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

[healthmyths]

Epinephrine - the medicine --is NOT the issue


Epinephrine is extremely cheap—just a few cents per dose. The complications come from producing the easy auto-injecting devices. Mylan “owns” their auto-injector device design, so competitors must find work-arounds in their devices to deliver the epinephrine into the patient’s body. This task, coupled with the tangled mess of FDA red tape, has proven to be difficult for would-be EpiPen competitors. It’s like expecting somebody to come up with a new way to play baseball without bases, balls, gloves, or bats, but still getting the game approved by the MLB as a baseball game substitute.


The issue is how to get from here

to here

.ABOLISH THE FASCISTIC FDA


.

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

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?

Wow! "How do we prevent dangerous drugs"???
Evil capitalist drug CEO: "let's sell this drug that will kill our customers! Throw us in jail. Cost us billions! Yea that's what we'll do!
Brilliant!

Did I ever imply that defective/dangerous drugs were a result of intention to kill from CEO's?

But you said "dangerous drugs..flood market"? So again I ask you, if a CEO KNOWS that a drug is dangerous would he sell it anyway KNOWING that the
drug would be killing his customers?

I'd hope not... Let me ask you, without proper safety precautions, trials, testing, and safeguards... Could a CEO unknowingly put a drug out on the market that was potentially dangerous to the public?

Of course the CEO could and do you think after a few deaths and gigantic lawsuits, the CEO would still have a job?
You and many capitalist haters that decry the "HUGE" CEO salaries, "millions" seem to always forget when doing that inane comparison
between the "20,000 employees making the same as the ONE CEO" i.e. bitching about salaries of CEOs,etc., don't seem to realize
the employees won't go to jail, lose their job, not have any stock! All because the CEO decision to "unknowingly put a drug on the market"?
That's why they few CEOs get the big bucks but idiots that hate those big buck CEOs... when it comes to making the decisions...uh.. I don't get paid enough" RIGHT!!!
So YES the CEO could but if wrong... he's gone! The workers? Hey they can always get another floor sweeping job... but can that CEO??

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Exactly what I say.

"I have never understood why is it greed to want to keep the money you have earned and not greed to want to take somebody's else's money" - T. Sowell

Both are greed... Keeping what you earn within the bounds of reason this is great, it is commerce, capitalism... but when you leverage a product or service to squeeze people that need it in a way that abuses the power that the company has it turns to greed.

Wanting to keep what you earned can never be greedy. Greedy doesn't involve someone not doing with what they have or what they've earned in a manner you don't like.

Once again, you say something then want to be the one to define it for someone else. You say "within the bounds of reason". That's not for you to decide for anyone but yourself yet you try to do it where you have no place doing it.

You are correct the bounds of reason is not for me to decide... It is for our communities and our society to decide. It's why we have a government

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Do you support the government using tax dollars to fund those EpiPens?

The businesses can tell you what regulations are holding them back. I'm all for safe products and don't think anyone that can mix up something should be able to do so simply because they can. However, beyond the safety part, the government needs to stay out of it.

I don't mind the government paying for schools to be stocked with EpiPens but given their actions with the inflated pricing is hope the gov could find a better solution like one of the generics. There has to be some kind of control in the medical industry, pharm companies can't hold cures and treatments to our ailments hostage only for the rich to use. I don't think that is ethical. Do you?

Then you are for government regulation on this issue. You said you weren't. Which one is it?

It's not my place to determine ethics for someone else.

Whether there is government intervention regarding a specific product completely depends on the situation. I am acknowledging the usefulness for this oversight to be in place to protect the public and think it is necessary at times. You asked if I think the Gov should intervine with the EpiPen. I said no. Given that there are alternative, cheaper options, and the horrible publicity they are getting I think the problem will work itself out.

I suspect you when you think the government should intervene is exactly when they should and when you don't think they should intervene it's exactly when they shouldn't.

 

[Conservative65]

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

I have a recommendation. Don't eat shellfish.

About three years ago, I woke up in the middle of night and my ankle was hurting much like a sprain. However, there was little to no swelling and no bruising. I had worked in the yard earlier that day and thought that I had done something. When it didn't get better, I went to the doctor and he diagnosed it as gout. He explained to me that gout attacks are a result of uric acid buildup. We went through a list of foods and determined that peanuts were the cause. Peanuts have purines which the body metabolizes to uric acid. Needless to say I rarely eat peanuts and in small amounts when I do.

Yeah that's the idea but you never know what might get into your food especially when dining at a restaurant. My friend let's waiters know about her allergy every time she eats out but all it takes is using the same pan or spatula or deep frier

Sounds like to me you need to push the government to outlaw shellfish altogether. While you're at it, since so many are allergic to peanut butter, get them to do that, too.

dont be stupid, you were doing pretty good at having a decent conversation

I offered a suggestion on how to solve the problem. You said there are times when the government should intervene and seem to believe when it's related to health reasons, it's justified.

Don't think the one about peanut butter hasn't been done at least on a local level. Where my daughter went to preschool, there were kids that were allergic to peanut butter. Rather than dealing with it on a case by case basis, the school, which is an arm of a governmental body, decided to tell everyone they couldn't bring ANY food that had peanut butter in it including PBJ sandwiches, peanut butter/cheese crackers, etc. NOTHING.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Exactly what I say.

"I have never understood why is it greed to want to keep the money you have earned and not greed to want to take somebody's else's money" - T. Sowell

Both are greed... Keeping what you earn within the bounds of reason this is great, it is commerce, capitalism... but when you leverage a product or service to squeeze people that need it in a way that abuses the power that the company has it turns to greed.

Wanting to keep what you earned can never be greedy. Greedy doesn't involve someone not doing with what they have or what they've earned in a manner you don't like.

Once again, you say something then want to be the one to define it for someone else. You say "within the bounds of reason". That's not for you to decide for anyone but yourself yet you try to do it where you have no place doing it.

You are correct the bounds of reason is not for me to decide... It is for our communities and our society to decide. It's why we have a government

When the group that decides is nothing more than more than 1 individual having the same opinion, it's no different than one individual doing it. Having more that agree doesn't change that.

 

[Slade3200]

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

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?

Wow! "How do we prevent dangerous drugs"???
Evil capitalist drug CEO: "let's sell this drug that will kill our customers! Throw us in jail. Cost us billions! Yea that's what we'll do!
Brilliant!

Did I ever imply that defective/dangerous drugs were a result of intention to kill from CEO's?

But you said "dangerous drugs..flood market"? So again I ask you, if a CEO KNOWS that a drug is dangerous would he sell it anyway KNOWING that the
drug would be killing his customers?

I'd hope not... Let me ask you, without proper safety precautions, trials, testing, and safeguards... Could a CEO unknowingly put a drug out on the market that was potentially dangerous to the public?

Of course the CEO could and do you think after a few deaths and gigantic lawsuits, the CEO would still have a job?
You and many capitalist haters that decry the "HUGE" CEO salaries, "millions" seem to always forget when doing that inane comparison
between the "20,000 employees making the same as the ONE CEO" i.e. bitching about salaries of CEOs,etc., don't seem to realize
the employees won't go to jail, lose their job, not have any stock! All because the CEO decision to "unknowingly put a drug on the market"?
That's why they few CEOs get the big bucks but idiots that hate those big buck CEOs... when it comes to making the decisions...uh.. I don't get paid enough" RIGHT!!!
So YES the CEO could but if wrong... he's gone! The workers? Hey they can always get another floor sweeping job... but can that CEO??

Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better safeguard system than the threat of getting fired or possible going to jail.

Lets not forget about Thalidomide and other similar drugs: Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thalidomide became an over-the-counter drug in West Germany on October 1, 1957. Shortly after the drug was sold in West Germany, between 5,000 and 7,000 infants were born with phocomelia (malformation of the limbs). Only 40% of these children survived.[4]Throughout the world, about 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia due to thalidomide; only 50% of the 10,000 survived. Those subjected to thalidomide while in the womb experienced limb deficiencies in a way that the long limbs either were not developed or presented themselves as stumps. Other effects included deformed eyes and hearts, deformed alimentary and urinary tracts, blindness and deafness.[5] The negative effects of thalidomide led to the development of more structured drug regulations and control over drug use and development.[6]

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Do you support the government using tax dollars to fund those EpiPens?

The businesses can tell you what regulations are holding them back. I'm all for safe products and don't think anyone that can mix up something should be able to do so simply because they can. However, beyond the safety part, the government needs to stay out of it.

I don't mind the government paying for schools to be stocked with EpiPens but given their actions with the inflated pricing is hope the gov could find a better solution like one of the generics. There has to be some kind of control in the medical industry, pharm companies can't hold cures and treatments to our ailments hostage only for the rich to use. I don't think that is ethical. Do you?

Then you are for government regulation on this issue. You said you weren't. Which one is it?

It's not my place to determine ethics for someone else.

Whether there is government intervention regarding a specific product completely depends on the situation. I am acknowledging the usefulness for this oversight to be in place to protect the public and think it is necessary at times. You asked if I think the Gov should intervine with the EpiPen. I said no. Given that there are alternative, cheaper options, and the horrible publicity they are getting I think the problem will work itself out.

I suspect you when you think the government should intervene is exactly when they should and when you don't think they should intervene it's exactly when they shouldn't.

Yes dumbass, thats called an opinion... As you have the right to have your own opinion. As long as we have a process or system in place that I agree with I will respect it. If I don't agree with it then I will voice my opinion... Thats how democracy works.

 

[Slade3200]

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

I have a recommendation. Don't eat shellfish.

About three years ago, I woke up in the middle of night and my ankle was hurting much like a sprain. However, there was little to no swelling and no bruising. I had worked in the yard earlier that day and thought that I had done something. When it didn't get better, I went to the doctor and he diagnosed it as gout. He explained to me that gout attacks are a result of uric acid buildup. We went through a list of foods and determined that peanuts were the cause. Peanuts have purines which the body metabolizes to uric acid. Needless to say I rarely eat peanuts and in small amounts when I do.

Yeah that's the idea but you never know what might get into your food especially when dining at a restaurant. My friend let's waiters know about her allergy every time she eats out but all it takes is using the same pan or spatula or deep frier

Sounds like to me you need to push the government to outlaw shellfish altogether. While you're at it, since so many are allergic to peanut butter, get them to do that, too.

dont be stupid, you were doing pretty good at having a decent conversation

I offered a suggestion on how to solve the problem. You said there are times when the government should intervene and seem to believe when it's related to health reasons, it's justified.

Don't think the one about peanut butter hasn't been done at least on a local level. Where my daughter went to preschool, there were kids that were allergic to peanut butter. Rather than dealing with it on a case by case basis, the school, which is an arm of a governmental body, decided to tell everyone they couldn't bring ANY food that had peanut butter in it including PBJ sandwiches, peanut butter/cheese crackers, etc. NOTHING.

If you object to your school banning peanut butter then you can rally up the parents to protest that decision. Get enough voices then you have the ability to change the policy. But make a valid argument and gain support. Ranting about big government or liberal overreach isn't going to cut it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

you have a lot more faith in those people than i do......

Well part of the problem is people like you depend on the government from womb to tomb! You depend on a cop on every corner. There is never enough rules and regulations for people that don't have any sense of personal responsibility. The concept of the golden rule is not restricted to theological discussions but people like you
should encourage more personal responsibility then MORE government responsibility. Again there is no way short of an wireless implant that shocks the individual that at any time any where if someone breaks a law or regulation a mild shock is administered. That's why responsible people don't need that implant because we are taught
social and personal responsibility.

geezus.....you got all that out of what i said?....well what i got out of what you said is this....you are one dumb motherfucker....lol....

Slade was one before he made that comment.

well he quoted me.....so i answered....

I agree with you 100%. Just saying the post to which you responded didn't make him what he is. That goes way back.

oh ok.....

 

[Conservative65]

Do you support the government using tax dollars to fund those EpiPens?

The businesses can tell you what regulations are holding them back. I'm all for safe products and don't think anyone that can mix up something should be able to do so simply because they can. However, beyond the safety part, the government needs to stay out of it.

I don't mind the government paying for schools to be stocked with EpiPens but given their actions with the inflated pricing is hope the gov could find a better solution like one of the generics. There has to be some kind of control in the medical industry, pharm companies can't hold cures and treatments to our ailments hostage only for the rich to use. I don't think that is ethical. Do you?

Then you are for government regulation on this issue. You said you weren't. Which one is it?

It's not my place to determine ethics for someone else.

Whether there is government intervention regarding a specific product completely depends on the situation. I am acknowledging the usefulness for this oversight to be in place to protect the public and think it is necessary at times. You asked if I think the Gov should intervine with the EpiPen. I said no. Given that there are alternative, cheaper options, and the horrible publicity they are getting I think the problem will work itself out.

I suspect you when you think the government should intervene is exactly when they should and when you don't think they should intervene it's exactly when they shouldn't.

Yes dumbass, thats called an opinion... As you have the right to have your own opinion. As long as we have a process or system in place that I agree with I will respect it. If I don't agree with it then I will voice my opinion... Thats how democracy works.

In other words, you base your opinion on like/dislike rather than good/bad. Got it.

What's popular isn't always good and what's good isn't always popular. You've proven your opinion is based on popularity.

 

[Conservative65]

I have a recommendation. Don't eat shellfish.

About three years ago, I woke up in the middle of night and my ankle was hurting much like a sprain. However, there was little to no swelling and no bruising. I had worked in the yard earlier that day and thought that I had done something. When it didn't get better, I went to the doctor and he diagnosed it as gout. He explained to me that gout attacks are a result of uric acid buildup. We went through a list of foods and determined that peanuts were the cause. Peanuts have purines which the body metabolizes to uric acid. Needless to say I rarely eat peanuts and in small amounts when I do.

Yeah that's the idea but you never know what might get into your food especially when dining at a restaurant. My friend let's waiters know about her allergy every time she eats out but all it takes is using the same pan or spatula or deep frier

Sounds like to me you need to push the government to outlaw shellfish altogether. While you're at it, since so many are allergic to peanut butter, get them to do that, too.

dont be stupid, you were doing pretty good at having a decent conversation

I offered a suggestion on how to solve the problem. You said there are times when the government should intervene and seem to believe when it's related to health reasons, it's justified.

Don't think the one about peanut butter hasn't been done at least on a local level. Where my daughter went to preschool, there were kids that were allergic to peanut butter. Rather than dealing with it on a case by case basis, the school, which is an arm of a governmental body, decided to tell everyone they couldn't bring ANY food that had peanut butter in it including PBJ sandwiches, peanut butter/cheese crackers, etc. NOTHING.

If you object to your school banning peanut butter then you can rally up the parents to protest that decision. Get enough voices then you have the ability to change the policy. But make a valid argument and gain support. Ranting about big government or liberal overreach isn't going to cut it.

There was plenty of rallying and support to change it. The principal's decision to ignore it was much like that of most Liberals. The wants of the very few outweigh those of the vast majority.

When it's government overreach, what should you address, the color of the paint in the room?

 

[TooTall]

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.

I think Hillary will solve the problem. Mylan’s contribution to the Clinton Foundation should give her some leverage. LOL

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray over rapid price increases for the EpiPen, a life-saving injection for people who are having severe allergic reactions.

Mrs. Clinton called the recent price hikes of the EpiPen “outrageous, and just the latest example of a company taking advantage of its consumers.” The EpiPen, made by Mylan NV, contains an injectable form of epinephrine that can be jabbed into the thigh to open airways of people who are having what is called anaphylactic shock.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has had no comment on the price increase. But a spokesman for his campaign says Mrs. Clinton isn’t doing enough to show her opposition. He noted that Mylan has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation and said that “if Hillary Clinton is as outraged as she claims” then she should direct the foundation to return “every penny” it has received."

Hillary Clinton Calls for Mylan to Lower EpiPen Price Amid Outcry

So Hillary speaks out against it... Trump doesn't say a word... And trumps campaigns only comment is that Hillary isn't doing enough?? Anybody see the irony in that?

Trump has no power to do anything about it. Hillary is trying to defuse it because of the pay to play donation.

Haha, it always amuses me to hear he mindless drones try and use the latest talking points... Ok, so they donated to the foundation there's pay.... How did they play? What did they get in return?? Don't even think about saying access

They raised the price 500% and the government didn't even notice it or do anything about it.
I almost forget, fuck you!

 

[Slade3200]

I don't mind the government paying for schools to be stocked with EpiPens but given their actions with the inflated pricing is hope the gov could find a better solution like one of the generics. There has to be some kind of control in the medical industry, pharm companies can't hold cures and treatments to our ailments hostage only for the rich to use. I don't think that is ethical. Do you?

Then you are for government regulation on this issue. You said you weren't. Which one is it?

It's not my place to determine ethics for someone else.

Whether there is government intervention regarding a specific product completely depends on the situation. I am acknowledging the usefulness for this oversight to be in place to protect the public and think it is necessary at times. You asked if I think the Gov should intervine with the EpiPen. I said no. Given that there are alternative, cheaper options, and the horrible publicity they are getting I think the problem will work itself out.

I suspect you when you think the government should intervene is exactly when they should and when you don't think they should intervene it's exactly when they shouldn't.

Yes dumbass, thats called an opinion... As you have the right to have your own opinion. As long as we have a process or system in place that I agree with I will respect it. If I don't agree with it then I will voice my opinion... Thats how democracy works.

In other words, you base your opinion on like/dislike rather than good/bad. Got it.

What's popular isn't always good and what's good isn't always popular. You've proven your opinion is based on popularity.

I base my options on information, logic, reason, experience, and analysis... You have a horrible habit of putting words in peoples mouths and making false assumptions. Anybody ever tell you that?

 

[Conservative65]

Wow! "How do we prevent dangerous drugs"???
Evil capitalist drug CEO: "let's sell this drug that will kill our customers! Throw us in jail. Cost us billions! Yea that's what we'll do!
Brilliant!

Did I ever imply that defective/dangerous drugs were a result of intention to kill from CEO's?

But you said "dangerous drugs..flood market"? So again I ask you, if a CEO KNOWS that a drug is dangerous would he sell it anyway KNOWING that the
drug would be killing his customers?

I'd hope not... Let me ask you, without proper safety precautions, trials, testing, and safeguards... Could a CEO unknowingly put a drug out on the market that was potentially dangerous to the public?

Of course the CEO could and do you think after a few deaths and gigantic lawsuits, the CEO would still have a job?
You and many capitalist haters that decry the "HUGE" CEO salaries, "millions" seem to always forget when doing that inane comparison
between the "20,000 employees making the same as the ONE CEO" i.e. bitching about salaries of CEOs,etc., don't seem to realize
the employees won't go to jail, lose their job, not have any stock! All because the CEO decision to "unknowingly put a drug on the market"?
That's why they few CEOs get the big bucks but idiots that hate those big buck CEOs... when it comes to making the decisions...uh.. I don't get paid enough" RIGHT!!!
So YES the CEO could but if wrong... he's gone! The workers? Hey they can always get another floor sweeping job... but can that CEO??

Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better safeguard system than the threat of getting fired or possible going to jail.

Lets not forget about Thalidomide and other similar drugs: Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thalidomide became an over-the-counter drug in West Germany on October 1, 1957. Shortly after the drug was sold in West Germany, between 5,000 and 7,000 infants were born with phocomelia (malformation of the limbs). Only 40% of these children survived.[4]Throughout the world, about 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia due to thalidomide; only 50% of the 10,000 survived. Those subjected to thalidomide while in the womb experienced limb deficiencies in a way that the long limbs either were not developed or presented themselves as stumps. Other effects included deformed eyes and hearts, deformed alimentary and urinary tracts, blindness and deafness.[5] The negative effects of thalidomide led to the development of more structured drug regulations and control over drug use and development.[6]

If someone that needs an EpiPen can't get one, it isn't the CEO's fault. It's yours. What you're voting for is government regulation on an issue where you said it shouldn't happen.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah that's the idea but you never know what might get into your food especially when dining at a restaurant. My friend let's waiters know about her allergy every time she eats out but all it takes is using the same pan or spatula or deep frier

Sounds like to me you need to push the government to outlaw shellfish altogether. While you're at it, since so many are allergic to peanut butter, get them to do that, too.

dont be stupid, you were doing pretty good at having a decent conversation

I offered a suggestion on how to solve the problem. You said there are times when the government should intervene and seem to believe when it's related to health reasons, it's justified.

Don't think the one about peanut butter hasn't been done at least on a local level. Where my daughter went to preschool, there were kids that were allergic to peanut butter. Rather than dealing with it on a case by case basis, the school, which is an arm of a governmental body, decided to tell everyone they couldn't bring ANY food that had peanut butter in it including PBJ sandwiches, peanut butter/cheese crackers, etc. NOTHING.

If you object to your school banning peanut butter then you can rally up the parents to protest that decision. Get enough voices then you have the ability to change the policy. But make a valid argument and gain support. Ranting about big government or liberal overreach isn't going to cut it.

There was plenty of rallying and support to change it. The principal's decision to ignore it was much like that of most Liberals. The wants of the very few outweigh those of the vast majority.

When it's government overreach, what should you address, the color of the paint in the room?

Like with any business where is a CEO a decision maker. For the school you had the principle. With either situation you aren't always going to get your way. With government we at least have the ability to elect new representatives if we do not like the decisions of the leader. Why do you make it a liberal thing? That has nothing to do with it.

 

[Conservative65]

Then you are for government regulation on this issue. You said you weren't. Which one is it?

It's not my place to determine ethics for someone else.

Whether there is government intervention regarding a specific product completely depends on the situation. I am acknowledging the usefulness for this oversight to be in place to protect the public and think it is necessary at times. You asked if I think the Gov should intervine with the EpiPen. I said no. Given that there are alternative, cheaper options, and the horrible publicity they are getting I think the problem will work itself out.

I suspect you when you think the government should intervene is exactly when they should and when you don't think they should intervene it's exactly when they shouldn't.

Yes dumbass, thats called an opinion... As you have the right to have your own opinion. As long as we have a process or system in place that I agree with I will respect it. If I don't agree with it then I will voice my opinion... Thats how democracy works.

In other words, you base your opinion on like/dislike rather than good/bad. Got it.

What's popular isn't always good and what's good isn't always popular. You've proven your opinion is based on popularity.

I base my options on information, logic, reason, experience, and analysis... You have a horrible habit of putting words in peoples mouths and making false assumptions. Anybody ever tell you that?

You do but like most things, you're full of shit and your opinions amount to less than that.

I make no false assumptions about you. You say all sorts of things should be done involving things for which are none of your business. It's not of you business what a company charges for a product they sell. If you don't like the price don't buy it. It's that simple but it's not your place to say what that price should be.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I think Hillary will solve the problem. Mylan’s contribution to the Clinton Foundation should give her some leverage. LOL

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray over rapid price increases for the EpiPen, a life-saving injection for people who are having severe allergic reactions.

Mrs. Clinton called the recent price hikes of the EpiPen “outrageous, and just the latest example of a company taking advantage of its consumers.” The EpiPen, made by Mylan NV, contains an injectable form of epinephrine that can be jabbed into the thigh to open airways of people who are having what is called anaphylactic shock.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has had no comment on the price increase. But a spokesman for his campaign says Mrs. Clinton isn’t doing enough to show her opposition. He noted that Mylan has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation and said that “if Hillary Clinton is as outraged as she claims” then she should direct the foundation to return “every penny” it has received."

Hillary Clinton Calls for Mylan to Lower EpiPen Price Amid Outcry

So Hillary speaks out against it... Trump doesn't say a word... And trumps campaigns only comment is that Hillary isn't doing enough?? Anybody see the irony in that?

Trump has no power to do anything about it. Hillary is trying to defuse it because of the pay to play donation.

Haha, it always amuses me to hear he mindless drones try and use the latest talking points... Ok, so they donated to the foundation there's pay.... How did they play? What did they get in return?? Don't even think about saying access

They raised the price 500% and the government didn't even notice it or do anything about it.
I almost forget, fuck you!

What do you think that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State should have done about it?

 

[Slade3200]

Did I ever imply that defective/dangerous drugs were a result of intention to kill from CEO's?

But you said "dangerous drugs..flood market"? So again I ask you, if a CEO KNOWS that a drug is dangerous would he sell it anyway KNOWING that the
drug would be killing his customers?

I'd hope not... Let me ask you, without proper safety precautions, trials, testing, and safeguards... Could a CEO unknowingly put a drug out on the market that was potentially dangerous to the public?

Of course the CEO could and do you think after a few deaths and gigantic lawsuits, the CEO would still have a job?
You and many capitalist haters that decry the "HUGE" CEO salaries, "millions" seem to always forget when doing that inane comparison
between the "20,000 employees making the same as the ONE CEO" i.e. bitching about salaries of CEOs,etc., don't seem to realize
the employees won't go to jail, lose their job, not have any stock! All because the CEO decision to "unknowingly put a drug on the market"?
That's why they few CEOs get the big bucks but idiots that hate those big buck CEOs... when it comes to making the decisions...uh.. I don't get paid enough" RIGHT!!!
So YES the CEO could but if wrong... he's gone! The workers? Hey they can always get another floor sweeping job... but can that CEO??

Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better safeguard system than the threat of getting fired or possible going to jail.

Lets not forget about Thalidomide and other similar drugs: Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thalidomide became an over-the-counter drug in West Germany on October 1, 1957. Shortly after the drug was sold in West Germany, between 5,000 and 7,000 infants were born with phocomelia (malformation of the limbs). Only 40% of these children survived.[4]Throughout the world, about 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia due to thalidomide; only 50% of the 10,000 survived. Those subjected to thalidomide while in the womb experienced limb deficiencies in a way that the long limbs either were not developed or presented themselves as stumps. Other effects included deformed eyes and hearts, deformed alimentary and urinary tracts, blindness and deafness.[5] The negative effects of thalidomide led to the development of more structured drug regulations and control over drug use and development.[6]

If someone that needs an EpiPen can't get one, it isn't the CEO's fault. It's yours. What you're voting for is government regulation on an issue where you said it shouldn't happen.

What regulation did I say should be done on this issue? Please quote me

 

[Onyx]

I agree that greed is a problem. The existence of capital serves the greedy.

Regulating the free market is not the proper means to stop greed. We all have consumer choice, and when that doesn't work, we can always get a loaded gun.

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds like to me you need to push the government to outlaw shellfish altogether. While you're at it, since so many are allergic to peanut butter, get them to do that, too.

dont be stupid, you were doing pretty good at having a decent conversation

I offered a suggestion on how to solve the problem. You said there are times when the government should intervene and seem to believe when it's related to health reasons, it's justified.

Don't think the one about peanut butter hasn't been done at least on a local level. Where my daughter went to preschool, there were kids that were allergic to peanut butter. Rather than dealing with it on a case by case basis, the school, which is an arm of a governmental body, decided to tell everyone they couldn't bring ANY food that had peanut butter in it including PBJ sandwiches, peanut butter/cheese crackers, etc. NOTHING.

If you object to your school banning peanut butter then you can rally up the parents to protest that decision. Get enough voices then you have the ability to change the policy. But make a valid argument and gain support. Ranting about big government or liberal overreach isn't going to cut it.

There was plenty of rallying and support to change it. The principal's decision to ignore it was much like that of most Liberals. The wants of the very few outweigh those of the vast majority.

When it's government overreach, what should you address, the color of the paint in the room?

Like with any business where is a CEO a decision maker. For the school you had the principle. With either situation you aren't always going to get your way. With government we at least have the ability to elect new representatives if we do not like the decisions of the leader. Why do you make it a liberal thing? That has nothing to do with it.

I didn't make a Liberal thing. The principal was a Liberal. She made it that way by being one.

It's not about getting my way. It's about doing what's right in that situation. When, in a school of 500, 5 are the cause of such a drastic decision, it's not right to punish the other 495.