You want everyone to leave each other alone and use that broadly and dogmatically as an argument against virtually every policy issue discussed (including universal healthcare, which is ironic given your views on prescription drugs), but you want to dictate what private companies can charge for the medicine they make. You don't see the contradiction there?
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
2024 Election - What are your key issues, if you are voting?
- Thread starter WalterSlovotsky
- Start date
- Views 8,679
- Replies 220
- Likes 4
- Status
No. You missed it again. Intentional. Price. Gouging.
Patent. Laws.
EVERY medication in the world can be produced for twenty bucks, with very, very few exceptions, like one that requires hummingbird blood, or some shit. Can't remember, just read about it not too long ago.
For example, Tadalafil, also known as Adcirca is a hypertension drug. 30-day prescription is $518. The components cost twelve bucks. Celebrex is $210 a month to treat osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Ten dorrah.
There is no justification for a company to INTENTIONALLY price people out of medicine they need. That is harming other people. If they didn't jack up the prices, EVERYONE could afford them.
I feel like this is the third, or fourth time I've said this?
And there is an EASY FIX. DELETE!
Just remove that ONE patent law, and then no one is harmed by drug prices anymore. Every company still has perfect liberty to charge WHATEVER THEY LIKE. Just as they did before. Except NOW there's free market competition, so the consumer wins, not the profiteers. The current law that exists is protecting the wrong entity. It's protecting Big Pharma, and not the people they are actively harming. DELETE. Problem solved.
You know that "Excedrin" is not a drug, right? It's a brand name. It's aspirin. Comes from fucking tree bark. Literally. The Natives gave us this medicine. A bottle of Exedrin is what, ten bucks? You can get the same exact components from the Dollar Tree for a buck. Does the exact same thing.
If Excedrin could patent it, though, they would be charging a hundred dollars for 24 pills, and you know it. Are you a secret Martin Shkreli supporter? I thought you were a progressive.
Last edited by WalterSlovotsky,
Even if I take your statements as facts, how is the fact of what something can be produced for relevant to its cost, particularly in a capitalist society? How is it anymore relevant than me citing the fact that collectively humans have more food than they need to feed everybody?
Removing the patent law would harm the people that hold the patent by reducing their ability to capitalize on the drugs that they created. Would it be for the better for humanity overall? Absolutely it would, but that tradeoff is the crux of virtually every policy discussion.
Removing the patent law would harm the people that hold the patent by reducing their ability to capitalize on the drugs that they created. Would it be for the better for humanity overall? Absolutely it would, but that tradeoff is the crux of virtually every policy discussion.
Free market enterprise. That's the point. Any company who tries to charge too much will get priced out by its competitors, which is the beauty of capitalism. The consumer always wins, unless the laws are stacked against him.
Jonas Salk never patented the polio vaccine. Do you know why?
He was a healer. It was his gift to humanity. It wasn't about profit.
Pfizer SURE AS FUCK patented their COVID jabs, though, and not only them, but ALL of social media (mostly Twitter) and the entire fucking US Government got behind them to get that needle into as many arms as possible. Cha-MOTHERFUCKING-CHING! Come on, brother. Come on. Just... come on. You know. Come on.
Just count the active miltary who was forced to accept it. CHA CHING with every single jab, captive audience that can't say no. CHA-CHANG! Did you see Pfizer's profits recently? It's obscene. BP/Exxon-obscene. Saudi Oil Prince obscene.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/31/the...ers-2022-revenue-to-a-record-100-billion.html
The United States collectively spends approximately $250 billion per year on medical research and technology. This is less than a third of our military budget, and barely twice what we sent to Ukraine, this year, alone. AGAIN, if we decimate the military budget, we can fund every single drug that is currently being researched in this nation and then some. And STILL we get a pony.
Don't you want a pony?
Last edited by WalterSlovotsky,
It's not free market capitalism to dissolve patents and copyright by law. The government interfering with private businesses is the exact opposite of free market capitalism.
Your example of the Polio Vaccine is irrelevant if the guy chose not to patent it.
Mass funding medicine is no different than mass funding SNAP, student debt forgiveness, the military or anything else, it's still a form of socialism that you seem to be dogmatically against based on your prior arguments.
Again, I actually agree with your position on this issue, but you can't hold to your principles only when it's convenient for your subjective views on a particular policy as that is hypocritical.
Not being hypocritical at all. I do not agree with any law that enables or protects someone that is harming another person intentionally. That is antithetical to the purpose of the law existing in the first place.
You are claiming that I want the government to interfere. That is also the opposite of the case. I want the government to get the fuck out of medicine, as well as everything else that they can possibly get out of. Small, powerless government, remember?
No patent law for medication should exist that goes beyond the period of time it would require for the company to recoup its expenses in discovering, creating, inventing, testing and distributing the drug, with a reasonable and non-extortionate profit.
This is, again, in this wonderful world with a tiny military budget, and all of this other money going towards things that actually HELP Americans. This is in this imaginary land where we don't need the biggest dick swinging to still feel like 'Muricans.
So, the R&D was already paid for. They got their wages while they were developing the drug. It's rolled out, everyone is saved and healthy now. Cool. Now invent something else. We're paying you to do just that.
No confliction. No contradictions. We change a few of the rules to make them stop harming people, and everyone is happy.
You're ignoring that removing patent law for medicine harms the people making the medicine. It could also harm consumers of the medicine by removing the incentive for that company to invent more medicine if it's not going to be patented. Also, what justifies allowing patents on anything else then?
In every law or policy there will be people that are harmed and people that benefit. It is not as simple as just allowing stuff that doesn't harm people. For example, if you cut the military budget to 10%, that's going to harm people. That's going to cause thousands if not millions of people to lose their jobs. It's going to make the country less secure.
If you cut SNAP funding, that's going to cause millions of people to lose the ability to pay for food. If you expand SNAP funding, that's going to have an opportunity cost in the form of taxpayer dollars.
But, it doesn't harm the people making the medicine at all. Again, all of their R&D is funded. They are all getting the same paychecks, for the same work. Where is the difference?
Cutting the military budget is going to cause some very highly qualified people to find new jobs in a country that worships the military, and provides massive, massive benefits to anyone who has served. I hear we need people down at the border... I hear that we are suffering some of the worst and most violent crime in American history, and we could DAMNED sure use some good, disciplined cops on the force in every city in America...
I have a different solution for food insecurity. Everything comes down to energy costs. That is why we can't get five-dollar footlongs anymore. Seriously. When the energy prices spiked, so did distribution/refrigeration/storage costs. All of that gets passed down to us. We accepted it during the pandemic, ALL of the manufacturers noticed, and decided, fuck it, let's keep charging them the same.
Except the energy costs still haven't gone down. Can't blame the pandemic anymore. They are 38% higher now than last year. In ONE year. That has been one of the chief reasons for the inflation rate that we are suffering.
If a dollar today is worth 83 cents compared to last year, what the fuck do you think is going to happen to food prices? Even the DOLLAR TREE isn't a dollar anymore, it's a buck twenty-five, When's the last time you saw a Dollar Menu at any fast food restaurant?
The current President has repeatedly tapped into our National Reserves (which we bought at pennies on the dollar compared to prices now), and releasing it to try to create the subterfuge of temporarily lower gas prices, except, as I said, we bought that shit for pennies, and they're selling it at above retail, and WE CAN'T REPLACE IT WITHOUT PAYING RETAIL. Please tell me how that makes sense.
Do you know which part of the US government consumes the most fuel and energy? I'm going to give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. The answer rhymes with "The Pew Tess Bilitary". Or "The Lunited Flates Farmed Horses".
Now, WHERE could we save some fuel costs and energy resources? We wonders, Precious, aye, we wonders.
Last edited by WalterSlovotsky,
Even if that is true (which I'm not at all sure that it is), it harms somebody, whether it be investors or other stakeholders, somebody is being harmed if you limit the ability to capitalize on it. That's the key point.
That is not at all guaranteed.
What part of life was ever guaranteed to you, brother? I mean, that's kind of my point in all of this. We're animals. We're virii. No one promised us an easy life. We're the lowest form of life on the planet. We're the most destructive, the most consumptive.
As a combo-breaker, I have truly appreciated debating with you tonight. This was fun. We'll pick it up again tomorrow.
Well met.
(I'm ignoring all but op for now)
Let's see... My concerns are affordable living standards and decent education. The latter's a bit early, but my little one (now 3.5)will need it. Ecological /sustainable economy as well, but that's probably more a EU concern than a Belgian one. In any case, my vote probably will go to vooruit (formerly sp-a). The fact that Connor Rousseau came out as bisexual says something of their stance on lgbtq+ rights, but I'm mostly just a socialist, so...
Not sure whom to vote for in the eu election yet.
I'm not American, so I'm not very familiar with everyone's stances. Thankfully, Republicans make things easy for me by doing pretty much exactly everything I despise, and with only one alternative, that means I'd vote Bernie Sanders.
Let's see... My concerns are affordable living standards and decent education. The latter's a bit early, but my little one (now 3.5)will need it. Ecological /sustainable economy as well, but that's probably more a EU concern than a Belgian one. In any case, my vote probably will go to vooruit (formerly sp-a). The fact that Connor Rousseau came out as bisexual says something of their stance on lgbtq+ rights, but I'm mostly just a socialist, so...
Not sure whom to vote for in the eu election yet.
I'm not American, so I'm not very familiar with everyone's stances. Thankfully, Republicans make things easy for me by doing pretty much exactly everything I despise, and with only one alternative, that means I'd vote Bernie Sanders.
The same people that would work towards fulfilling basic necessaries, are the same people that would stop the price gouging and monopolies. Are the same people that would make living on this planet more sustainable.
Pretty weird how you keep switching between "who cares about humans?" and "how dare those companies price gouge people!" .
Oh, I still hate humans. Don't get me wrong. Doesn't mean I actively go out to harm them. I happen to BE one of them. Until my mutant gene kicks in, or something that bites me gives me what I deserve.
Powers. Powers are what I was talking about. Not an agonizing death.
I'm a misanthrope, not a sociopath. Hate you, won't hurt you.
Cheers.
I would simply like if we could look at other countries and see what works, and what we can implement in the United States. So, let's use education as an example. Look at a list of countries that are ranked highest in education, and send some ambassadors or whatever to go there and learn how things are being done. Then copy as much as we can here.
If we could do something like that for a lot of our issues here, things could get much better very quickly.
If we could do something like that for a lot of our issues here, things could get much better very quickly.
Issues:
- excessive politicisation of magistracy at all degrees;
- lack of democratic representation due to gerrymandering and FPTP system and electoral college;
- issue of corruption and standards of political class, incl and not limited to issues of age appropriateness for the role;
- green energy and the fact we are actively killing our collective health so that energy fat cats, and the fact that the related climate crisis will lead to further immigration crisis even without Russia's strategy;
- undue press influence, mostly caused by the murdoch empire;
- corporate profits and privileges need to be curbed;
- privatisation, specifically healthcare (not happening but still);
- financial and stock market manipulation corruption issues.
- no more second jobs for politicians while serving term and term limits for politicians (in congress/senate/house of commons/parliament etc)
- excessive politicisation of magistracy at all degrees;
- lack of democratic representation due to gerrymandering and FPTP system and electoral college;
- issue of corruption and standards of political class, incl and not limited to issues of age appropriateness for the role;
- green energy and the fact we are actively killing our collective health so that energy fat cats, and the fact that the related climate crisis will lead to further immigration crisis even without Russia's strategy;
- undue press influence, mostly caused by the murdoch empire;
- corporate profits and privileges need to be curbed;
- privatisation, specifically healthcare (not happening but still);
- financial and stock market manipulation corruption issues.
- no more second jobs for politicians while serving term and term limits for politicians (in congress/senate/house of commons/parliament etc)
except that you're not really interested in this, considering all your flamebait threads and your clearly false "let's all remember the human" rhetoric since you're always the first to go off the rails.
this is completely and utterly false. case in point, both the cost of living and cost of energy crises. No profiteering company was priced out by competitors.
Post automatically merged:
I highly doubt that the average american has the humility or intelligence to appreciate that. Just like the brits, americans think to know better than others just because.
Last edited by Dark_Ansem,
The only voluntary part is the decision to attend medical school. Once you take the Oath to be able to practice medicine it is no longer voluntary. Once you become a medical Doctor you MUST abide by the Oath or lose your license and potentially even face legal issues. There's a certain Dr on Twitter who has been suspended and is facing legal challenges due to not abiding by the oath.
You see now why it's impossible to have a honest discussion with OP.
If you read what I said properly you would see I said when you choose to become a medical Doctor you have to take the Oath. That much is not voluntary, the voluntary part is choosing to be a doctor. There is a difference between wanting to be right and just being right. I was right, you wanted to be. Bad gaslighting on your part.
You insulted me first by questioning my reading comprehension and intelligence, don't cry because I treat you in kind.
If you are like me, which I suspect you are from the language you use and the strange outbursts, you are not very subtle about it.
If you want to try and manipulate and gaslight you can't be all guns blazing like you are, it's too obvious and honestly embarrassing.
Also I don't need anyone besides me to back me up when I know I'm right and you're wrong. I've seen enough of you to ascertain that you will never admit that you may not be correct about something and I get it, people like us find it hard to concede and so we manipulate and gaslight to try and prove the point. The difference here is that right now, yes, I am gaslighting you, but what I have said about the Oath and the only voluntary part is deciding to take it is true, once you take the Oath you are bound by it, you are obliged to carry out your duties as governed by the Oath upon which medical councils make their rules and guidelines.
Never has the political landscape look so horrible in the US, and a good chunk of the Western World in general.
On the right hand you have a party that does fairly well economically (in some cases), but horrendously on a social level. Banning abortions in 2023 cause it goes against your religion? For real? Fuck off. And then these people complain about Sharia.
On the left hand you have a bunch of incompetent and useless bastards fucking up the economy, but they do have a nice way with words and do understand what the 21st Century should be like, they just have no fucking clue how to get there and seem to fuck it up even worse when they try to fix things.
Both hands are full of degenerates and fascists that want to silence and politically attack their rivals or anyone who dares criticize them. Though for the time being, the left has much more power when it comes to doing fascist crap like censorship and attacking political rivals (not that the right wouldn't want to, they just can't cause they were too late to the party of Social Media and influencers).
Both parties have radical anti-capitalist anti-democratic ideologies that pose a threat to our very own way of living and the very idea of freedom, though they are still not the mayority of the vote base (thankfully) even though they do make the most noise (which makes sense since we tend to focus more on the negatives).
On the right hand you have a party that does fairly well economically (in some cases), but horrendously on a social level. Banning abortions in 2023 cause it goes against your religion? For real? Fuck off. And then these people complain about Sharia.
On the left hand you have a bunch of incompetent and useless bastards fucking up the economy, but they do have a nice way with words and do understand what the 21st Century should be like, they just have no fucking clue how to get there and seem to fuck it up even worse when they try to fix things.
Both hands are full of degenerates and fascists that want to silence and politically attack their rivals or anyone who dares criticize them. Though for the time being, the left has much more power when it comes to doing fascist crap like censorship and attacking political rivals (not that the right wouldn't want to, they just can't cause they were too late to the party of Social Media and influencers).
Both parties have radical anti-capitalist anti-democratic ideologies that pose a threat to our very own way of living and the very idea of freedom, though they are still not the mayority of the vote base (thankfully) even though they do make the most noise (which makes sense since we tend to focus more on the negatives).
Being anti-capitalist is a civic duty considering capitalism has failed humanity. And before you spout your communism-related nonsense: there are alternatives between the disaster capitalism of the anglo-saxon west and the former soviet union. There are intermediate measures which achieve acceptable effects and somehow satisfy your obvious greed and loathing for equality.
This is completely and utterly false. It's not the left banning books and effectively cancelling swathes of people (read: women, minorities and non-whites) by rigging the SCOTUS with obviously corrupt judges (while trying to incriminate a member of congress for FAR LESS, let alone the President) and with gerrymandering, effectively drowning the only way said cancelled categories can express dissent. It's not the left buying its way into power via corruption and dark money. And it's also not the left heading a cult of traitorous insurrectionists.
Lastly, it's not the left picking a leader who is not only anti-democratic and financially incompetent , but also a crook convicted multiple times who should have been disqualified for being in direct contrast with the democratic values of America. And if not for that, because of his financial and economic ineptitude, as I'd like to remind everyone that most of the hardships americans are facing are a direct responsibility of the Orange-gutan, including but not limited to his partisan aversion to Green Energy (which would be a booming industry not merely in the US, but in those very same red states the knuckle-draggers are most stubbornly refused to it), but also for having done everything possible to favour Putin's invasion of Ukraine and energy crisis.
Last edited by Dark_Ansem,
- Status
Similar threads
