• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EpiPen Price Rise[W:398]

easy enough solve for this one under the current system : buy a company for the patent and then shoot the price of the medicine through the roof, and you get a significantly shortened patent. under a single payer system, though, the payer would have a lot more leverage to prevent this kind of thing, so that's an idea, as well.
 
How many life saving drugs are developed by governments, or, without a profit motive? You can round up if you like.
 
They already do whatever the **** they want. The way it is already is whatever the **** they want. The status quo is why these epipen prices just skyrocketed. The system is currently broken.

So yes, I will vote for Gary Johnson who will at least attempt a change, because continuing how we're going isn't sustainable. But you go ahead and vote for Trillary and pretend that something will change even though it won't.

Here's the thing though: if you've resolved to choose a third party candidate, Jill Stein is more likely to actually address these issues than Gary Johnson who has no interest in challenging those kinds of hegemonies and injustices; in fact, he would like to enshrine many of them. Gary Johnson may change the status quo, but as good as most of his proposals may be in terms of social freedoms and civil liberties (virtually all of which Stein is on board with), with respect to the economic axis they will undoubtedly be for the worst (more tax giveaways and deregulations that favour the wealthy and allow **** like this to happen).

This is what I have never understood (and in all honesty frustrates me since you seem otherwise intelligent and reasonable) about your position and stated support of the man given your alternatives: there are so many things you apparently despise that represent fundamental cornerstones of his political philosophy and platform.
 
Last edited:
It is capitalism and its exactly how the country was designed.
No, that is how anarchy was designed. Even in a pure capitalist system, social responsibility is essential and a requirement for participating in a safe orderly and organized society that allows capitalism to exist and flourish.

Without the ability to make lots of money off the epipen, it likely would not exist in the first place.
Are you saying that previously they were loosing money? If so why not make it $1000.00 or $5000.00, after all what is a number compared to the desire to live or not see your child die?
 
I dont agree. Would you rather live in a socialist system where you can get cheap emergency meds, but are a slave to the state? Or would you rather be free with all the insecurity that freedom brings?
How about reality instead of an exaggerated imaginary extreme?
 
No, that is how anarchy was designed. Even in a pure capitalist system, social responsibility is essential and a requirement for participating in a safe orderly and organized society that allows capitalism to exist and flourish.

Are you saying that previously they were loosing money? If so why not make it $1000.00 or $5000.00, after all what is a number compared to the desire to live or not see your child die?

Again, you conveniently ignore the government portion of the equation. Why is that?
 
Yes, many things are and many of them are vile manifestations of greed and a "damn everyone else" attitude. Sad.
It may well be market manipulation, it just may be difficult to tell who the manipulator is.
 
Yeah. That pisses me off.

I only recently became allergic to wasps, and in the last couple years had to make sure I had an epi-pin with me

First year, I paid a 35.00 co-pay.

This year. 750.00.

Un ****ing believable.

This should be illegal.
 
i guess whoever invested millions developing this should just go bankrupt because 'for the children'?
DO you even have a clue how much was invested, when and if it was made back? Of course not, because if you had you would not have said something so utterly moronic.
 
Hmm, so their competitor failed (usually indicating a lack of profitability) and your upset that the remaining company upped their prices. Of course, if you could of answered my previous questions, you might have found that the rise in price was to insure the remaining company does not fold. Without that knowledge, neither thee or me knows for sure.
Seriously? Do you thing that they were loosing money before?
 
easy enough solve for this one under the current system : buy a company for the patent and then shoot the price of the medicine through the roof, and you get a significantly shortened patent. under a single payer system, though, the payer would have a lot more leverage to prevent this kind of thing, so that's an idea, as well.

Wow. Creative solutions and problem solving presented in a simple, straightforward manner.

I got the impression lately that such commentary was extinct in the field, living only in preserves.
 
As was noted in the article I posted, the government bears at least some of the responsibility for the high price of prescription drugs. EpiPen cost soars, but it's not the only drug to - CNN.com
When dealing with the pharma industry, which spends more on lobbying than the defense industry, more on commercials than on product development and as shown hikes CEO salaries by millions, it is a bit poor of an excuse to blame government, not that that could not be a minor factor.
 
When dealing with the pharma industry, which spends more on lobbying than the defense industry, more on commercials than on product development and as shown hikes CEO salaries by millions, it is a bit poor of an excuse to blame government, not that that could not be a minor factor.

First of all, the advertisement myth is just that, a myth. Secondly, I'm not surprised you would so quickly dismiss government culpability. :roll: You'll forgive me if I take the word of experts on the subject over yours. ;)
 
First of all, the advertisement myth is just that, a myth. Secondly, I'm not surprised you would so quickly dismiss government culpability. :roll: You'll forgive me if I take the word of experts on the subject over yours. ;)

Do you have any evidence present that it was the government which forced the company to raise the price from $100 to $600 over the last several years?
 
easy enough solve for this one under the current system : buy a company for the patent and then shoot the price of the medicine through the roof, and you get a significantly shortened patent. under a single payer system, though, the payer would have a lot more leverage to prevent this kind of thing, so that's an idea, as well.

I don't understand this one.

You want to set up a system to short circuit patent protection?
 
I don't understand this one.

You want to set up a system to short circuit patent protection?

i want to set up a system to short circuit patent trolls. hence,

Helix said:
buy a company for the patent and then shoot the price of the medicine through the roof, and you get a significantly shortened patent.

that seems like a good solution to this kind of thing under our current health care model.
 
Back
Top Bottom