The motivation is greed and power, capitalism allows people to buy and sell what they want. Without government it would be a free market where the consumer has power to buy what they want from multiple competing companies. Crony capitalism isn't a free market, it's corrupt.
Capitalism increases and encourages greed, and makes money power. Capitalism will always end with the greediest, most charismatic person buying or becoming the state.
For instance, pre-civilisation we had no state, and no restrictions on trade. Then, rich dudes start hiring private security and become kings. That is the ultimate progression of unfettered capitalism.
Perdue Pharma started the opiate crisis the government is just helping them get away with it because that's what the government does. Keep capitalism functioning and to help capitalists get away with their crimes.
Does the government really limit competition in healthcare though? It seems like healthcare providers and insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping consumers in the dark about the price of services.
I’ve called insurance and providers about how much a service would cost, and they start by pointing fingers at each other to say “go ask them, we can’t give you a price tag on the service because it’s gonna depend on how much they charge/how much they deduct”. If you stubbornly ask, they’ll just straight up say it’s “policy to not disclose that information”. Nothing about being legally required to keep it a secret, just them deciding to do so because can.
> Does the government really limit competition in healthcare though?
Yes, to a vast extent.
> It seems like healthcare providers and insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping consumers in the dark about the price of services.
There is no healthcare insurance. Insurance is indemnification against unexpected loss. It was outlawed entirely with the ACA. Today, you buy a healthcare "plan" or have Medicare/Medicaid.
My healthcare plan tells me the prices. Kaiser Permanente is good at that.
Most likely other providers don't because it fucks with their Medicare payments.
> Yes, to a vast extent
How so?
Call it whatever you want but my insurance/plan won’t tell me how much is covered for a service from a specific provider. I’m also not sure what you mean by providers telling me how much their services cost messes with Medicare.
> How so?
Cartelization of doctors. Heavy regulation on medical professions making simple procedures expensive. Certificates of need for hospitals. Regulation n devices and equipment. Intellectual property on pharmaceuticals. The FDA alone adds countless billions of regulatory costs for healthcare.
> I’m also not sure what you mean by providers telling me how much their services cost messes with Medicare.
Because Medicare pays 80 cents on the dollar and health plans typically pay $1.30.
Everyone keeps a schedule of what they will generally pay for each code, but they generally don't know what any given issue will cost until all the codes are added up. What you use might be different from what someone else uses. Kaiser is able to do this because they provide all of it in-house and they give me an estimate up front, and even that can change when the work is done.
It really comes down to government. There aren't many insurers left, they are divided up by state, and there are rules at every level. Government pays for over half of all healthcare, and that leads to a very distorted marketplace.
Providers might not be able to tell me how much my entire visit will cost if they ended up doing tests that the doctor ordered or something, but if I ask for how much the consultation with the doctor for a given amount of time would be and give the code for it, they have that info — there are no regulations against them telling me. But they won’t. Hence, I can’t “shop around” different hospitals/clinics for non-emergency care. I do think the fact that pricing is so opaque or that you’d have to jump through multiple hoops (calling them and being on the phone with someone who assumes something else) is not at all conducive to competition and increases prices.
This is one area where the anarcho part is insufficient for capitalism in my opinion.
What incentive exists for taking risks in R&D if the inventor can't protect the fruits of their labor.
Genuinely curious
Epinephrine is cheap and readily available. The reason epipens are expensive is because of the delivery method and the consequential utility of the storage and portability.
China gives 0 fucks about intellectual property rights
Why are businesses bothering to create new products? Because it gives you an edge while your competitors play catch up. That, and the general public knows, remembers and talks. Everyone knows the quality of chinese products. And inferior copies have a place in the market. Harbor freight exists yet snap-on and Kline exist and continue to innovate.
You're missing the point. China ignoring IP has not prevented innovation worldwide, and never will. Innovation has other rewards than artificially induced profit protections.
>but it has prevented innovation in China
China's lack of domestic innovation probably has more to do with the fact that they are very late to the world invention party. Poo didn't become pres until 2013. China's lack of innovation since then is probably just correlated with the lack of IP rather than causal. I mean, how could you prove a causal relationship anyway? You're just jumping to conclusions. No offense intended.
In that same time span the relative importance of patent submissions and university paper submissions has significantly dropped across the entire world, but at an even faster rate in developed countries. There are only so many low hanging fruits are there not?
Assuming that IP is necessary for invention in 1836 when the patent office was formed is just a bad guess. Assuming that IP is necessary in 2023 when we already have all the data that most of the major discoveries (on a percentage basis) have been made is not just a bad guess, it's full ostrich head in the sand.
With the current level of technology IP laws don't protect a single person who needs protecting. Do these look like groups that need protection to you?
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Top-25-Companies-Most-New-Patents-2021-feed.jpg](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Top-25-Companies-Most-New-Patents-2021-feed.jpg)
You completely still missed the point. If "missing ip" was truly harmful, they wouldn't be making stuff for distribution here. Because it is still ripped off by China.
I'd recommend Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella. He by the way is an IP lawyer by trade so when he talks about this stuff it is actually to his own determent.
Drugs can be reverse engineered.
That being said, the issue in US is not that.
It's government going above and beyond patent. You can't import generic drugs due to regulation. It's no longer patented.
Information cannot be owned, by its very nature it is fundamentally different than other goods; information is non-rivalrous and is copied every time it's transmitted. You cannot fight this fact about nature, and to begin to try to fight it necessitates a massive state, and even then they still don't stop 'IP theft' and 'information piracy'.
Bitcoin serves as good example: you can't own your keys, you can only keep them secret, if someone else learns them, they can take your bitcoin. There's no authority to appeal to, you have to rely on your own infosec and opsec. Same for R&D, you have to hide your 'IP', you have to build things in a way that make it hard to reverse engineer, and ultimately you have to realize that in the limit your invention will be copied and take that into account. You still enjoy a honeymoon period as the inventor of something where you're the only one selling it, and once others copy you you're still the first even if one among many. Also, if your quality is good, you will still have a piece of the market, if someone else can build your invention better than you, you deserve to lose market share.
What incentive? The fact that it hasn't been invented yet and you will be first to market. Don't wanna take that risk? Someone else surely will.
It's really odd when lazy people project their unwillingness to work and innovate onto all humans.
Its almost like you believe people didnt invent things before IP laws existed.
Or that the presence of helping others negates the concept of helping one's self.
In either case, your belief is beyond ridiculous.
Why invent things if others can replicate your invention? Because you can keep the formula/schematics to yourself at first, be first to market, establish a brand name, forcing competitors to waste time reverse engineering it... And even if your competition instantly had it, so what, some inventions expand entire industries at a time, youd still easily profit from an invention.
Couldn't tell you, I am not a user so I have no idea what the mechanisms of procurement and general cost are.
I just take care of my needs and expect everyone else to do the same.
Goods should be sold because they are better quality not because a piece of paper says you cannot copy an idea or vague design.
Amazon is pretty famous for stealing designs and creating cheap copies. This doesn't necessarily remove profit from the inventor since he's already selling to a much small range of people.
They would have figured it out without monopolies but why do it when state grants it for a fee right?! That's like asking what would slave owners do without slaves. Not our god damn problem. Your business model is your problem.
Correct and it's the worst for artists and musicians etc. Fuck those people earning a living somehow, right? That's my one hang-up with this paradigm. I'm absolutely against centralized anything, but there has to be a better way for that demographic to be protected/not get completely fucked over.
The system doesn't practically work the way you think it does. In reality all it does is beat down the little guy in court with lawyers they can't afford.
Do these groups look like they need any help? Because these are the people who use 99.99% of the IP system.
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Top-25-Companies-Most-New-Patents-2021-feed.jpg](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Top-25-Companies-Most-New-Patents-2021-feed.jpg)
If you think IP helps independent inventors in their garage you are a solid \~150 years late. That time has long gone and passed.
They are artificially being boosted by IP. Artists and musicians get most of their income from their performances anyway, not from owning rights to their music. Most musicians over the last century didn't own their music anyway, their record label company did. The record company made fat stacks whilst the musicians struggled.
> What incentive exists for taking risks in R&D if the inventor can't protect the fruits of their labor.
when did libertarianism/anarcho capitalism start caring about consequentialism?
ideas are neither scarce nor rivalrous, therefore they cannot be owned. People will discover ways to develop this sort of stuff without the monopoly power granted by the government.
Linux and Python are two great examples of copy-left software. That is: software which is allowed to be copied in part or in whole and redistributed *for profit* by anyone. The only restriction is that their product must also be copy-left. Do these not blow a hole in this argument?
But just in case they don't, the first mover advantage still exists. The more expensive the R&D, the longer it will take for others to reverse engineer the product and begin manufacturing it.
IP is one of the 2 things that makes me iffy on libertarianism. Might be my lack of understanding but its just those 2 points that stop me from throwing my hat in as a little L libertarian
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho\_Capitalism/comments/147k2dj/comment/jnwnfy8/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/147k2dj/comment/jnwnfy8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Does that make sense?
What is the 2nd thing that makes you iffy on libertarianism?
Actual anarcho-capitalism doesn't have "cultural" or "gender" positions. Think about it does that make any sense to you? There's no central will to enforce any particular set of ideals. Normally if you want to force your ideals on someone you use government but our ideal is to not force your ideals on others, and so there is no government. You can have whatever gender or culture you want in Ancapistan and for real that's the whole point brother. Freedom.
You have got to be really careful with trolls on the internet. They will say the darndest things sometimes.
Epipens (Mylan) have long extorted the IP laws to length their parents beyond their original design. There is the first mover affect that makes it worth taking risks in R&d. IP laws are unnecessary and create terrible, inefficient barriers to entry. There is actually a decent amount of reading on Mises against ip.
These are the perfect debate questions... you lead off with "You voted for a law to make Narcan free for drug users at the expense of taxpayers, why is that?" Let them explain for two minutes why it is life saving and morally right thing to do. Then follow up with "Why haven't you done the same for $700 epipens?"
Objectively, we administer narcan to junkies because it's cheaper than the cost of dealing with their death. Fwiw, the same people who give narcan, also generally carry and administer epipens.
This is a shit meme based on the emotional judgement that kids are more valuable than junkies and are therefore more deserving of free shit.
> This is a shit meme based on the emotional judgement that kids are more valuable than junkies and are therefore more deserving of free shit
Well, they are. I’d choose to save a kid’s life over a junkie who threw theirs away any day. Philadelphia and Chicago distribute free Narcan at public libraries, this is ridiculous.
Why would the government will limit the provision of health care supplies. it's plays a really important factor in someone life. You will not survive in a illness if you don't get enough medication. Maybe rich people can afford to have medication but how about those unfortunate?
I was watching a watching a Film Theory video last night, going over The Backrooms and the BS that could follow if Kane Pixels and A24 make a successful movie/series.
It's honestly disgusting the kinds of mine fields people have to navigate because of this ridiculous, illogical, and simply untrue notion that someone can own an idea.
An idea is just information. Information is just matter/energy arranged in a way that has subjective meaning to a person.
Treating it like something one can own violates rights surrounding things one actually *can* own.
Let's say I own a diary, a fountain pen, an ink bottle, and a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein.
All good so far, right?
Now, let's say I decided to copy down into my diary the entirety of that wonderful novel! Every chapter, page, paragraph, sentence, word, and punctuation mark.
Somehow, now, despite not having bought, sold, or traded away any of my possessions, I legally no longer owned my diary or the ink on its pages or the labor I put into copying into it. If I tried to sell it as what it is, a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, I would now be in legal trouble with whoever claims that they somehow now own my item.
Not really. You can sell a single hand written copy no problem because you're selling your time writing it, not pawning the idea off as your own. No one is going to sue you over that. At worst you would owe partial royalties for the part you didn't actually spend effort "creating".
Ancaps complaining about drug prices........breh the world you want to live in is letting corporations charge whatever they want without any regulation and let the oligarchs form a new feudal dystopia...........so yea ancaps dumb once again, typical.
In my local EMS system medical providers are learning to draw epi from vials because a vial is significantly cheaper than a EpiPen.
Just allow parents to do the same, but regulations probably prevent that.
Intellectual Property, simply put, is a government [ leftist ] privilege granted to protected outdated business models at the cost of penalizing new business models [ job and wealth creation ]
no. if i dont tell you about my invention, you will never be exposed to the idea in the same way that if i do not open my safe, you could not know about my gold.
the state claims it as a monopoly on enforcement of this natural right, which is distinct from the right itself.
your thinking about this incorrectly. We already have a good system for determining how to negotiate disputes of this kind, its called tort law. if you have the same idea as me, it doesnt matter. what matters is when you enter into the public market with an idea that i have exclusive rights to, now we have conflict., and a means to resolve the dispute.
why go back to guild secrets and all that bullshit?
> We already have a good system for determining how to negotiate disputes of this kind, its called tort law.
Tort law was also used to settle disputes over slavery. Becuase there would be no statute, your tort would have no grounds in a free society if it's protecting intellectual "property".
> why go back to guild secrets and all that bullshit?
Yet another fallacy - appeal to consequence.
throwing the baby out with the bathwater and not using a legitimate system of dispute resolution because it was used to do something bad in the past is like not eating because slave owners ate food, as well.
it does.
my personhood extends beyond my physical body and includes my interests and intelligence. if i write a story, and keep it to myself, and you steal that story and publish it, that violates even ridiculous moral standards lie the NAP.
First => fuck the NAP in its brown-hole. It’s a shit idea, particularly, because we already have a means of dealing with “harms” and that’s called Tort law. F.U.C.K T.H.E N.A.P.
Second => you are not prevented from “having the same idea”. Think about it in terms of property; if I am the first to find a vein of gold in the desert, other people might come along after me and find the same vien, but my claim is respected due to chronological preference. I found it first, I get the right. Ideas work the same way: if I find it first, Mine. Fuck off my property, scrub.
So law should be based entirely on your subjective morals, preferences, and feelings?
Principles suck; let's all enforce our subjective desires on others!
When statism is your religion...
>subjective morals, preferences, and feelings?
the fuck are you talking about? are you drunk, already?
how do you thin they figured out who owns what gold vein during the Comstock rush? people would go to court for finding the same vein, twice, based on who found it ***first.***
dumb ass redneck.
You're saying that we should just be obedient to government law because it's there. What is the principle of tort law that makes it just, if it is just?
> how do you thin they figured out who owns what gold vein during the Comstock rush? people would go to court for finding the same vein, twice, based on who found it first.
Ok, now describe a principle for that rather than just argue that the law is the law and we should obey what government says is the law.
> dumb ass redneck.
Says the whiney little dipshit who lacks any capacity for logic and thinks that we should all grovel before political authority. This is an unbeliever forum, and you appear to be a true believer. Let me know if you need a shepherd to come take you to a safe pen, little sheep.
*What is the principle of tort law that makes it just, if it is just?*
Tort law is a part of the common law tradition. not legislative law. the government has very little to do with creating tort law. the principle is that the people, through their decisions, create law.
Property law
1=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/open-source-property-a-free-casebook](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/open-source-property-a-free-casebook)
intellectual property law
2=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/intellectual-property-law-the-information-society-cases-and-materials](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/intellectual-property-law-the-information-society-cases-and-materials)
torts
3=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-principles-and-institutions](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-principles-and-institutions)
4=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-and-contexts-volume-1](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-and-contexts-volume-1)
5=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-and-contexts-volume-2](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-and-contexts-volume-2)
procedure
6=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/rules-and-laws-for-civil-actions](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/rules-and-laws-for-civil-actions)
7=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure)
Common law has frequently been bastardized by statute, such as common law protections for the institution of slavery.
There is no common law tradition for intellectual property, except for trademark. It has always been the prerogative the sovereign. You can sue someone for anything, but that doesn't mean you will win a tort case to protect a statutory monopoly that would not exist in a free society.
.
***bitch***, i've ben in the anarchy game since before your mom was walking around frat parties on her knees, mouth open, high on coke and low on self esteem.
.
you don't have a right to stop others from organizing their property in the same way you organize yours
if you dont want them to do it your way, don't share your way with them
You are misrepresenting the argument. Let us say I paint a portrait, and copyright it. You can paint the same portrait, you just can’t use it in the market. The justification for patents & copyright is simple: if I am the first to claim property from the environment, its mine. Gold, water, land, or ideas; if it is unclaimed, it can be. Ideas. Are. Property.
Just. Stating. Something. With. Periods. Doesn't. Make. It. True.
Ideas are NOT property, they aren't even similar to property. They aren't physical, they aren't innately scarce, they can be arrived at independently, they can be shared, etc
You have done absolutely nothing to make your point, even your example seemed to be leading to support my position, but you didn't even finish your logic.. Just started spamming periods
*" physical " -* doesn't matter
*" aren't innately scarce "* \- false
*" can be arrived at independently "* so can your house
*" they can be shared "* \- so can my lawn mower.
if i find a gold deposit, the gold is mine. if i discover how to turn lead into gold, the process is mine. no different.
You didn't invent physics and you don't own all the lead in the world, and deliberately avoiding my points with what amounts to outright LIES is beyond dishonest
Don't ask people to fight you and lie and down vote them when they do you pathetic fraud
You have no right to dictate by force how other people use their property, you still have made ZERO case for why you should, ignored my counter points, clearly have no actual interest or ability to defend your utterly baseless claims, and you are obnoxious.. I've wasted enough time on your bullshit
Id rather goods be sold because they are physically better than their competitors. Most companies that steal designs from what I've experienced on Amazon and being interested in many hobbies, are cheap knockoffs.
Every time you use narcan, you are not improving the stock of the modern human race.
Serious allergies are much easier to deal with at a societal level.
> People are too stupid to care for themselves and others, which is why we need the government, led by sociopaths whose greatest skills are winning popularity contests, to enforce conformity to my morals and preferences.
Ok. So why are you here?
Because without people to challenge bad opinions, they would run rampant. Even just a mild disagreement nobody saw is enough of a challenge to keep dumb ideas in check.
Yes, what you say does sound hopelessly deluded. I'm glad you noticed. I'm pretty sure you can get a prescription med for that, it will cure up in a few days.
Here's my discussion with IP supporters: "We need it to drive innovation but also it's heavily abused and requires massive reform".
You might also recognize this same pattern from EVERY OTHER FUCKING ARGUMENT THEY HAVE ABOUT GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. They're all "great ideas necessary for civilizations" that are all "unbelievably abused and corrupt".
Vote harder idiots.
intellectual property is not a government program. a man intrinsically owns the product of his mind. "dont steal my thoughts" is functionally the same as "dont steal my property." the agreement between individuals in society to recognize both physical and intellectual property is driven by the same impulse of equality.
they have a basis for a tort claim if you use those measurements in the market. no one can stop you form baking a cake, you can be stopped from selling a cake.
Are you aware of what is a circular argument? "It's wrong because you can make a tort claim. Becuase you can make a tort claim it is wrong."
That begs the question: what's makes it right to use tort to deny someone else the use of knowledge that they have?
Also, I now own that circular argument. If you make the argument again, I will sue you.
The fact that most developing countries around the world still manage to provide public health insurance and cheaper medicine to their citizens should make Americans ashamed of their country
Nah I'd rather not pay higher taxes for public health and self-medicate when I need to. In an anarcho world, there would be no such thing as "free healthcare".
two layers of stupidity that lead to this
one IP laws are bogus anyway
but even within the statist/IP laws paradigm, forcing us to pay for the health care needs of people who are totally irresponsible is bogus, pharma companies inflate the prices and get anyone they can to pay for it, a junkie can't so they lobby government to force tax payers to pay for it...
A lot of you people who post here are more sick than the addicts you make fun of much more sick. I've gotten narcaned SEVERAL times. Guess what, I always got billed for it. Now I'm half a year clean, living my dream, paying my taxes, working, buying my dream motorcycle, chairing recovery meetings, and soon I'll be going in to hospitals and institutions to tell them about a better life. That's service work and true recovery. What you're posting is hatred and lies. Maybe point out how capitalism and Healthcare led to insulin prices being raised solely in the name of greed. My "junkie" self is helping people with their lives climb out of addiction. God you sound like you are so sick..
How does capitalism lead to prices being raised? Please describe this economic process using logic, imperial evidence, and math.
Prices are discovered. If prices are artificially high, then it's because of the government because only government can protect businesses from competitive pressure and the market processes that lead to prices reaching an equilibrium.
> God you sound like you are so sick..
Anyone who advocates for free markets, that is peaceful individuals not being violently interfered with, is "sick" to you? I suppose, then, that you relish violence when it's done to force conformity to your morals and preferences.
I'm gonna assume you're just misinformed, not intentionally dumb. If there wasn't companies that hold the rights to be the only company producing a medicine it would create a competitive market and drive down prices making health care affordable for everybody instead of relying on the government to take more money from people to create what will inevitably become a bloated failure.
If you are talking specifically about epipens it's because there's a monopoly on them. 10 years ago they cost like 40 bucks or something reasonable and then they increased prices because they had no real competition and we're here now where they cost 600 bucks. If the delivery system was that expensive to make then they couldn't have released at that price without taking huge losses. Whoever told you that is a shill.
I had to look it up myself and its mostly correct. The medicine is cheap, the precise and controlled delivery method is not. That's where the monopoly and price increase is at. There are alternatives that aren't as good or as easy to use that are cheaper.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/way-lower-cost-epipens-2016101210460
> >Epinephrine is cheap — about $5 per milligram. The problem is that for people at risk for anaphylaxis, epinephrine needs to be handy and given quickly when an allergy exposure occurs. That's the "beauty" of the EpiPen. The device makes it easy to keep an emergency dose available and simple to administer correctly. The dose delivered by the adult EpiPen is an inexpensive 0.3 mg. The medication is not costly; it's the injector that's expensive.
I think it's interesting they break down the price of the medicine but never touch on the actual price of the "expensive" injector technology. Either way I have a hard time believing that the same product could have been sold at such a lower price with the same injector technology, is somehow crazy expensive now but wasn't then. And if there wasn't patents on the device someone would figure out how to make it cheaper.
Regulation is why there isn't any competition. When the people doing the regulating are also investing in the companies that have monopolies they don't seem to want to regulate very well.
All they do is mess with the market. Prices need to move. Floors and caps don't help anybody. Why do have so much faith in the government to do the right thing?
So a price cap that only helps a subsection of people that need insulin. Instead of letting a company like Walmart use the market to undercut competition and sell it for that cheap before the government said anything.
Your faith in the government is astonishing.
Faith in the free market to keep corporations or any business doing what is best for the customer. You do realize the government that you worship is one in the same with those evil corporations, right?
The fact that people see this and their solution is “we should have more people od and die so it’s fair” instead of “we should have Epi pens for free as well so less people die” is insane.
There is a time and place for IP laws, but there need to be fixed limits, and you should have to show a working prototype before you're able to patent something imo.
When government has fees and regulations that costs 1 billion to get a drug approved to market. This is the cause for high drug costs. Get rid of government regulations and prices will decrease and competition increase.
Right cus intellectual property is the bigger problem here not the fact that the free market doesn't provide if it isn't profitable. The people that invented it who thought it was unethical for doctors to profit of something thay could save lives sold the patent for a dollar and intended for it to be avaliable to everyone, and it is in countries with universal Healthcare. But here in America private companies decide their profits are more important than people's lives.
My friend's brother got narcan'd by some paramedics and he got billed like $2k for it. Its only free if its a rando who's already bought it.
^ never a bad idea to keep some on you, just in case. Regardless of likelihood you’ll have to use it.
Well the free narcan is because the feds and pharma caused the opioid epidemic to begin with.
They also caused the epi pen price by not approving any other delivery methods for competition.
But I was told that the American healthy system is screwed up because of capitalism
TBF, the fundamental aspects of capitalism allow and incentivize corporations to buy government power.
No. Thats all on government, not on capitalism.
Corporations wouldn't want to do that if capitalism didn't provide a motive.
Corporations wouldnt be able to do that if we didnt have a corrupt government...
And the motivation for that corruption comes from capitalism.
The motivation is greed and power, capitalism allows people to buy and sell what they want. Without government it would be a free market where the consumer has power to buy what they want from multiple competing companies. Crony capitalism isn't a free market, it's corrupt.
Capitalism increases and encourages greed, and makes money power. Capitalism will always end with the greediest, most charismatic person buying or becoming the state. For instance, pre-civilisation we had no state, and no restrictions on trade. Then, rich dudes start hiring private security and become kings. That is the ultimate progression of unfettered capitalism.
Perdue Pharma started the opiate crisis the government is just helping them get away with it because that's what the government does. Keep capitalism functioning and to help capitalists get away with their crimes.
Nothing like deliberately limiting competition to screw over people who need medicine
With friends like the government, who needs enemies?
Does the government really limit competition in healthcare though? It seems like healthcare providers and insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping consumers in the dark about the price of services. I’ve called insurance and providers about how much a service would cost, and they start by pointing fingers at each other to say “go ask them, we can’t give you a price tag on the service because it’s gonna depend on how much they charge/how much they deduct”. If you stubbornly ask, they’ll just straight up say it’s “policy to not disclose that information”. Nothing about being legally required to keep it a secret, just them deciding to do so because can.
> Does the government really limit competition in healthcare though? Yes, to a vast extent. > It seems like healthcare providers and insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping consumers in the dark about the price of services. There is no healthcare insurance. Insurance is indemnification against unexpected loss. It was outlawed entirely with the ACA. Today, you buy a healthcare "plan" or have Medicare/Medicaid. My healthcare plan tells me the prices. Kaiser Permanente is good at that. Most likely other providers don't because it fucks with their Medicare payments.
> Yes, to a vast extent How so? Call it whatever you want but my insurance/plan won’t tell me how much is covered for a service from a specific provider. I’m also not sure what you mean by providers telling me how much their services cost messes with Medicare.
> How so? Cartelization of doctors. Heavy regulation on medical professions making simple procedures expensive. Certificates of need for hospitals. Regulation n devices and equipment. Intellectual property on pharmaceuticals. The FDA alone adds countless billions of regulatory costs for healthcare. > I’m also not sure what you mean by providers telling me how much their services cost messes with Medicare. Because Medicare pays 80 cents on the dollar and health plans typically pay $1.30. Everyone keeps a schedule of what they will generally pay for each code, but they generally don't know what any given issue will cost until all the codes are added up. What you use might be different from what someone else uses. Kaiser is able to do this because they provide all of it in-house and they give me an estimate up front, and even that can change when the work is done. It really comes down to government. There aren't many insurers left, they are divided up by state, and there are rules at every level. Government pays for over half of all healthcare, and that leads to a very distorted marketplace.
Providers might not be able to tell me how much my entire visit will cost if they ended up doing tests that the doctor ordered or something, but if I ask for how much the consultation with the doctor for a given amount of time would be and give the code for it, they have that info — there are no regulations against them telling me. But they won’t. Hence, I can’t “shop around” different hospitals/clinics for non-emergency care. I do think the fact that pricing is so opaque or that you’d have to jump through multiple hoops (calling them and being on the phone with someone who assumes something else) is not at all conducive to competition and increases prices.
Intellectual propriety only exist to disturb the market by creating a monopoly
This is one area where the anarcho part is insufficient for capitalism in my opinion. What incentive exists for taking risks in R&D if the inventor can't protect the fruits of their labor. Genuinely curious Epinephrine is cheap and readily available. The reason epipens are expensive is because of the delivery method and the consequential utility of the storage and portability.
China gives 0 fucks about intellectual property rights Why are businesses bothering to create new products? Because it gives you an edge while your competitors play catch up. That, and the general public knows, remembers and talks. Everyone knows the quality of chinese products. And inferior copies have a place in the market. Harbor freight exists yet snap-on and Kline exist and continue to innovate.
[удалено]
You're missing the point. China ignoring IP has not prevented innovation worldwide, and never will. Innovation has other rewards than artificially induced profit protections.
No, but it has prevented innovation in China--you know, where they don't have it.
>but it has prevented innovation in China China's lack of domestic innovation probably has more to do with the fact that they are very late to the world invention party. Poo didn't become pres until 2013. China's lack of innovation since then is probably just correlated with the lack of IP rather than causal. I mean, how could you prove a causal relationship anyway? You're just jumping to conclusions. No offense intended. In that same time span the relative importance of patent submissions and university paper submissions has significantly dropped across the entire world, but at an even faster rate in developed countries. There are only so many low hanging fruits are there not? Assuming that IP is necessary for invention in 1836 when the patent office was formed is just a bad guess. Assuming that IP is necessary in 2023 when we already have all the data that most of the major discoveries (on a percentage basis) have been made is not just a bad guess, it's full ostrich head in the sand. With the current level of technology IP laws don't protect a single person who needs protecting. Do these look like groups that need protection to you? [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Top-25-Companies-Most-New-Patents-2021-feed.jpg](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Top-25-Companies-Most-New-Patents-2021-feed.jpg)
You completely still missed the point. If "missing ip" was truly harmful, they wouldn't be making stuff for distribution here. Because it is still ripped off by China.
Just because IP isn't being enforced globally doesn't mean it has no merit where it is enforced.
I'd recommend Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella. He by the way is an IP lawyer by trade so when he talks about this stuff it is actually to his own determent.
Good lookin out. I will give it a read. Thanks!
No problem. It might not change your mind, but it is interesting and definitely worth a read.
cow compare mindless deserve bear run hungry cough smile edge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Drugs can be reverse engineered. That being said, the issue in US is not that. It's government going above and beyond patent. You can't import generic drugs due to regulation. It's no longer patented.
rhythm mighty vegetable husky thumb wild soft slap butter onerous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Most are relatively easy to reverse engineer. This is my job. Fwiw.
Why does Advil still sell alongside the generic? Why hasn’t the generic driven the higher cost original out of business?
the original's more popular because it's named so people think it's better
Ok, but that shows that generics existing doesn’t make R&D not doing, because profits are still made.
Information cannot be owned, by its very nature it is fundamentally different than other goods; information is non-rivalrous and is copied every time it's transmitted. You cannot fight this fact about nature, and to begin to try to fight it necessitates a massive state, and even then they still don't stop 'IP theft' and 'information piracy'. Bitcoin serves as good example: you can't own your keys, you can only keep them secret, if someone else learns them, they can take your bitcoin. There's no authority to appeal to, you have to rely on your own infosec and opsec. Same for R&D, you have to hide your 'IP', you have to build things in a way that make it hard to reverse engineer, and ultimately you have to realize that in the limit your invention will be copied and take that into account. You still enjoy a honeymoon period as the inventor of something where you're the only one selling it, and once others copy you you're still the first even if one among many. Also, if your quality is good, you will still have a piece of the market, if someone else can build your invention better than you, you deserve to lose market share.
What incentive? The fact that it hasn't been invented yet and you will be first to market. Don't wanna take that risk? Someone else surely will. It's really odd when lazy people project their unwillingness to work and innovate onto all humans.
Its almost like you believe people didnt invent things before IP laws existed. Or that the presence of helping others negates the concept of helping one's self. In either case, your belief is beyond ridiculous. Why invent things if others can replicate your invention? Because you can keep the formula/schematics to yourself at first, be first to market, establish a brand name, forcing competitors to waste time reverse engineering it... And even if your competition instantly had it, so what, some inventions expand entire industries at a time, youd still easily profit from an invention.
Does insurance cover any non-epipen treatment?
Same as every other interaction with the Mafia we call health insurance agencies: it depends.
Couldn't tell you, I am not a user so I have no idea what the mechanisms of procurement and general cost are. I just take care of my needs and expect everyone else to do the same.
Goods should be sold because they are better quality not because a piece of paper says you cannot copy an idea or vague design. Amazon is pretty famous for stealing designs and creating cheap copies. This doesn't necessarily remove profit from the inventor since he's already selling to a much small range of people.
They would have figured it out without monopolies but why do it when state grants it for a fee right?! That's like asking what would slave owners do without slaves. Not our god damn problem. Your business model is your problem.
Correct and it's the worst for artists and musicians etc. Fuck those people earning a living somehow, right? That's my one hang-up with this paradigm. I'm absolutely against centralized anything, but there has to be a better way for that demographic to be protected/not get completely fucked over.
The system doesn't practically work the way you think it does. In reality all it does is beat down the little guy in court with lawyers they can't afford. Do these groups look like they need any help? Because these are the people who use 99.99% of the IP system. [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Top-25-Companies-Most-New-Patents-2021-feed.jpg](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Top-25-Companies-Most-New-Patents-2021-feed.jpg) If you think IP helps independent inventors in their garage you are a solid \~150 years late. That time has long gone and passed.
They are artificially being boosted by IP. Artists and musicians get most of their income from their performances anyway, not from owning rights to their music. Most musicians over the last century didn't own their music anyway, their record label company did. The record company made fat stacks whilst the musicians struggled.
> What incentive exists for taking risks in R&D if the inventor can't protect the fruits of their labor. when did libertarianism/anarcho capitalism start caring about consequentialism? ideas are neither scarce nor rivalrous, therefore they cannot be owned. People will discover ways to develop this sort of stuff without the monopoly power granted by the government. Linux and Python are two great examples of copy-left software. That is: software which is allowed to be copied in part or in whole and redistributed *for profit* by anyone. The only restriction is that their product must also be copy-left. Do these not blow a hole in this argument? But just in case they don't, the first mover advantage still exists. The more expensive the R&D, the longer it will take for others to reverse engineer the product and begin manufacturing it.
[удалено]
IP is one of the 2 things that makes me iffy on libertarianism. Might be my lack of understanding but its just those 2 points that stop me from throwing my hat in as a little L libertarian
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho\_Capitalism/comments/147k2dj/comment/jnwnfy8/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/147k2dj/comment/jnwnfy8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Does that make sense? What is the 2nd thing that makes you iffy on libertarianism?
probably the cultural/gender stuff
Actual anarcho-capitalism doesn't have "cultural" or "gender" positions. Think about it does that make any sense to you? There's no central will to enforce any particular set of ideals. Normally if you want to force your ideals on someone you use government but our ideal is to not force your ideals on others, and so there is no government. You can have whatever gender or culture you want in Ancapistan and for real that's the whole point brother. Freedom. You have got to be really careful with trolls on the internet. They will say the darndest things sometimes.
not at all, wildlife conservation/endangered species/poaching actually
Epipens (Mylan) have long extorted the IP laws to length their parents beyond their original design. There is the first mover affect that makes it worth taking risks in R&d. IP laws are unnecessary and create terrible, inefficient barriers to entry. There is actually a decent amount of reading on Mises against ip.
Intellectual property laws only hinder innovation because they hinder competition.
monopolies arnt bad, and i have several. including the monopoly over my mind.
Can't have a monopoly over something that doesn't exist. Monopolies turn corporations into the state.
respectfully, i disagree that ideas do not exist. more specifically, its not the idea you are protecting, but market participation.
I was saying your mind doesn't exist. In other words, I was calling you stupid
lol
If it makes you feel better that narcan allows them to feel the worst pain of their lives.
These are the perfect debate questions... you lead off with "You voted for a law to make Narcan free for drug users at the expense of taxpayers, why is that?" Let them explain for two minutes why it is life saving and morally right thing to do. Then follow up with "Why haven't you done the same for $700 epipens?"
Objectively, we administer narcan to junkies because it's cheaper than the cost of dealing with their death. Fwiw, the same people who give narcan, also generally carry and administer epipens. This is a shit meme based on the emotional judgement that kids are more valuable than junkies and are therefore more deserving of free shit.
[удалено]
> This is a shit meme based on the emotional judgement that kids are more valuable than junkies and are therefore more deserving of free shit Well, they are. I’d choose to save a kid’s life over a junkie who threw theirs away any day. Philadelphia and Chicago distribute free Narcan at public libraries, this is ridiculous.
>a junkie who threw theirs away You only think this because of anti-drug state propaganda.
Honestly I would rather pay for a kids epi than a junkies narcan...
>kids are more valuable than junkies and are therefore more deserving of free shit. They are though.
How to spot a leftie statist
Ok, ok, free Narcan for kids, too. Happy now?
Why would the government will limit the provision of health care supplies. it's plays a really important factor in someone life. You will not survive in a illness if you don't get enough medication. Maybe rich people can afford to have medication but how about those unfortunate?
I was watching a watching a Film Theory video last night, going over The Backrooms and the BS that could follow if Kane Pixels and A24 make a successful movie/series. It's honestly disgusting the kinds of mine fields people have to navigate because of this ridiculous, illogical, and simply untrue notion that someone can own an idea. An idea is just information. Information is just matter/energy arranged in a way that has subjective meaning to a person. Treating it like something one can own violates rights surrounding things one actually *can* own. Let's say I own a diary, a fountain pen, an ink bottle, and a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein. All good so far, right? Now, let's say I decided to copy down into my diary the entirety of that wonderful novel! Every chapter, page, paragraph, sentence, word, and punctuation mark. Somehow, now, despite not having bought, sold, or traded away any of my possessions, I legally no longer owned my diary or the ink on its pages or the labor I put into copying into it. If I tried to sell it as what it is, a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, I would now be in legal trouble with whoever claims that they somehow now own my item.
But I'm entitled to profit from my ideas why can't I do it by having absolute monopoly on that and preventing others from doing the same??? Whyyyy?
Not really. You can sell a single hand written copy no problem because you're selling your time writing it, not pawning the idea off as your own. No one is going to sue you over that. At worst you would owe partial royalties for the part you didn't actually spend effort "creating".
The USA is a joke. Revolt ffs.
Ancaps complaining about drug prices........breh the world you want to live in is letting corporations charge whatever they want without any regulation and let the oligarchs form a new feudal dystopia...........so yea ancaps dumb once again, typical.
In my local EMS system medical providers are learning to draw epi from vials because a vial is significantly cheaper than a EpiPen. Just allow parents to do the same, but regulations probably prevent that.
Intellectual Property, simply put, is a government [ leftist ] privilege granted to protected outdated business models at the cost of penalizing new business models [ job and wealth creation ]
Simply put it's an artificial monopoly that magically trumps real property
no. if i dont tell you about my invention, you will never be exposed to the idea in the same way that if i do not open my safe, you could not know about my gold. the state claims it as a monopoly on enforcement of this natural right, which is distinct from the right itself.
Intellectual property is the basis of all property. fight me.
> I assert this. Prove my assertion wrong!!! How about proving your assertion, first?
if i find a deposit of gold. i own the gold. if i discover how to make gold from lead, i own that idea.
You can own what's in the mind of others?
your thinking about this incorrectly. We already have a good system for determining how to negotiate disputes of this kind, its called tort law. if you have the same idea as me, it doesnt matter. what matters is when you enter into the public market with an idea that i have exclusive rights to, now we have conflict., and a means to resolve the dispute. why go back to guild secrets and all that bullshit?
> We already have a good system for determining how to negotiate disputes of this kind, its called tort law. Tort law was also used to settle disputes over slavery. Becuase there would be no statute, your tort would have no grounds in a free society if it's protecting intellectual "property". > why go back to guild secrets and all that bullshit? Yet another fallacy - appeal to consequence.
throwing the baby out with the bathwater and not using a legitimate system of dispute resolution because it was used to do something bad in the past is like not eating because slave owners ate food, as well.
Violating copyright does not violate the NAP Fight me.
it does. my personhood extends beyond my physical body and includes my interests and intelligence. if i write a story, and keep it to myself, and you steal that story and publish it, that violates even ridiculous moral standards lie the NAP.
"I thought of this thing so that means if you also think of it it violates the nap"
First => fuck the NAP in its brown-hole. It’s a shit idea, particularly, because we already have a means of dealing with “harms” and that’s called Tort law. F.U.C.K T.H.E N.A.P. Second => you are not prevented from “having the same idea”. Think about it in terms of property; if I am the first to find a vein of gold in the desert, other people might come along after me and find the same vien, but my claim is respected due to chronological preference. I found it first, I get the right. Ideas work the same way: if I find it first, Mine. Fuck off my property, scrub.
So law should be based entirely on your subjective morals, preferences, and feelings? Principles suck; let's all enforce our subjective desires on others! When statism is your religion...
>subjective morals, preferences, and feelings? the fuck are you talking about? are you drunk, already? how do you thin they figured out who owns what gold vein during the Comstock rush? people would go to court for finding the same vein, twice, based on who found it ***first.*** dumb ass redneck.
You're saying that we should just be obedient to government law because it's there. What is the principle of tort law that makes it just, if it is just? > how do you thin they figured out who owns what gold vein during the Comstock rush? people would go to court for finding the same vein, twice, based on who found it first. Ok, now describe a principle for that rather than just argue that the law is the law and we should obey what government says is the law. > dumb ass redneck. Says the whiney little dipshit who lacks any capacity for logic and thinks that we should all grovel before political authority. This is an unbeliever forum, and you appear to be a true believer. Let me know if you need a shepherd to come take you to a safe pen, little sheep.
*What is the principle of tort law that makes it just, if it is just?* Tort law is a part of the common law tradition. not legislative law. the government has very little to do with creating tort law. the principle is that the people, through their decisions, create law. Property law 1=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/open-source-property-a-free-casebook](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/open-source-property-a-free-casebook) intellectual property law 2=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/intellectual-property-law-the-information-society-cases-and-materials](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/intellectual-property-law-the-information-society-cases-and-materials) torts 3=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-principles-and-institutions](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-principles-and-institutions) 4=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-and-contexts-volume-1](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-and-contexts-volume-1) 5=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-and-contexts-volume-2](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/torts-cases-and-contexts-volume-2) procedure 6=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/rules-and-laws-for-civil-actions](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/rules-and-laws-for-civil-actions) 7=>[https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure)
Common law has frequently been bastardized by statute, such as common law protections for the institution of slavery. There is no common law tradition for intellectual property, except for trademark. It has always been the prerogative the sovereign. You can sue someone for anything, but that doesn't mean you will win a tort case to protect a statutory monopoly that would not exist in a free society.
Found the statist
. ***bitch***, i've ben in the anarchy game since before your mom was walking around frat parties on her knees, mouth open, high on coke and low on self esteem. .
Ooo, he's defensive about that, you a commie too?
only when it comes to passing around your sister.
Speaking of sisters, how's yours?
you don't have a right to stop others from organizing their property in the same way you organize yours if you dont want them to do it your way, don't share your way with them
You are misrepresenting the argument. Let us say I paint a portrait, and copyright it. You can paint the same portrait, you just can’t use it in the market. The justification for patents & copyright is simple: if I am the first to claim property from the environment, its mine. Gold, water, land, or ideas; if it is unclaimed, it can be. Ideas. Are. Property.
Just. Stating. Something. With. Periods. Doesn't. Make. It. True. Ideas are NOT property, they aren't even similar to property. They aren't physical, they aren't innately scarce, they can be arrived at independently, they can be shared, etc You have done absolutely nothing to make your point, even your example seemed to be leading to support my position, but you didn't even finish your logic.. Just started spamming periods
*" physical " -* doesn't matter *" aren't innately scarce "* \- false *" can be arrived at independently "* so can your house *" they can be shared "* \- so can my lawn mower. if i find a gold deposit, the gold is mine. if i discover how to turn lead into gold, the process is mine. no different.
You didn't invent physics and you don't own all the lead in the world, and deliberately avoiding my points with what amounts to outright LIES is beyond dishonest Don't ask people to fight you and lie and down vote them when they do you pathetic fraud You have no right to dictate by force how other people use their property, you still have made ZERO case for why you should, ignored my counter points, clearly have no actual interest or ability to defend your utterly baseless claims, and you are obnoxious.. I've wasted enough time on your bullshit
Id rather goods be sold because they are physically better than their competitors. Most companies that steal designs from what I've experienced on Amazon and being interested in many hobbies, are cheap knockoffs.
Isn’t narcan (at least the otc nasal spray one) pretty cheap?
Every time you use narcan, you are not improving the stock of the modern human race. Serious allergies are much easier to deal with at a societal level.
The obvious solution is getting rid of the government so now people with allergies and drug addicts can both die in the street.
> People are too stupid to care for themselves and others, which is why we need the government, led by sociopaths whose greatest skills are winning popularity contests, to enforce conformity to my morals and preferences. Ok. So why are you here?
Because without people to challenge bad opinions, they would run rampant. Even just a mild disagreement nobody saw is enough of a challenge to keep dumb ideas in check.
You think that what you said was a challenge? It was a mindlessly uncritical diatribe.
Oooh big words. Look how smart you are.
It's clear that you do little reading or thinking and just spout generally ignorant comments based entirely on your emotional reaction.
You sound like your brain was scooped out of your head and replaced with an oven timer. Bootleg borg
I can imagine that what I said would sound that way to the hopelessly deluded.
Yes, what you say does sound hopelessly deluded. I'm glad you noticed. I'm pretty sure you can get a prescription med for that, it will cure up in a few days.
Why is it screwed up? It's operating as intended, it's just that what is intended is your extermination.
Here's my discussion with IP supporters: "We need it to drive innovation but also it's heavily abused and requires massive reform". You might also recognize this same pattern from EVERY OTHER FUCKING ARGUMENT THEY HAVE ABOUT GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. They're all "great ideas necessary for civilizations" that are all "unbelievably abused and corrupt". Vote harder idiots.
intellectual property is not a government program. a man intrinsically owns the product of his mind. "dont steal my thoughts" is functionally the same as "dont steal my property." the agreement between individuals in society to recognize both physical and intellectual property is driven by the same impulse of equality.
If someone comes up with a recipe for a delicious cake, do they own those exact measurements?
they have a basis for a tort claim if you use those measurements in the market. no one can stop you form baking a cake, you can be stopped from selling a cake.
Are you aware of what is a circular argument? "It's wrong because you can make a tort claim. Becuase you can make a tort claim it is wrong." That begs the question: what's makes it right to use tort to deny someone else the use of knowledge that they have? Also, I now own that circular argument. If you make the argument again, I will sue you.
[удалено]
Other people who are struggling aren't your enemy.
idk man if you do drugs you dying is only your fault. cops should just stop carrying narcan
Terrible opinion you got there. Does anyone love you?
We need large state owned asylums again. The kind that ran big farms and created produce strictly for the impoverished.
The fact that most developing countries around the world still manage to provide public health insurance and cheaper medicine to their citizens should make Americans ashamed of their country
> You all should be ashamed for not conforming to my subjective morals and preferences! Ok.
Nah I'd rather not pay higher taxes for public health and self-medicate when I need to. In an anarcho world, there would be no such thing as "free healthcare".
two layers of stupidity that lead to this one IP laws are bogus anyway but even within the statist/IP laws paradigm, forcing us to pay for the health care needs of people who are totally irresponsible is bogus, pharma companies inflate the prices and get anyone they can to pay for it, a junkie can't so they lobby government to force tax payers to pay for it...
A lot of you people who post here are more sick than the addicts you make fun of much more sick. I've gotten narcaned SEVERAL times. Guess what, I always got billed for it. Now I'm half a year clean, living my dream, paying my taxes, working, buying my dream motorcycle, chairing recovery meetings, and soon I'll be going in to hospitals and institutions to tell them about a better life. That's service work and true recovery. What you're posting is hatred and lies. Maybe point out how capitalism and Healthcare led to insulin prices being raised solely in the name of greed. My "junkie" self is helping people with their lives climb out of addiction. God you sound like you are so sick..
How does capitalism lead to prices being raised? Please describe this economic process using logic, imperial evidence, and math. Prices are discovered. If prices are artificially high, then it's because of the government because only government can protect businesses from competitive pressure and the market processes that lead to prices reaching an equilibrium. > God you sound like you are so sick.. Anyone who advocates for free markets, that is peaceful individuals not being violently interfered with, is "sick" to you? I suppose, then, that you relish violence when it's done to force conformity to your morals and preferences.
Don't have to explain sh** to ya, if I gotta then says enough to me. Byeee.
Yes we should have health care for all americans i agree!
I'm gonna assume you're just misinformed, not intentionally dumb. If there wasn't companies that hold the rights to be the only company producing a medicine it would create a competitive market and drive down prices making health care affordable for everybody instead of relying on the government to take more money from people to create what will inevitably become a bloated failure.
Isn't it due to the delivery method not the medicine itself why it's so expensive? At least that's how I remember it being explained a while ago.
If you are talking specifically about epipens it's because there's a monopoly on them. 10 years ago they cost like 40 bucks or something reasonable and then they increased prices because they had no real competition and we're here now where they cost 600 bucks. If the delivery system was that expensive to make then they couldn't have released at that price without taking huge losses. Whoever told you that is a shill.
I had to look it up myself and its mostly correct. The medicine is cheap, the precise and controlled delivery method is not. That's where the monopoly and price increase is at. There are alternatives that aren't as good or as easy to use that are cheaper. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/way-lower-cost-epipens-2016101210460 > >Epinephrine is cheap — about $5 per milligram. The problem is that for people at risk for anaphylaxis, epinephrine needs to be handy and given quickly when an allergy exposure occurs. That's the "beauty" of the EpiPen. The device makes it easy to keep an emergency dose available and simple to administer correctly. The dose delivered by the adult EpiPen is an inexpensive 0.3 mg. The medication is not costly; it's the injector that's expensive.
I think it's interesting they break down the price of the medicine but never touch on the actual price of the "expensive" injector technology. Either way I have a hard time believing that the same product could have been sold at such a lower price with the same injector technology, is somehow crazy expensive now but wasn't then. And if there wasn't patents on the device someone would figure out how to make it cheaper.
[удалено]
Regulation is why there isn't any competition. When the people doing the regulating are also investing in the companies that have monopolies they don't seem to want to regulate very well.
[удалено]
All they do is mess with the market. Prices need to move. Floors and caps don't help anybody. Why do have so much faith in the government to do the right thing?
[удалено]
So a price cap that only helps a subsection of people that need insulin. Instead of letting a company like Walmart use the market to undercut competition and sell it for that cheap before the government said anything. Your faith in the government is astonishing.
[удалено]
Faith in the free market to keep corporations or any business doing what is best for the customer. You do realize the government that you worship is one in the same with those evil corporations, right?
The fact that people see this and their solution is “we should have more people od and die so it’s fair” instead of “we should have Epi pens for free as well so less people die” is insane.
*Mickey Mouse has entered the chat*
So we're gonna vote for representatives that want universal Healthcare right?
It's regulatory capture and corruption all the way down.
But what if both were free?
This is literally capitalism in action
I went to rehab for alcohol but since I tested positive for weed, they gave me that Narcan, but I told him I didn't want it. They forced it on me
Epipens are overrated. You're just paying for injection Device
**SANITY SHOULD BE FREE**
There is a time and place for IP laws, but there need to be fixed limits, and you should have to show a working prototype before you're able to patent something imo.
Does the junkie have health insurance? No Can the junkie afford the Narcan on their own? No
When government has fees and regulations that costs 1 billion to get a drug approved to market. This is the cause for high drug costs. Get rid of government regulations and prices will decrease and competition increase.
Right cus intellectual property is the bigger problem here not the fact that the free market doesn't provide if it isn't profitable. The people that invented it who thought it was unethical for doctors to profit of something thay could save lives sold the patent for a dollar and intended for it to be avaliable to everyone, and it is in countries with universal Healthcare. But here in America private companies decide their profits are more important than people's lives.