever goods they want without having to exchange anything, so the economy would be run on the basis of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” Without a market, none of the problems that come with the capitalist market would exist. The artificial scarcity and occasional economic crises that exists as a result of the fact that goods cannot be produced beyond the purchasing power of the market would no longer exist.

And you are suggesting that after spending millions of dollars in research and development they have no right to recoup their costs? If they spend all this money and then give their products away at a loss, where are they going to get the capital to invest in more research and development for the next generation of medicines?

They didn’t spend a cent on research.

I don’t expect them to give their products away at a loss. That isn’t how capitalism works.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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

We’re not talking about long term economic trends or shifts and the need to efficiently allocate resources–we’re talking about a very short - term spike. Often these items are available in the area where there is a temporary spike in demand. If I sell 3 months in one month or one week–I’m covered for the next two months as things recover and return to normal. You’re providing an example of wide spread long term increase in demand with no increase in supply. We’re discussing two different things. Additionally you’re throwing in big box stores–who always would have been in the picture providing that capitalist competition–nothing new there. We’re talking about a short-term spike in a relatively small area caused by some sort of event–and people coming in and scalping a product that people need to get by.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Well obviously that’s not going to have any impact on me. But what do you mean by this? It’s part of God’s plan for other human beings to deny a sick person adequate health care? Surely if you believe in freewill, you can’t believe that to be true?

I mean that’s also a terrible cop-out argument.

I, for one, happen to believe that when your time is up, your time is up. It doesn’t matter if you’re young or old, sick or healthy, whether you die of natural causes or get hit by a bus. When your number is up, it’s your time to go.

The EpiPen was entirely funded with taxpayer money, so money spent on research doesn’t account for the price hike:

usuncut.com/class-war/epipen-taxpayer-money/

rawstory.com/2016/08/revealed-american-taxpayers-funded-100-of-research-used-to-develop-big-pharmas-epipen/

You’re right that someone has to pay for that, but they already have. There’s no need for Mylan to “recoup their losses” on research since they didn’t put a cent into the research.

Sounds to me like it was developed for use on the battlefield; not as a consumer product.

Abolish private property in the sense of privately owned means of production, and place all property in the ownership of all of society as a whole. Goods would no longer be produced to be exchanged but would just be produced to be used. People would be able to take whatever goods they want without having to exchange anything, so the economy would be run on the basis of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” Without a market, none of the problems that come with the capitalist market would exist. The artificial scarcity and occasional economic crises that exists as a result of the fact that goods cannot be produced beyond the purchasing power of the market would no longer exist.

So you’re a socialist.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I, for one, happen to believe that when your time is up, your time is up. It doesn’t matter if you’re young or old, sick or healthy, whether you die of natural causes or get hit by a bus. When your number is up, it’s your time to go.

So you use your extreme fatalist position to justify not providing people with adequate healthcare? Why don’t you take that to its logical conclusion, and apply that to all scenarios?

“Okay, so I didn’t give them that life-saving surgery and they died, but they were going to die anyway! It was just their time!”

“Okay, so I refused to feed my child and they died, but it was just their time to go. I can’t help it!”

“Okay, I stabbed that man and he bled to death, but that just means it was his time to go. Nothing could have been done about that.”

Sounds to me like it was developed for use on the battlefield; not as a consumer product.

Mylan certainly didn’t spend “millions” on research and development for it.

So you’re a socialist.

Yes.

 

[LethalMouse]

We’re not talking about long term economic trends or shifts and the need to efficiently allocate resources–we’re talking about a very short - term spike. Often these items are available in the area where there is a temporary spike in demand. If I sell 3 months in one month or one week–I’m covered for the next two months as things recover and return to normal. You’re providing an example of wide spread long term increase in demand with no increase in supply. We’re discussing two different things. Additionally you’re throwing in big box stores–who always would have been in the picture providing that capitalist competition–nothing new there. We’re talking about a short-term spike in a relatively small area caused by some sort of event–and people coming in and scalping a product that people need to get by.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

You aree actually missing the picture. It would be terrible business to pressume short term in the way you are suggesting.

And the very direct exampke of generators is that it is sonething people buy rarely in essence. So if you customer base all buys one from wherever in your area. Those random generator purchases WILL BE DOWN for the long term.

Also many short term spikes cause Long term supply issues.

As a business especially in sone cases where they know what supply pitfalls involve a particular item, they may need to insulate their business from future issue.

And even moreso their operating costs may be higher as a result of disaster. Like running themselves off generator power etc. They may even in some cases be trying to use their business to help people that are in dire need.

Ie: something that the anti capitalism peeps should appreciate, I can afford to provide food to the seriously poor because I can charge Mr. Middle class with great home owners insurance a huge markup on a generator tbat isnt in many cases even a necessity.

So ironically we love government Robin hood but not a guy selling luxuries at a premium and buying necessities for the needy.

We ignore real economics and pretend everything happens in an isolated bubble…

No it does not.

 

[mikekle]

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.

Keep in mind, when those people who were involved in this, die and stand before God, they will have to answer for the things they have done and if greed played any part in their decisions, Well, God is a just God.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

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.

Ah yes, somehow Christian principles do not apply in the business and economic spheres.

Sts Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas and a host of other Catholic thinkers would disagree.

 

[LethalMouse]

Keep in mind, when those people who were involved in this, die and stand before God, they will have to answer for the things they have done and if greed played any part in their decisions, Well, God is a just God.

Many sadly miss the point, there is no virtue in the life of a chained saint.

I do not mean a martyr, there is virtue there. But if I take someone and create a circumstance where they literally can never sin, what do they earn?

You know the hate of capitalism reminds me of the atheist argument that God should come down and “force” or make us in a way that magically leaves free will sort of but again “forces” us to never stray and risk hell.

There is NO virtue in that. There is NOTHING earned.

So yes we must have a degree of chance to be good or be bad. The love of big gov is born of the same mentality of those who shake their fist at God for giving them free will.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Many sadly miss the point, there is no virtue in the life of a chained saint.

I do not mean a martyr, there is virtue there. But if I take someone and create a circumstance where they literally can never sin, what do they earn?

You know the hate of capitalism reminds me of the atheist argument that God should come down and “force” or make us in a way that magically leaves free will sort of but again “forces” us to never stray and risk hell.

There is NO virtue in that. There is NOTHING earned.

So yes we must have a degree of chance to be good or be bad. The love of big gov is born of the same mentality of those who shake their fist at God for giving them free will.

Huh? There is no virtue in forcing moral behavior? I suppose that means we should remove all restrictions against abortion so that mothers can “exercise virtue” in choosing not to abort their child.

 

[philipl]

Keep in mind, when those people who were involved in this, die and stand before God, they will have to answer for the things they have done and if greed played any part in their decisions, Well, God is a just God.

Everyone is greedy to some degree.

 

[philipl]

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.

But the fact is, your daughter didn’t pay $800+ for the meds. Her insurance did. This is a problem with medical insurance as it’s not really insurance. Not like homeowners insurance or car insurance. Make it more like that and the price will come down.

 

[philipl]

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.

I would hate think of how bad things would be if we lived under the type of economic system that liberals think would be better than capitalism. I enjoy being able to go the store and buy the foods I like. I am happy that competition has created cheap and useful products. I cant think of one bad thing capitalism has created compared to other forms ways to run and economy.