Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 210
  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottlebass View Post
    "May have" and "may have", if you want to use that for your proof then I can go ahead and say the FDA slowing down production of drug X "may have" saved over 10 million lives! And the FDA slowing down the production of drug Y may have saved 15 million lives! Whew!

    My proof was Thalidomide. The FDA worked. You can find many other examples on your own.

    Greed, there is a variable the government isn't responsible for.
    You can't prove something that wasn't allowed to happen. But if 80000 people died from an infection that was treatable with an antibiotic, it's not unfair to argue that the FDA bears responsibility for those lives. Same with beta blockers. These aren't made up numbers. And they are just as much "proof" as "Thalidomide". No one is arguing that there might be unsafe products that drug makers might try to sell which the FDA can prevent. Government regulation isn't the only avenue to keep consumers safe. And if you ONLY look at "thalidomide" (and really, a 60 year old drug is the main example a pharmacist can point to?) and ignore the other costs, of course you pick regulation. On balance, more harm than good? Not close.

    Government is not responsible for green, you are correct. You cannot remove greed from the equation. And greed exists for every product. Drugs are the only one with an astronomical rising price.

    You have failed to challenge the core argument that government intervention is responsible for high prices. It doesn't even look like you're trying.


  2. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottlebass View Post
    LOL. Almost all your posts contradict what you just said. Thanks for the joke.
    I used to be a run of the mill prog just like you. Once your eyes are opened, and you question your faith in government regulation, and start examining industries, it's just incredible, every time you realize that intervention in the market causes more harm than good. Almost as if some principle is at play.

  3. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    You can't prove something that wasn't allowed to happen. But if 80000 people died from an infection that was treatable with an antibiotic, it's not unfair to argue that the FDA bears responsibility for those lives. Same with beta blockers. These aren't made up numbers. And they are just as much "proof" as "Thalidomide". No one is arguing that there might be unsafe products that drug makers might try to sell which the FDA can prevent. Government regulation isn't the only avenue to keep consumers safe. And if you ONLY look at "thalidomide" (and really, a 60 year old drug is the main example a pharmacist can point to?) and ignore the other costs, of course you pick regulation. On balance, more harm than good? Not close.

    Government is not responsible for green, you are correct. You cannot remove greed from the equation. And greed exists for every product. Drugs are the only one with an astronomical rising price.

    You have failed to challenge the core argument that government intervention is responsible for high prices. It doesn't even look like you're trying.
    We've had this conversation before, and you don't get it. The medical industry is different from other products. You can't compare a life saving drug to say paper plates or pop. Greed answers your question, you admit that the say I have failed to challenge your argument? The argument is already over once you admitted greed affects the equation and the government isn't responsible for it. Unless you want to move the goalposts?

    When have I said government intervention is the ONLY way to keep consumers safe? I never said that. But it is a way that has proven to work. Which I already proved to you. I used thalidamide because it's what was happening to cause the passing of the kefauver harris act. And you are correct you can't prove your numbers either. Of those 80,000 how many might of had other factors leading to their death? How many might of had an allergic reaction to the medication and failed treatment? You get it? I know you don't, you will keep pretzeling and moving the goal posts until I give up. You asked and I answered, get over it.

  4. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    I used to be a run of the mill prog just like you. Once your eyes are opened, and you question your faith in government regulation, and start examining industries, it's just incredible, every time you realize that intervention in the market causes more harm than good. Almost as if some principle is at play.
    I don't see myself as a run of the mill prog, but that's ok if you want to think that. Right now I'd rather be seen as a prog than a racist righty.

  5. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottlebass View Post
    We've had this conversation before, and you don't get it. The medical industry is different from other products. You can't compare a life saving drug to say paper plates or pop. Greed answers your question, you admit that the say I have failed to challenge your argument? The argument is already over once you admitted greed affects the equation and the government isn't responsible for it. Unless you want to move the goalposts?

    When have I said government intervention is the ONLY way to keep consumers safe? I never said that. But it is a way that has proven to work. Which I already proved to you. I used thalidamide because it's what was happening to cause the passing of the kefauver harris act. And you are correct you can't prove your numbers either. Of those 80,000 how many might of had other factors leading to their death? How many might of had an allergic reaction to the medication and failed treatment? You get it? I know you don't, you will keep pretzeling and moving the goal posts until I give up. You asked and I answered, get over it.
    It is NOT different. Economic laws apply to everything, including pills and medical services. Greed does not answer the question. Greed exists in all industries. Everyone would sell their product for more money if they could. Why are prices for drugs so high and rising, while other products are low and falling. The answer is not greed. Greed is in the equation for TVs, computers, cars. Why does Walmart charge such low prices? Greed!

    The only argument you can make is that yes, government intervention is responsible for high prices, but it's worth it. Or maybe, yes, government intervention is responsible for high prices, but maybe more government intervention will result in lower prices. Instead, you're arguing that greed explains it, that medicine involves different economics (without explanation). I mean, it's maddening. You aren't dumb, but your mind is closed. So if we can't agree on this fact, nothing else to say.

  6. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottlebass View Post
    I don't see myself as a run of the mill prog, but that's ok if you want to think that. Right now I'd rather be seen as a prog than a racist righty.
    Of course, the worst thing in the world you can be is racist. But you're right, you aren't run of the mill.

  7. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    I mean, it's maddening. You aren't dumb, but your mind is closed. So if we can't agree on this fact, nothing else to say.
    Right back at you.

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    It is NOT different. Economic laws apply to everything, including pills and medical services. Greed does not answer the question. Greed exists in all industries. Everyone would sell their product for more money if they could. Why are prices for drugs so high and rising, while other products are low and falling. The answer is not greed. Greed is in the equation for TVs, computers, cars. Why does Walmart charge such low prices? Greed!

    The only argument you can make is that yes, government intervention is responsible for high prices, but it's worth it. Or maybe, yes, government intervention is responsible for high prices, but maybe more government intervention will result in lower prices. Instead, you're arguing that greed explains it, that medicine involves different economics (without explanation). I mean, it's maddening. You aren't dumb, but your mind is closed. So if we can't agree on this fact, nothing else to say.

    It is different. Market forces work best in a series of transactions. I've had two Big Macs in my life. One, because I wanted to try one. The second to confirm my opinion of the first. I've had dozens of Whoppers since then, and will always choose a Whopper when given the choice.

    Imagine if the Big Mac resulted in my death. The second choice does not get to be made. Yes, with a large sample and perfect information the market will approach your ideal, but to compare prescription drugs with paper plates trivializes the difference.

  9. #129

    Default

    If you want to see an unregulated industry, look at Prince. You could say "Why would a vendor make a product that kills the customer"?
    1. Prince likely did not know the pills were not the product labelled.
    2. Either by ignorance or failure of process, the dose produced was lethal
    3. The product was produce with the intent of making money, not killing the customer

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    27,978
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    Pure ignorance.

    Here's the difference between you and me. I don't start with the assumption that all regulation is bad. You do start with the assumption that regulation is good and necessary.
    Lol. Yes. You do. I don't assume that all regulation is necessary or good. But in areas where people can be easily duped or harmed by unscrupulous folks looking to make a quick buck, it's needed. And this an obvious area where that can and would occur.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    27,978
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    It is NOT different. Economic laws apply to everything, including pills and medical services. Greed does not answer the question. Greed exists in all industries. Everyone would sell their product for more money if they could. Why are prices for drugs so high and rising, while other products are low and falling. The answer is not greed. Greed is in the equation for TVs, computers, cars. Why does Walmart charge such low prices? Greed!

    The only argument you can make is that yes, government intervention is responsible for high prices, but it's worth it. Or maybe, yes, government intervention is responsible for high prices, but maybe more government intervention will result in lower prices. Instead, you're arguing that greed explains it, that medicine involves different economics (without explanation). I mean, it's maddening. You aren't dumb, but your mind is closed. So if we can't agree on this fact, nothing else to say.
    The laws of supply and demand do not apply equally to all products, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and say they do.

  12. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saintpaulguy View Post
    It is different. Market forces work best in a series of transactions. I've had two Big Macs in my life. One, because I wanted to try one. The second to confirm my opinion of the first. I've had dozens of Whoppers since then, and will always choose a Whopper when given the choice.

    Imagine if the Big Mac resulted in my death. The second choice does not get to be made. Yes, with a large sample and perfect information the market will approach your ideal, but to compare prescription drugs with paper plates trivializes the difference.
    Market forces apply always. The same market forces are at play in the food industry, the health care industry, tech, everything. The products are all different, market forces are the same. I mean, your example makes no sense. You could die in a car accident the first time you drive. So?

  13. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    The laws of supply and demand do not apply equally to all products, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and say they do.
    I'm arguing with reason and logic, you're stomping your feet. Laws of supply and demand exist for all products.

  14. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    Lol. Yes. You do. I don't assume that all regulation is necessary or good. But in areas where people can be easily duped or harmed by unscrupulous folks looking to make a quick buck, it's needed. And this an obvious area where that can and would occur.
    not all regulation. but that regulation is necessary and good. another misquote. There isn't a single product that people can't be duped by those looking to make a quick buck.

  15. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    Market forces apply always. The same market forces are at play in the food industry, the health care industry, tech, everything. The products are all different, market forces are the same. I mean, your example makes no sense. You could die in a car accident the first time you drive. So?
    If you are being intentionally absurdist, very good. If not, I don't think I can convince you of my point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •