Don't Blame Capitalism for your pricey Epi-pen

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
The problem rather is that the base idea, to “insure” the human body, is misconceived.

We can insure drivers because most do not crash.

We can insure buildings against fire because most do not burn.

But every human body is certain to fail catastrophically and expensively.

So there is no way to make a profit insuring it unless almost everybody can be excluded. Some new idea is needed.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Yea, lets go back to having just hospitalization type insurance. You have to pay out of pocket for dr visits and meds. Prices will have to do down or those business wont stay in business.
 
philipl said:
Yea, lets go back to having just hospitalization type insurance. You have to pay out of pocket for dr visits and meds. Prices will have to do down or those business wont stay in business.
Click to expand...
This does not work when competitors are not allowed, in this case, to make an epi-pen.

medscape.com/viewarticle/780414
As a pro-life Catholic, I can’t rationalize death due to corporate greed.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Says who?

The purpose of a business is this: To make money for its owner(s). That’s it. It has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to be a charity. If it chooses to be charitable, that is its own decision, but it is not required in any way to do so.
Click to expand...
Then I would say this mindset needs to be enhanced where we are not just looking out for ourselves but are taking care of our brothers and sisters. We are called to be more Christ-like and to help out the less fortunate. Its a mindset that permeate our everyday tasks and thoughts.
 
philipl said:
You’re wrong, pure capitalism spur new innovation which creates wealth. Under what poor form of economic system,
you would have man slave under there would never be an epi-pen. You seem to believe that people will become altruistic when you’re wonderland is finally created.
Click to expand...
A lot of inventions in the past were created because the inventor was trying to create something that would help society and make something easier or better or healthier or more reliable. Only the greedy businessmen took that invention and tried to make it into an object that can mass produce extremely efficiently so a company can maximize its profits. We need more inventors who are willing to help people in society than business men who only think of making a profit for themselves.
 
punisherthunder said:
Which is the better of the three?

Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism?
Click to expand...
Most people agree that Capitalism is the better choice of the three BUT are we (as Homo sapien sapiens) not smart enough yet to put together a system of government that can work better for all people especially the poor? I know we may never solve poverty but capitalism is not working and many people are becoming tired of a system where some people benefit while alot of other people don’t benefit. I believe that is why Bernie Sanders appealed to so many people. They are tired of how this government system ignores their pleas for help.

Schools not teaching their children; Teachers who are overwhelmed in their classrooms with too many students (some very unruly students too). But yet we dumped billions into education only to hear that its not enough.

Healthcare that leaves a family poor because they had the unfortunate luck that someone in their family got injured or has an illness requiring alot of medical treatment.

People wanting to work but companies continuing to downsize so they can be more efficient and maximize their profits. Workers required to do more and more every day with less time off to recover from the hard work week and less pay (sometimes). They cannot get another job because they are not qualified for the position. They cannot get trained for the job position because that takes time and money.

The list goes on and on where capitalism is not working and people want it fixed. We need a business continental congress.
 
punisherthunder said:
Which is the better of the three?

Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism?
Click to expand...
It is worth noting that two of three have been condemned by the Catholic Church, at least when they are absolute. While the Church defends the right to own property (including intellectual property) it also teaches the universal destination of all good. What is happening with this product would be unrestricted, even protected, capitalism.
 
ThePoorInSpirit said:
Then I would say this mindset needs to be enhanced where we are not just looking out for ourselves but are taking care of our brothers and sisters. We are called to be more Christ-like and to help out the less fortunate. Its a mindset that permeate our everyday tasks and thoughts.
Click to expand...
Sooo, you want to make charity a legal obligation of businesses? Sounds like you are a fan of state mandated religions.
 
Theo520 said:
Sooo, you want to make charity a legal obligation of businesses? Sounds like you are a fan of state mandated religions.
Click to expand...
I will not deny that to a certain extant. I wouldn’t call it state mandated religion though. I would call it a basic class on morals and common etiquette towards other people. I get tired of people telling others “you can’t police morality”. There are certain vices that can be condemned by all of society and greed is one of those vices.
 
Theo520 said:
Sooo, you want to make charity a legal obligation of businesses? Sounds like you are a fan of state mandated religions.
Click to expand...
It is you that insists on labelling government aid to the poor as “charity”. It is not. Never has been. In other words, it is a strawman argument.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is you that insists on labelling government aid to the poor as “charity”. It is not. Never has been. In other words, it is a strawman argument.
Click to expand...
So- what do you call government taking money from one group of people to give to another? (at any level, be it the poor or be it businesses).

Interesting take on how big government/FDA has been used to impede competitors to the Epi-Pen, due to rules/regulations as a political favor to Mylan and other large pharmaceutical companies.

time.com/4482179/sen-rand-paul-epipen-scandal/
 
styrgwillidar said:
So- what do you call government taking money from one group of people to give to another? (at any level, be it the poor or be it businesses).
Click to expand...
It depends on why the action is taken. In the case of rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, I would call it a good and proper function of a government. Other cases - maybe not so much.
Interesting take on how big government/FDA has been used to impede competitors to the Epi-Pen, due to rules/regulations as a political favor to Mylan and other large pharmaceutical companies.
Click to expand...
It might be that, or it might not be. One would have to investigate further to see which it is. Or you could just sit back and guess, and call it a fact. What exactly are the FDA rules that you say favor Mylan? Could it be the rules just say that an epinephrine delivery mechanism must deliver a reliable, consistent, and appropriate level of the drug? I know - so outrageous!

Actually, there was a political favor the government did for Mylan. They required that schools all stock epinephrine delivery devices. But it was not a favor that eliminated competition. The competitors did that all by themselves.
 
styrgwillidar said:
So- what do you call government taking money from one group of people to give to another? (at any level, be it the poor or be it businesses)
Click to expand...
By and large, those living in society appear to inherently concur that those who are better off should make a proportionally larger commitment to the common good. It seems to be quite a Christian idea. (“Of those to whom much is given, much is expected”.). That one of the ways that this should come to fruition is via taxes is I believe simply accepted as pragmatic.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Actually, there was a political favor the government did for Mylan. They required that schools all stock epinephrine delivery devices. But it was not a favor that eliminated competition. The competitors did that all by themselves.
Click to expand...
I think the regulation required they stock epipens that conform to the Mylan patent, which only Mylan supplies. Competitors were not allowed to compete (hence the $800 price tag)
 
Theo520 said:
I think the regulation required they stock epipens that conform to the Mylan patent, which only Mylan supplies. Competitors were not allowed to compete (hence the $800 price tag)
Click to expand...
Please cite the regulations that specify the Mylan patent, and not just some level of performance that the Mylan patent happens to achieve.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Please cite the regulations that specify the Mylan patent, and not just some level of performance that the Mylan patent happens to achieve.
Click to expand...
Same difference. If only one patent meets a particular specification, then requiring that specification precludes any competition. It’s done all the time in govt contracting to give the appearance of competition while preventing it in practice.
 
Theo520 said:
Same difference. If only one patent meets a particular specification, then requiring that specification precludes any competition. It’s done all the time in govt contracting to give the appearance of competition while preventing it in practice.
Click to expand...
If the performance requirement set is merely a “device” to rule out all other products, and not a proper requirement for the achievement of medical objectives, well that is simply misbehaviour by officials, and no doubt would be the subject of loud complaint from aggrieved manufacturers.
 
Theo520 said:
Same difference. If only one patent meets a particular specification, then requiring that specification precludes any competition. It’s done all the time in govt contracting to give the appearance of competition while preventing it in practice.
Click to expand...
So you don’t actually know what the regulations are…you are just sure they prevent anyone else from competing. A patent only specifies a particular means of achieving a certain end result. Others are free to invent alternate means to achieve the same result, or license the patent from Mylan. There was a competitor to Mylan, but their product was unable to deliver the correct measured dose reliably. That was not the government’s fault. Do you have a problem with the patent system itself?
 
I had dinner last night with a lawyer for a mid-sized pharmaceutical company, and he was asked about the epi-pen situation. He said that it wasn’t profitable for the large company that made them so they sold the process to a small firm. Although there is no patent involved and anyone can theoretically produce a competitive product, in actuality it will take a number of years for that to happen because of the extreme difficulty of getting something approved by the FDA. During the approval process, however, that small firm stands to make a lot of money.

Aside from the hardship this will cause those who rely on this device, there is another real danger in the form of ill-conceived government regulation. Yes, this situation is cause for concern, but let’s not assume that just because the situation is bad now it can’t be made worse by federal overreach.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top