Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First Amendment dude... If I see a company doing shady shit I have every right voice my opinion and demonize them for doing so... Want to know why? Because if enough people do that then this happens: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?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.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.
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.
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.
First Amendment dude... If I see a company doing shady shit I have every right voice my opinion and demonize them for doing so... What to know why? Because if enough people do that then this happens:
Mylan pledges to make EpiPen more affordable
Wow, crazy how that works!
What do you think that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State should have done about it?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 accessSo 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?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
Trump has no power to do anything about it. Hillary is trying to defuse it because of the pay to play donation.
They raised the price 500% and the government didn't even notice it or do anything about it.
I almost forget, fuck you!
Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.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.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.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.
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?
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.
I think for the most part you are correct, esp when it comes to product pricing... When it comes to health, safety and availability I think there is room for some government oversight.First Amendment dude... If I see a company doing shady shit I have every right voice my opinion and demonize them for doing so... What to know why? Because if enough people do that then this happens:
Mylan pledges to make EpiPen more affordable
Wow, crazy how that works!
Consumer education can fix abuse in the free market most of the time.
Involuntary government mandates only serve destructive ends. It is a cop out, when you can just gather voluntary support and enact justified social outrage.
When it comes to health, safety and availability I think there is room for some government oversight.
So basically you don't know shit about this situation you just want to complain and rag on Clinton... Cool, we get it. I appreciate the apology for the insult, I'm happy to have a civilized conversation about this but you gotta know what you are talking about... Clinton has nothing to do with the EpiPen situation, no responsibility or control to stop it. If she did anything to oppose it then you all would be bitching about government overstep. Yet you complain when she doesn't do more than voice her objections. Trump on the other hand does nothing but insult Clinton. Try and look at this objectively, it is pretty ridiculousWhat do you think that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State should have done about it?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 accessSo 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.
They raised the price 500% and the government didn't even notice it or do anything about it.
I almost forget, fuck you!
Nothing is what she did and a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation helped keep her to keep her mouth shut and do nothing.
I really shouldn't say that because I don't even know when the raise in prices happened and I am too lazy to look it up.
I do know what quid pro quo means, and I should not have said F you OK?
We're talking about the same assholes who took inhalers away from asthmatics. How anyone is stupid enough to vote for them is a mystery.so what have the democrats and Obama done about this since then?......just askin....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.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....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.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.
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.
What regulation did I say should be done on this issue? Please quote meWell 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.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?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?
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??
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.
Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.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.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.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.
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?
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.
Thats a problem all in its own... I agree that it should be a top priorety and be dealt with... However the concept of having objective oversight over such important products like food and medicine is essential... We just need to be doing it waaay better.When it comes to health, safety and availability I think there is room for some government oversight.
Regulations are the worst.
Most regulations that go through were pre-approved by corporate lobbyists. Many regulations are advocated for by the corporate lobbyists with the most money, in order to knock out their competition.
I would of hoped that we had of came to the realization that the government cannot control corporations, because corporations control the government.
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?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
Trump has no power to do anything about it. Hillary is trying to defuse it because of the pay to play donation.
Where is the evidence that anyone received an illegal favor from the government through an audience with Clinton?
Thats a problem all in its own... I agree that it should be a top priorety and be dealt with... However the concept of having objective oversight over such important products like food and medicine is essential... We just need to be doing it waaay better.
You are talking about a non essential commodity that has the potential to kill children in an environment that they are mandated to attend for 5 days a week... Airlines don't stock or serve peanuts on flights when 1 person aboard has a peanut allergy... just just serve other items. Thats fine with me... Do you bitch and moan about that too?What regulation did I say should be done on this issue? Please quote meWell 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.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??
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.
"Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better
Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.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.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?
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.
I didn't decide. The numbers did. Are you going to say that 495 should do without because of 5? Just in case you can't do the math, that's 1%. What they did was take the easy way out and punish 99%.
You imagine? You'd be wrong. That would be just another example of you making a determination thinking you know more about what went on than those of us addressing the dumb bitch.
The school board isn't going to replace a principal over this issue. They don't replace the bad ones over inability to do the job.
The only part that makes it such is the campaign finance system which needs a complete overhaul. Take money out of politics and we will head in the right direction. The element that serves as a counter balance to your corruption is the fact that our officials are elected by the people... gives a sliver of hopeThats a problem all in its own... I agree that it should be a top priorety and be dealt with... However the concept of having objective oversight over such important products like food and medicine is essential... We just need to be doing it waaay better.
The government is the worst form of oversight. It is biased, and it only enforces selectively biased opinions.
You cannot fix what is inherently wrong with the system. Corruption was inevitable. It has plagued government since the foundation of governments.
You are talking about a non essential commodity that has the potential to kill children in an environment that they are mandated to attend for 5 days a week... Airlines don't stock or serve peanuts on flights when 1 person aboard has a peanut allergy... just just serve other items. Thats fine with me... Do you bitch and moan about that too?What regulation did I say should be done on this issue? Please quote meWell 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.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??
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.
"Well before a careless CEO kills thousands of people i'm going to vote for a better
Well now you are being a hypocrite and deciding what is right and wrong... didn't you just try and insult me for doing just that? If a principal who is responsible for the safety of the students in a school knows that 5 children have peanut allergy and they do not want to risk a dead student, then they can do what they want about the policy as long as it is within their power. I imagine there are more parents than just the 5 that understand and support this safety measure. If not and if there is enough opposition then that principal will be replaced with somebody that better serves the will of that community.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.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?
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.
I didn't decide. The numbers did. Are you going to say that 495 should do without because of 5? Just in case you can't do the math, that's 1%. What they did was take the easy way out and punish 99%.
You imagine? You'd be wrong. That would be just another example of you making a determination thinking you know more about what went on than those of us addressing the dumb bitch.
The school board isn't going to replace a principal over this issue. They don't replace the bad ones over inability to do the job.
Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit from one's own efforts.
The PROBLEM comes when those that have the means and access to the elected criminals in government game the system. People like Trump.
The only part that makes it such is the campaign finance system which needs a complete overhaul. Take money out of politics and we will head in the right direction. The element that serves as a counter balance to your corruption is the fact that our officials are elected by the people... gives a sliver of hopeThats a problem all in its own... I agree that it should be a top priorety and be dealt with... However the concept of having objective oversight over such important products like food and medicine is essential... We just need to be doing it waaay better.
The government is the worst form of oversight. It is biased, and it only enforces selectively biased opinions.
You cannot fix what is inherently wrong with the system. Corruption was inevitable. It has plagued government since the foundation of governments.
