JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
On meds...

I went thru 7 GI doctors for my masssive gut issues.

Last one gave me a sample of a drug cocktail invented in the 70's and was widely used.

Newer designer drugs meant to replace it didn't help me at all.

Switch to Kaiser and it's not on their 'approved to keep in stock' list.

Pills (which don't help near as well) cost me $350 out of pocket.

Liquid per bottle (which gives me almost instant relief) costs me $650 each out of pocket.

I can't afford either so I am SOL and just have to do my best with diet - it's not always reliable and I still have nights where I am dang near in tears from the cramps that go along with my issue for 6-10 hours.

This was developed in the 70's and they have more then made their profit back from R&D.


Maybe it isn't produced in enough quantity but though my previous insurance they would give me two bottles a month for my low co-pay.

Big pharma is a scam and they are in the business of keeping people sick and not curing them - their profit shares would go way down if the my actually helped people.

Sorry rant over
Does your liquid cocktail have a long shelf life? I could understanding hoarding something like that for your own use very easily. Eventually, you would use it all.
 
Agreed w/o profit these miracle meds wouldn't be invented.

Bio-Med company works on 10 new medicines spending tens of millions on R&D. One of the ten makes it through testing and the FDA, they then have 7 20 years from date of invention to realize a profit before their copyright patent gets removed allowing competition. This usually works out to about 8 years of protection.

Are you going to risk your millions? Or maybe these drugs just don't get invented?

Capitalism isn't perfect it just doesn't have a close #2.

Fixed that for you.
 
Some pharmas have special programs for such meds - I have a close family member whose meds started at $40K per year and have since doubled (IIRC) - not a rare medical condition either. When that person did not have insurance that would cover it, this person was on a program where it was given to them for free. Otherwise insurance paid for it.

For rare conditions, I could see how yes, it can cost the pharma a lot to make it available. Remember, they not only have to dedicate a production line to it, they have to do R&D, clinical tests, run thru the bureaucracy of the FDA/etc. (sometimes the DEA too), and then they are liable for any problems with the med. All of this costs millions and if the med condition is rare, then the cost is spread over a much smaller number of people.

It can be less expensive elsewhere because of different regulatory situations, and different insurance, and different liability laws.

Some people make regular trips overseas as they find it is cheaper to do it that way. Not always possible though due to import laws and some meds can't be transported that far.

That said, the cost of insulin shouldn't have gone up 3-4X overnight. We've been making insulin for decades. A LOT of people need it. Diabetes is not a rare condition. That was pure and simple greed.
 
That said, the cost of insulin shouldn't have gone up 3-4X overnight. We've been making insulin for decades. A LOT of people need it. Diabetes is not a rare condition. That was pure and simple greed.

Do you know the details of the business well enough to make the assumption that those greedy companies just raised the price because they could? or could it be that the costs of manufacturing have went up and they have an obligation to be profitable for their shareholders ?


I think this is not a question of greed but more accurately its self interest which is a fundamentally good thing it is what inspires people to create , invent and manufacture the very things that have improved our lives. Were it not for the potential for a profit to be made we would in all live a significantly poorer life.
 
Do you know the details of the business well enough to make the assumption that those greedy companies just raised the price because they could? or could it be that the costs of manufacturing have went up and they have an obligation to be profitable for their shareholders ?

I cant help but think of the epipen here...

the downfall of unrestrained capitalism is greed.
 
I cant help but think of the epipen here...

the downfall of unrestrained capitalism is greed.

Again who defines what is greed ? These corporations are made up of shareholders who have invested their money in them and expect a return, businesses that do not generate a profit do not typically stay in business. Is it reasonable for me to invest my money that I worked for very hard in a company and not realize a return of my investment with interest ? Is it it right for a company to lose money so they aren't viewed as "greedy" by some , and for all their stakeholders to suffer ? For what it is worth stakeholders include the employees , customers, and investors .

Is the greater good being served when more harm is served up to more people because their livelihood disappeared after their employer stopped being profitable?
 
Last Edited:
Let's say LE prevents most people from leaving town. And the tap water is contaminated. Bottled water is all there is. And there is actually enough. But some rich guy buys up all the bottled water and starts charging $100/quart.

Economists call this sort of activity "rent seeking", which means making money in a way that contributes nothing valuable to society and in fact only harms others. We generally accept this sort of thing only if its subte or minor or applies to stuff that is optional. But if that guy who has cornered the water thinks that he is going to be able to watch all the middle and lower class folks die of thirst and take all the resources of the rich people, got news for him. However much you yap about capitalism or it being legit to price at "what the market will bear", or whether there are laws against the specific thing or not, somebody will put a stop to it -- or to him--a long time before they watch their children die of thirst.

Anybody who buys up essentials such as food, water, medicine, or medical supplies in a time of emergency for the purpose of raising prices and reselling is a rent seeker. And they can expect to have their exploitation ended by the government or someone else if they do it on a large enough scale or are obvious enough to be noticeable.

Amazon has been dropping accounts of price gougers. Not remonstrating with them, just kicking them off the platform.
 
Thus.......
I give everyone the poster boy of GREED in the PHARMA industry.....

Martin SHKRELI

If you don't know the story.....look him up on Wikipedia.

Aloha, Mark
 
Again who defines what is greed ? These corporations are made up of shareholders who have invested their money in them and expect a return, businesses that do not generate a profit do not typically stay in business. Is it reasonable for me to invest my money that I worked for very hard in a company and not realize a return of my investment with interest ? Is it it right for a company to lose money so they aren't viewed as "greedy" by some , and for all their stakeholders to suffer ? For what it is worth stakeholders include the employees , customers, and investors .

Is the greater good being served when more harm is served up to more people because their livelihood disappeared after their employer stopped being profitable?

Greed is perhaps one of mans oldest sins of humanity and very well defined. Nobody has any concern with shareholders expecting a return on their investments and profiting from it.

Greed comes when one has an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves. Many of these pharmaceutical executives have more money and possessions than they can spend in an entire lifetime, then they jack up the price of the epipen for even more...

I'll try to balance this out though; The downfall of socialism is dependency, the downfall of capitalism is greed. Neither can be left unrestrained...

 
Let's say LE prevents most people from leaving town. And the tap water is contaminated. Bottled water is all there is. And there is actually enough. But some rich guy buys up all the bottled water and starts charging $100/quart.

Economists call this sort of activity "rent seeking", which means making money in a way that contributes nothing valuable to society and in fact only harms others. We generally accept this sort of thing only if its subtle or minor or applies to stuff that is optional.

Anybody who buys up essentials such as food, water, medicine, or medical supplies in a time of emergency for the purpose of raising prices and reselling is a rent seeker. And they can expect to have their exploitation ended by the government or someone else if they do it on a large enough scale or are obvious enough to be noticeable.

Amazon has been dropping accounts of price gougers. Not remonstrating with them, just kicking them off the platform.

Actually you're wrong and have incorrectly applied a definition to rent seeking that is simply not true. Traditionally Economic Rent is defined as the income earned from utilization of resource ownership. Entities that own resources can lend them to earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways.

Selling bottled water at higher prices during a time of increased market demand is not economic rent . It is 100% supply side economics and product availability.

People who buy products and commodities and store them in anticipation of a higher return in the future aren't seeking rent , rather they are speculating that there will be a shortage in the supply chain which will result in a lack of surplus and in increase in demand.

Rent seeking would be more akin to my giving you a bottle of water or toilet paper today contingent upon your agreement to return to me two bottles of water or toilet paper at a later date. Rent seeking is contingent upon earning interest from a resource which I retain control of. Once I sell you something I no longer retain control of it nor do I earn interest from its use.
 
Greed is perhaps one of mans oldest sins of humanity and very well defined. Nobody has any concern with shareholders expecting a return on their investments and profiting from it.

Greed comes when one has an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves.

And who gets to make that decision ? More than one needs or deserves , sounds like a thoroughly marxist principle to me .
 
Actually you're wrong and have incorrectly applied a definition to rent seeking that is simply not true. Traditionally Economic Rent is defined as the income earned from utilization of resource ownership. Entities that own resources can lend them to earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways.

Selling bottled water at higher prices during a time of increased market demand is not economic rent . It is 100% supply side economics and product availability.

People who buy products and commodities and store them in anticipation of a higher return in the future aren't seeking rent , rather they are speculating that there will be a shortage in the supply chain which will result in a lack of surplus and in increase in demand.

Rent seeking would be more akin to my giving you a bottle of water or toilet paper today contingent upon your agreement to return to me two bottles of water or toilet paper at a later date. Rent seeking is contingent upon earning interest from a resource which I retain control of. Once I sell you something I no longer retain control of it nor do I earn interest from its use.
Rent seeking is a term in economics used exactly as I said. Look it up. It is different from how the word rent is used with respect to use of property.
 
I'm sorry.
Not really.

Big Pharma is pure greed, once it hit the market, like anything else. I get it. But after something is around, and seen as effective for the cause, the product is pretty well known, for it's effect and helping the way it does. IMHO, that's where Pharma needs to be capped in cost and what is realistically fair for the market. They have what it takes, for you, to go forward in life without ailment. They depict what happens in your lifetime, because they have what someone needs. You get what you need to "tune-you-up", and keep you moving along. That's all good for the insured, or mostly insured.

I'll leave it at that.
 
No sir , that is fundamentally wrong and it is why we are in this sort of mess today. Society can absolutely be and has been a tyrannical mob many times in history.
How many in society believe in the 2A?

Instances of societal tyranny is a different subject.
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top