Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

[Slade3200]

ok, I'll appease your pea brain for a second, explain how my point of view is communist

You said there needs to be a balance in everything. However, your pat answer when it comes to balance involves the government doing everything to create what you call balanced.

I would love for government to be as little involved as possible with private business. When I see abuse and wreckless was from powerful companies that directly effects consumers the government understandably steps in. This is the balance that I'm talking about

So, no gov interference, ie no regulations? But at the same time, you want to protect the consumer?....lol....really?

It's not an all or nothing... I support the purpose of government intervention through regulation to protect the consumer. I just wish our companies could be responsible enough to not need much of it. If Companies keep abusing their power all its going to do is grow gov involvement. It is very unfortunate

The government wants to be involved. There are plenty that want the government to be involved regardless of what a business is doing.

Do you support government regulation in the Mylan case?

I don't... I think it is shitty what they are doing but they have the right to do that. I'd hope the Government would support and expedite the development of an affordable generic. I heard somewhere they are funding the delivery to EpiPens to schools so children have access if they are in need. This is a good step but that is our tax money getting ripped off.

I don't have an answer for the horrible inflated prices in our Medical/Healthcare system. It is such a mess between insurance, pharm, and government agencies... I'd like to see more competition start to drive down prices and I know many feel that regulation is holding that back. I'd like to hear more discussion about the specifics of what regulations are in place and causing friction so that we can improve the process, while still fostering a safe environment and products for the public.

Thanks for the question btw... It's nice to actually get to explain my position rather than have others assume it for me.

 

[Divine Wind]

Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

What about Socialist greed? Is that bad too? Personal greed?

To those that support socialist programs, they don't consider someone getting what they didn't earn while someone else earning is forced to pay for it as greedy. They're completely satisfied that the non-productive person is handed what the productive person has to do something to get.

Agreed. Hence the inherent hypocrisy of their position.

 

[Wyatt earp]

With no FDA how do we prevent dangerous drugs from flooding the market?

That's a good question.

Think if there were no federal agency regulating electrical appliances and devices? Millions would die from electrocution and fires each year, because ONLY government cares for you..

Oh wait, there in fact IS NO SUCH FEDERAL AGENCY...

So millions MUST be dying from electrical appliances, I mean, ONLY government can save us from the greedy capitalist pigs..

Except that who REALLY does it is something called "Underwriters Laboratories." Any appliance you buy has a U/L registration number on it. U/L is 100% voluntary and 100% private.

HOW CAN THIS BE? Only government can save us - as you have repeatedly claimed. To be 100% safe we need 100% government - it's the democrat credo. Yet U/L, with a record of success hundreds of times better than the FDA is voluntary, and private.

The answer is simple, consumers demand safe products, We don't want to die in electrical fires, and the greedy running dog capitalist pig insurance companies didn't want to pay life and fire insurance claims for electrical fires. So the UNDERWRITERS of the insurance policies developed a system of testing and rating that is vastly more effective than government efforts such as the FDA.

I'm not doubting the the FDA creates a long approval process and has much room for better efficiency but I haven't heard one person site specifically what "red tape" measures are erroneous, per this discussion.

What if the generic epipens were failing and dangerous?

Once again, U/L and IEEE have far better records of protecting public safety than the Phen-Fen FDA does.

Its nice that you have such faith in companies and consumers but your scenario is just not reality. Look at history and look at other countries that have no regulations. You use electronics as an example? How about you review something that is an actual risk or threat to life and health... Medicine, Food, Transportation, Energy etc.

We aren't talking about protecting people from a malfunctioning iPhone, we are talking about human lives.

Look at examples, like:

Contaminated Medicine that has resulted in many deaths around the world:
List of medicine contamination incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polluted food and water sources causing Typhoid fever and other illnesses resulting in death and illness:
The 10 Deadliest Outbreaks in U.S. History -- Revisited | Food Safety News

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:
Policy Impact: Seat Belts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

The nuclear weapons plant in Colorado that illegally dumped and polluted the surrounding land with radio active waste:
Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:

One seat belts don't "save a life" it prolongs it

Two it's bull shit that seat belt use had any effect on people's lives. in fact it makes people more reckless drivers.


Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts



John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

If you've ever been in a car accident then common sense and logic would tell you otherwise. My life has literally been saved by a seatbelt and an airbag. If not for those I would either be in a wheelchair or 6 feet under right now. I've seen both sides of the seatbelt argument and understand that there are some cases where they have caused death etc. This is a different debate that we can have on another thread of you like.

So you are saying you are a reckless driver?

Check...


I have been driving for 35 years now ...zero car crashes


And if it was a newer car, way more then a seat belt and air bags prolonged your life.

Watch this



1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu …:

 

[Divine Wind]

Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins as outlined in the Bible. I know conservative Christians think that the Kingdom of Heaven is to be on earth but Jesus was pretty clear that wealth was a problem for him, and government had nothing to do with his teachings or his spirituality.

When Jesus was born, the Jews were waiting for a Messiah to lead them against the Romans and Jesus was very clear that he had no interest in politics, or in being King of the Jews, in the secular sense. His Kingdom was not of this earth, so all of these Dominionists and other cults, are just not reading the same Bible as the rest of us.

The Seven Deadly Sins aren't in the Bible. ....at least not like the Ten Commandments.
Seven deadly sins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed on mortal live vs. eternal. However, what we do in this life does have impact on the hereafter.

 

[Dana7360]

EpiPen can go to hell. My friend has a shellfish allergy that leads to an anaphylactic reaction... Her throat closes up. She can't afford to buy an EpiPen and her insurance doesn't cover it. Further more they expire after a year so she would have to drop $600 for a pen that expires and needs to get tossed after only a year. Instead she doesn't have one and takes a risk every time she eats out. In the mean time the EpiPen execs and laughing their way to the bank

Mylan executives gave themselves raises as they hiked EpiPen prices

The patent on the drug in an epi pen and the mechanism itself should have run out a long time ago. All the FDA has to do is promise fast track approval for anyone who wants to make an equivalent product, and the manufacturer's hold on the market would wither away.

Yes, the company is greedy, but government regulations that make it next to impossible to field an equal product shares part of the blame. It's what creates the bottleneck in the first place.

You're too late.

There is already generic epipens on the market. I've been buying them for over a year now.

The non generic ones are ridiculously expensive. I buy 6 generic ones for 25 dollars with my insurance. I'm sure that it's more expensive without insurance but no where near the price of the non generic ones.

So you're complaining about nothing. There's already a generic epipen on the market.

 

[Divine Wind]

So you are saying you are a reckless driver?

Check...


I have been driving for 35 years now ...zero car crashes


And if it was a newer car, way more then a seat belt and air bags prolonged your life.

Watch this



1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu …:

So you never need to wear your seat belt? Good.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:

One seat belts don't "save a life" it prolongs it

Two it's bull shit that seat belt use had any effect on people's lives. in fact it makes people more reckless drivers.


Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts



John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

A seat belt prolonged my life twice; once saving me from serious injury and a second time from certain death.

That said, I'm against mandatory seat belt and helmet laws because it goes against God's Law of Evolution.

IIRC, 68% of all traffic deaths in Texas are from lack of wearing a seat belt despite laws requiring them. As Ron White once said, "You can't fix stupid". I wish we'd stop trying to do so with silly laws.

OTOH, as far as pharmaceutical drugs go, if I follow the directions on a box of medicine and it seriously injures me or kills a family member, then I should have the right to shoot the motherfucking snake-oil salesman marketing it. Therefore, it's either best to let people serve vigilante justice to snake-oil salesmen or set laws preventing snake-oil salesmen from being in business.

Another reckless driver


Check.


No such thing as a "car accident" it takes two to tangle.

 

[Slade3200]

EpiPen can go to hell. My friend has a shellfish allergy that leads to an anaphylactic reaction... Her throat closes up. She can't afford to buy an EpiPen and her insurance doesn't cover it. Further more they expire after a year so she would have to drop $600 for a pen that expires and needs to get tossed after only a year. Instead she doesn't have one and takes a risk every time she eats out. In the mean time the EpiPen execs and laughing their way to the bank

Mylan executives gave themselves raises as they hiked EpiPen prices

The patent on the drug in an epi pen and the mechanism itself should have run out a long time ago. All the FDA has to do is promise fast track approval for anyone who wants to make an equivalent product, and the manufacturer's hold on the market would wither away.

Yes, the company is greedy, but government regulations that make it next to impossible to field an equal product shares part of the blame. It's what creates the bottleneck in the first place.

You're too late.

There is already generic epipens on the market. I've been buying them for over a year now.

The non generic ones are ridiculously expensive. I buy 6 generic ones for 25 dollars with my insurance. I'm sure that it's more expensive without insurance but no where near the price of the non generic ones.

So you're complaining about nothing. There's already a generic epipen on the market.

Whats the brand you use? Do you have a link. I have a friend who has an anaphylactic allergy to shellfish but can't afford to buy a $600 pen, i'd love to make a recommendation to her

 

[Slade3200]

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:

One seat belts don't "save a life" it prolongs it

Two it's bull shit that seat belt use had any effect on people's lives. in fact it makes people more reckless drivers.


Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts



John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

A seat belt prolonged my life twice; once saving me from serious injury and a second time from certain death.

That said, I'm against mandatory seat belt and helmet laws because it goes against God's Law of Evolution.

IIRC, 68% of all traffic deaths in Texas are from lack of wearing a seat belt despite laws requiring them. As Ron White once said, "You can't fix stupid". I wish we'd stop trying to do so with silly laws.

OTOH, as far as pharmaceutical drugs go, if I follow the directions on a box of medicine and it seriously injures me or kills a family member, then I should have the right to shoot the motherfucking snake-oil salesman marketing it. Therefore, it's either best to let people serve vigilante justice to snake-oil salesmen or set laws preventing snake-oil salesmen from being in business.

Another reckless driver


Check.


No such thing as a "car accident" it takes two to tangle.

Wow, can't argue with stupid...

 

[Dragonlady]

Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

What about Socialist greed? Is that bad too? Personal greed?

To those that support socialist programs, they don't consider someone getting what they didn't earn while someone else earning is forced to pay for it as greedy. They're completely satisfied that the non-productive person is handed what the productive person has to do something to get.

That is a completely false narrative. I live in a country with cradle to the grave social programs. I worked hard all of my life and I paid into those programs, just as you pay into your Social Security Program. Now I'm collecting on my annuities. Throughout my working life, I paid to help widows, single mothers and those down on their luck. The social safety net is the price we pay for living in a capitalistic society. Those who simply refuse to work make up such a tiny percentage of the population that the amount of resources needed to ferret them out simply isn't worth the savings.

Even the Ancient Romans knew that the "headcount" needed a ration of bread and the occasional gladiator games to keep them happy and distracted from the conquest of the known world by their elites. The elites paid for the "bread and circuses" out of their own pockets, and to garner votes in the city elections. But today in America, the elites aren't paying. Those who benefit most, pay the least, as a percentage of income. The middle class is paying, and like the working poor before them, their savings are gone and they're deeply in debt. They're fed up. Time to put the burden back where it belongs - on those who benefit the most.

A social safety net is the price we pay for the privilege of living in a capitalist society.

 

[Dana7360]

Do you think the regulations are in place to protect the company or the consumer?

The regs need to protect the inventor AND the consumer. That's who I think US Patent Law ought to protect, but if one looks into the law there are hundreds of regulations and rules amended and repealed. There is no way to research who benefits and who loses; in the current case the answer is clear.

Now that the FDA requires pharmaceutical companies to fund their own testing process that takes years, they are out billions of dollars by the time the product hits the shelves. How do they make that up except to charge high prices? These companies are not charities and charities don't make life saving drugs.

i dont think thats the case with these pens....they were developed by the US Military for their people to use for exposure to nerve agents in case of chemical warfare.....the device delivers about a dollars worth of epinephrine......there was no need for this increase....

I doubt there is no need. Obamacare is a cluster-fuck that's caused prices to skyrocket in every part of our health care system. Inhalers for asthmatics are a good example. Some asshole Democrats wrote in a regulation to ban them because of the global warming myth. Those suffering from asthma who used to be able to buy inhalers cheaply suddenly found themselves having to pay triple for a shit poor substitute chemical inhaler.

The problem is, no matter how much Democrats fuck over the American people through the unseen hand of government, they get away with it by finding some way to get people to blame "corporate greed".

I couldn't get past that first line with the lie in it.

The problem isn't Obamacare. It's the deregulation in the prescription drug law that the republicans passed and the bush boy signed.

It removed the ability for the government to negotiate lower prices with drug companies and it removed the regulations that help keep prices down. It also prohibited reimporting drugs to America from Canada, drugs that were made here but sent to Canada. Canada has regulations on pricing and they have proper competition. The cost of an epipen in Canada is around half the price it is here and it's made here.

All Obamacare did was regulate the insurance companies. Not the drug companies. And the regulation had no real price controls other than trying to get competition and requiring that the insurance companies spend at least 80% of premiums on health care, if they don't they have to refund the money back to the customer.

If you're going to blame a whole party for this you really should get it right and name the right party that did this. The republicans.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:

One seat belts don't "save a life" it prolongs it

Two it's bull shit that seat belt use had any effect on people's lives. in fact it makes people more reckless drivers.


Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts



John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

A seat belt prolonged my life twice; once saving me from serious injury and a second time from certain death.

That said, I'm against mandatory seat belt and helmet laws because it goes against God's Law of Evolution.

IIRC, 68% of all traffic deaths in Texas are from lack of wearing a seat belt despite laws requiring them. As Ron White once said, "You can't fix stupid". I wish we'd stop trying to do so with silly laws.

OTOH, as far as pharmaceutical drugs go, if I follow the directions on a box of medicine and it seriously injures me or kills a family member, then I should have the right to shoot the motherfucking snake-oil salesman marketing it. Therefore, it's either best to let people serve vigilante justice to snake-oil salesmen or set laws preventing snake-oil salesmen from being in business.

Another reckless driver


Check.


No such thing as a "car accident" it takes two to tangle.

Wow, can't argue with stupid...

Then don't argue with yourself..



Again no such thing as a car accident

Either you drive defensively and no car crash...


Or dive offensively and get in a car crash

Not that complicated is it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The cost savings via generics only comes into play when there are multiple players on the field. Currently the FDA has a 2-3 year wait for generic drug approval, AFTER the paperwork has gone in.

Epinephrin is generic, about on the level of aspirin. What Mylan has is a precision delivery system. There is no patent on their device, so anyone who wants to can compete. The obvious avenue is an electronic measuring system for doses. Mylan claims that the Epipen costs about $70 to make, If true, an electronic version that costs $10 to produce could take the market.

Wish I had $5 million in capital, I would pursue this and eat Mylans lunch. Someone will, and soon.

 

[Dana7360]

The price of the Epipen just went up 500%. It costs a dollar to make, and big pharma is charging $500.00 to save a child's life.

The cost of all drugs in the U.S. are ten times more than any other country.

Health insurance is high because of greed. Doctors and hospitals are some of the greediest.

And it's not just big pharma, it's big oil too. When oil was $140.00 a barrel, gas cost $4.00 a gallon. Now oil is three times less at $47.00 a barrel, and we still pay over $2,20 a gallon.

But the real big greed is the military industrial contractors. $600.00 for toilet seats.....$500.00 for coffee makers....and that's just the cheap stuff.

Greed is why we have a $17 trillion national debt.

Greed is why most crimes are committed. Most in prison are there because of greed.

Lawyers are greedy. NO money, you're guilty.

Politicians work less than six months a year for over $200,000.00 plus healthcare, paid vacations, free transportation, and full retirement after four years.

Remember all you 20, 30 & 40 somethings, you're gonna be old in the blink of an eye....and you're gonna pay through the wazoo. Promise.

Greed is but one of the major drivers of capitalism and is good and held in check by competition...

Greed is the sole driver of crony capitalism, fed and nurtured by corrupt democrats....

Crony capitalism....

Competition is only one of the things that keeps prices down.

The major instrument to keep prices down is regulation.

The ONLY result of unregulated capitalism is monopolies.

When a company is able to prevent competition you get what we have now.

When regulation prevents monopolies you have that competition.

The Sherman Anti Trust act that Roosevelt signed into law is designed to prevent monopolies and thus promote competition.

America stopped enforcing those anti trust laws in the reagan years. In the years since more regulation has been removed so now we have very little competition in America.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Doctors will charge whatever the traffic will bear. Similarly, for profit hospitals are beholding to their shareholders. A stay in hospital can easily rack up a bill of $100,000 in a week. Everyone wants good, cheap, fast health care. You can have two of three, but you can't have all free. Americans have opted for good and fast. And they're willing to pay twice as much as anyone else for it. Or was that the only choice they've been given?

Big oil makes the most money and pays the least taxes of any of the "bigs". Oil being so necessary to the economy and all. But I disagree that $40.00 a barrel oil should do more than cut the price of gas in half. Americans already have some of the cheapest petroleum products in the world. While the price of crude has dropped substantially, the costs of refining it haven't gone down. So I'm good with $2.40 gas.

No, cutting taxes without first balancing the budget is going to increase the debt. It happened under Reagan, it happened under W. Creating new programs or departments without specific taxes to pay for them, increases the deficit, e.g. Department of Homeland Security created under W's administration, massive budget, all on the credit card, Medicaid Part D - another unfunded program which continues to add to the deficit.

And let's be really, really clear - Republican Presidents increase the deficit, like the sun rising in the east. Reagan was very critical of Carter's deficits and promised to balance the budget after he'd been in office for two years. Instead, he doubled the deficit, and by the end of his second term, tripled it. The last President to have a balanced budget, Bill Clinton, managed to do so while raising both taxes and the minimum wage - two things conservatives tell us kill jobs and reduce revenues.

And what does Trump propose to do - cut taxes and spend, spend, spend.

Who makes more on a gallon of gas, government or big oil?

You've told your lie twice, so it's time to call you on it.

 

[Slade3200]

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:

One seat belts don't "save a life" it prolongs it

Two it's bull shit that seat belt use had any effect on people's lives. in fact it makes people more reckless drivers.


Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts



John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

A seat belt prolonged my life twice; once saving me from serious injury and a second time from certain death.

That said, I'm against mandatory seat belt and helmet laws because it goes against God's Law of Evolution.

IIRC, 68% of all traffic deaths in Texas are from lack of wearing a seat belt despite laws requiring them. As Ron White once said, "You can't fix stupid". I wish we'd stop trying to do so with silly laws.

OTOH, as far as pharmaceutical drugs go, if I follow the directions on a box of medicine and it seriously injures me or kills a family member, then I should have the right to shoot the motherfucking snake-oil salesman marketing it. Therefore, it's either best to let people serve vigilante justice to snake-oil salesmen or set laws preventing snake-oil salesmen from being in business.

Another reckless driver


Check.


No such thing as a "car accident" it takes two to tangle.

Wow, can't argue with stupid...

Then don't argue with yourself..



Again no such thing as a car accident

Either you drive defensively and no car crash...


Or dive offensively and get in a car crash

Not that complicated is it?

Yeah, tell that to the millions that have been rear ended while stopped in traffic or sideswiped while in their lane, or injured passengers sitting in a car that is in an accident... Time to reevaluate your thinking dude, you are dead wrong on this one.

 

[LaDexter]

Competition is only one of the things that keeps prices down.

Public education is exhibit A of government greed in a government monopoly. The more we spend on it, the more the money vanishes, and the worse education the kids receive (because you have to be really really STUPID to believe the Democrats...)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Another cop out answer... I've said multiple times that the government owns a big part of the problem. But you keep painting me with that ignorant partisan brush... I'm about done with you

I've said nothing of party. You promote a Marxist view of how society should run, I take you to task for that.

You made the absurdly ignorant claim that only the FDA can protect our food and drugs. I pointed out that first off, the FDA does a shitty job. It's a government agency staffed by public union hacks who are looking to cruise on the public's dime until they retire at 50. U/L on the other hand does a sterling job, it is after all private, and MUST perform in order to get paid. Capitalism saves lives Comrade, because capitalists must provide value in order for others to PAY them. Not so with socialists. Government hacks get paid regardless. No matter how many die, the FDA is in no danger of "losing a contract."

That I recognize you as part of the parasite class has no relevance on party.

 

[Tehon]

The cost savings via generics only comes into play when there are multiple players on the field. Currently the FDA has a 2-3 year wait for generic drug approval, AFTER the paperwork has gone in.

Epinephrin is generic, about on the level of aspirin. What Mylan has is a precision delivery system. There is no patent on their device, so anyone who wants to can compete. The obvious avenue is an electronic measuring system for doses. Mylan claims that the Epipen costs about $70 to make, If true, an electronic version that costs $10 to produce could take the market.

Wish I had $5 million in capital, I would pursue this and eat Mylans lunch. Someone will, and soon.

You're an idiot.
Drug patent 8,870,827 expiration and generic entry

 

[Dana7360]

Wrong....capitalism will give us a solution....a monopoly is not a capitalistic situation...that is pure socialism....[/QUOTE]

Oh man...lmfao...wow....
...as the Pequod sinks...[/QUOTE]




The post you replied to above is a huge red flag that you're wasting your time with trying to reason with that person.

That person thinks that all views that aren't the same as theirs is socialism. Which is so wrong there aren't words to describe how wrong it is.

Monopolies can't be socialism because they're privately owned and operated.

Socialism is the government owning, controlling and operating the business. The government receives all profits from that business.

Monopolies are the result of unregulated capitalism. Which isn't socialism. The only result of unregulated capitalism is monopolies and oligarchies. Which we're very close to right now. Thanks to conservative deregulation starting in the reagan years.