CEO buys AIDS drug and jacks up the price by 4,100%

[Foxi4]

Well, either the state let's people die, many times for minor stuff (it's not like most people can afford insurance), or they treat them in the ER, which is much more expensive. Meanwhile, american hospitals had a huge incentive to jack up the prices of minor things since insurers will just pay anyway and they had to pay the costs for the uninsured themselves.

Read about it, it was seriously messed up (I don't know how it improved with OC). Market fairies don't work in healthcare, and I'd argue in many other vital areas.

You should probably ask yourself why people can't afford insurance, not whether or not healthcare should be public. At the end of the day, just a few decades back a normal blue collar worker could afford to pay for the upkeep of his wife and three kids with just one paycheck, today after all the wonderful social ideas that were supposed to make life easier for everybody have been implemented even saying that sounds like a cruel joke. I wonder why it was possible to live on one paycheck then and it's hard to live on two paychecks today, not to mention that getting entry-level full-time employment is literally impossible since for some totally unexplained reason people only get 0-hours contracts or part-time contracts. This do-good feel-good trend in politics is predatory to industry and hurts everyone, if people can't see it then they live in a bubble, I'm afraid. But hey! Who am I to judge?

 

[Hungry Friend]

I'm getting pretty tired of you trying to discredit my logical statements as attacks. The picture wasn't directed at anyone. I just said "it has a place in this thread." I don't know what you mean by "following you around", but that sounds paranoid. I have been following this thread, but afaik that's the only contact we've had. I may be in other threads that you're also in, but I assure you that's because I'm a regular on this forum, as well as HD and WH. Just look at my post count. I like helping people. On very rare occasions I get involved in debates, but you'll find most of my posts are either offering or asking for help.

Your partisan comments about Obama without even mentioning financial deregulation under Reagan, Bush(both bushes) and yes I know Clinton took part in that shit too make it hard to take you seriously at all anymore. You seem to always take the pro-business side of every argument even when I make it painfully obvious I'm making hypothetical, philosophical arguments and at least ITT you seem to be, at least at times, starting arguments just for the sake of arguing. If you're going to mention Obama's fuckups, of which he has plenty, why don't you simply criticize the entire party-based, fundraising/bribe-centric system in its entirety? Both parties are to blame for the sorry state of our economy so taking one side every time is kind of pointless. I lean left but I'm willing to admit the democratic party is just as shit as the Republican party in its own way. All that's really different is the rhetoric.

If you have a problem with me, get off my nuts and I'll leave you alone as well. Your brand of "logic" is infinitely more one-sided and biased than you've been accusing mine of being.

I have a completely opposite point of view - being a politician should not be considered a job - it didn't use to and I think we were better off. Political campaigns should be ran exclusively from the politician's own pocket and fundraising, not a public pot-o-money and every politician should do their duties for free - they all have their own businesses anyways. Minimal government with minimal regulations, half the current taxation gone, especially income tax (aka the "penalty for work" tax) and the less representatives the better.

While that would likely still be better than what we have now, wouldn't it just mean those with the most money would win nearly 100% of the time because the average person can't afford to run a modern campaign? Public elections certainly wouldn't be flawless but I think they'd be more fair than what you're suggesting unless I'm misinterpreting your argument.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Your partisan comments about Obama without even mentioning financial deregulation under Reagan, Bush and yes I know Clinton took part in that shit too make it hard to take you seriously at all anymore. You seem to always take the pro-business side of every argument even when I make it painfully obvious I'm making hypothetical, philosophical arguments and at least ITT you seem to be, at least at times, starting arguments just for the sake of arguing. If you're going to mention Obama's fuckups, of which he has plenty, why don't you simply criticize the entire party-based, fundraising/bribe-centric system in its entirety? Both parties are to blame for the sorry state of our economy so taking one side every time is kind of pointless. I lean left but I'm willing to admit the democratic party is just as shit as the Republican party in its own way. All that's really different is the rhetoric.

If you have a problem with me, get off my nuts and I'll leave you alone as well. Your brand of "logic" is infinitely more one-sided and biased than you've been accusing mine of being.

Woah, go to your doctor and ask him to prescribe a chill-pill. If you don't have insurance, I'll gladly pay for it.

I mentioned one mistake by Obama. I didn't realize that it meant I had to mention the ones that previous US Presidents have made. You're the one using a red herring argument by bringing parties into it.

If you take a look at the thread, you'll notice I'm not singling you out. I'm responding to almost all posts. I've subscribed to the thread. A closer look will also make it obvious that I don't "always take the pro-business side of every argument." I haven't even mentioned businesses. My concern is with people. Before you object, I'm not saying that isn't a concern of yours. We just have different beliefs about what will help people more.

Stop getting so worked up, and stop making unprovoked insults. I want a calm, logical debate, not a fight.

 

[Foxi4]

While that would likely still be better than what we have now, wouldn't it just mean those with the most money would win nearly 100% of the time because the average person can't afford to run a modern campaign? Public elections certainly wouldn't be flawless but I think they'd be more fair than what you're suggesting unless I'm misinterpreting your argument.

Yes, and? Are you implying that things are different now? Besides, there should be no money to make directly through politics, nullifying the monetary incentive. Right now you have 100 senators and a little under 500 congressmen total - I'd slash those numbers to zero senators because their role is purely stonewalling legislature and could be replaced with one person - the president, due to his right of Veto, and two congressmen from each state, one from the right and one from the left, from parties chosen in a free election in each state by rule of majority voting - you'd end up with 100 total representatives and a president and an equal 50/50 split of left and right, plus a variety in the party system - no-nonsense, only steamrolling forwards. I don't want poor politicians, I want politicians successful in their private lives and able to create legislature out of patriotic duty, not thirst for monetary gain. It'd also rid the system of representatives sitting in party camps since each state would choose their own representatives directly based on how they represent their interests instead of voting for party figureheads. This would shrink the federal govrrnment in favour of hands-on state government. A man can dream.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Yes, and? Are you implying that things are different now? Besides, there should be no money to make directly through politics, nullifying the monetary incentive. Right now you have 100 senators and a little under 500 congressmen total - i'd slash those numbers to zero senators because their role is purely stonewalling legislature and could be replaced with one person - the president, due to his right of Veto, and two congressmen from each state, one from the right and one from the left, from parties chosen in a free election in each state by rule of majority voting - you'd end up with 100 total representatives and a president and an equal 50/50 split of left and right, plus a variety in the party system - no-nonsense, only steamrolling forwards. I don't want poor politicians, I want politicians successful in their private lives and able to create legislature out of patriotic duty, not thirst for monetary gain. It'd also rid the system of representatives sitting in party camps since each state would choose their own representatives directly based on how they represent their interests instead of voting for party figureheads. This would shrink the federal govrrnment in favour of hands-on state government. A man can dream.

You have uncommon knowledge of the US government an economy compared to most people from Europe (and a lot of Americans actually). Did you used to live in the US?

 

[Hungry Friend]

Woah, go to your doctor and ask him to prescribe a chill-pill. If you don't have insurance, I'll gladly pay for it.

I mentioned one mistake by Obama. I didn't realize that it meant I had to mention the ones that previous US Presidents have made. You're the one using a red herring argument by bringing parties into it.

If you take a look at the thread, you'll notice I'm not singling you out. I'm responding to almost all posts. I've subscribed to the thread. A closer look will also make it obvious that I don't "always take the pro-business side of every argument." I haven't even mentioned businesses. My concern is with people. Before you object, I'm not saying that isn't a concern of yours. We just have different beliefs about what will help people more.

Stop getting so worked up, and stop making unprovoked insults. I want a calm, logical debate, not a fight.

Dude, you're clearly coming from a biased, right-wing perspective rather than one focused on the big picture as a whole so "debating" you is kind of pointless. At least when I make mistakes I admit them like when I didn't read the article in the OP. Excuse me for being a little fiery today but I'm a little sleep deprived(not your fault obviously; insomnia's a bitch) and my original comment was more meant to be just a passing philosophical comment about how I find medical profiteering objectionable. I didn't even WANT to start a debate but you've been kinda following me around the thread making right-wng arguments all while being as condescending as you possibly can without actually directly insulting me. You actually do make good arguments as well but you seem very partisan and as far as tone goes, it kinda seems like you're looking for a fight.

Yes, and? Are you implying that things are different now? Besides, there should be no money to make directly through politics, nullifying the monetary incentive. Right now you have 100 senators and a little under 500 congressmen total - i'd slash those numbers to zero senators because their role is purely stonewalling legislature and could be replaced with one person - the president, due to his right of Veto, and two congressmen from each state, one from the right and one from the left, from parties chosen in a free election in each state by rule of majority voting - you'd end up with 100 total representatives and a president and an equal 50/50 split of left and right, plus a variety in the party system - no-nonsense, only steamrolling forwards. I don't want poor politicians, I want politicians successful in their private lives and able to create legislature out of patriotic duty, not thirst for monetary gain. It'd also rid the system of representatives sitting in party camps since each state would choose their own representatives directly based on how they represent their interests instead of voting for party figureheads. This would shrink the federal govrrnment in favour of hands-on state government. A man can dream.

That would be better than what we have now but as far as campaign finance goes, it strikes me as the same shit we have today but you're cutting out the middleman(today's politicians, ie the puppets) and replacing them with the billionaires who already control them now. The richest people in the world are often not the most honest, morally upright people either so financial success doesn't= them being any better than anyone else so while I certainly respect your vision I still think money would play far too big a role in who gets elected. The billionaires who own politicians today would be directly running things so while it would certainly be more honest so to speak, it would in many ways be the same thing we have today minus the marionettes.

The merits of a man's ideas, not his financial status should dictate whether he's qualified to lead, not his pocketbook. I prefer public elections over your dream but I do like how you reject the party system. I'm not a particularly political person in general but our philosophies are opposite in many ways. I support having a smaller government in some ways(stop locking so many non-violent people up, cut the military, demilitarize police forces etc etc) but shrinking the federal government is a very general idea. Depends on what you wanna shrink or get rid of.

 

[Foxi4]

You have uncommon knowledge of the US government an economy compared to most people from Europe (and a lot of Americans actually). Did you used to live in the US?

I'm an English Philology major, knowing the history and basics of legal/government/judicial systems of the U.S and UK were part of my studies.

The merits of a man's ideas, not his financial status should dictate whether he's qualified to lead, not his pocketbook. I prefer public elections over your dream but I do like how you reject the party system.

Ideas need to have practical applications - that's what differentiates a philosopher from a politician. If an idea, even good in nature, is not applicable to the real world then it should not be considered valid because it's fantasy. We've had a couple of philosophers creating government systems before - those systems were called socialism and communism and they bankrupted the eastern hemisphere.

As for me being against the party system, I'm not - I'm against two-party systems (Hello, Republicans vs. Democrats and Tories vs. Labour!) because it implies that you have to adjust ideology to the common denominator and I'm against cliques. A politician's duty is first and foremost to his electorate, his duty to the party comes secondary, if it's relevant at all.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Dude, you're clearly coming from a biased, right-wing perspective rather than one focused on the big picture as a whole so "debating" you is kind of pointless. At least when I make mistakes I admit them like when I didn't read the article in the OP. Excuse me for being a little fiery today but I'm a little sleep deprived(not your fault obviously; insomnia's a bitch) and my original comment was more meant to be just a passing philosophical comment about how I find medical profiteering objectionable. I didn't even WANT to start a debate but you've been kinda following me around the thread making right-wng arguments all while being as condescending as you possibly can without actually directly insulting me. You actually do make good arguments as well but you seem very partisan and as far as tone goes, it kinda seems like you're looking for a fight.

I am NOT following you. I have responded to most people in this thread. I'm obviously going to respond to you directly if you quote me though. I am registered as a Republican, although I dislike the two-party system, because it really limits who you can vote for, without throwing your vote away with a third party. There are several Republican candidates this year that, if elected in the primaries, could make me vote Democrat. Like I said before, this isn't about political parties. We both care about helping people. My logic has led me to believe that healthcare through taxes will cause much more harm than good. It is possible that I'm wrong, but I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

I understand being edgy when you're tired. I was up all night with a migraine (so much worse than a headache), so I'm tired as well. Maybe my responses today are edgy too, I don't know.

Edit: Lol, @Foxi4 is against the two party system as well. I don't think we've ever agreed on so much.

 

[Hungry Friend]

I am NOT following you. I have responded to most people in this thread. I'm obviously going to respond to you directly if you quote me though. I am registered as a Republican, although I dislike the two-party system, because it really limits who you can vote for, without throwing your vote away with a third party. There are several Republican candidates this year that, if elected in the primaries, could make me vote Democrat. Like I said before, this isn't about political parties. We both care about helping people. My logic has led me to believe that healthcare through taxes will cause much more harm than good. It is possible that I'm wrong, but I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

I understand being edgy when you're tired. I was up all night with a migraine (so much worse than a headache), so I'm tired as well. Maybe my responses today are edgy too, I don't know.

Edit: Lol, @Foxi4 is against the two party system as well. I don't think we've ever agreed on so much.

In that case sorry for flaming you, and let's just agree to disagree about health care policy and yeah I am kinda edgy today. I hope your migraine's gone as well. I don't see why anyone would defend our current 2-party system either because while the rhetoric is different, both parties are the same in that they take money from the same pot and have nearly identical policy plans when it comes to things like defense, the environment/energy policy, drug prohibition, the awful US prison/legal system etc; I could go on but you get my point. They mostly differ on social "wedge" issues like abortion for example and use said issues to manipulate people into voting for them as well as convincing people they're substantively different from the "other side" when in reality the differences are almost all stylistic with very few major policy differences. Is there anyone in particular you're rooting for? I distrust everyone currently running but Bernie Sanders seems to be the least shitty. Hilary is kind of like Romney or John Kerry; stereotypical establishment type and same goes for Jeb and Rubio. I refuse to take Trump seriously in any way policy-wise although his ability to manipulate idiots should not be underestimated; he's a great salesman.

Before health care or anything else is tackled here in the US, we need to get money out of politics. As far as what you said Foxi4, while I agree that you need more than some fantasy I still think basically giving elections away to the highest bidder/letting the richest man win is a bad idea and I'd much rather have public elections. If only the rich(or people owned by the rich) can afford to run for office then the system is rigged and average people who may have fantastic ideas would be financially unable to compete. The less influence money has on who can run for office or win, the better. The people should be properly represented rather than having a bunch of out of touch rich dudes running everything like we have today. I share your hatred of cliques, though. Buncha dumb fucking high school shit.

My question is how the fuck can we get real campaign finance reform when everyone in power takes bribes? Aside from a non-violent revolution, what the fuck can we actually do?

 

[JoostinOnline]

To everyone besides Hungry Friend: The following response is off-topic (even more so than our current topic), so it should be ignored

In that case sorry for flaming you, and let's just agree to disagree about health care policy and yeah I am kinda edgy today. I hope your migraine's gone as well. I don't see why anyone would argue for keeping our current 2-party system either because while the rhetoric is different, both parties are the same in that they take money from the same pot and have nearly identical policy plans when it comes to things like defense, the environment, drug prohibition and the awful US prison/legal system. They mostly differ on social "wedge" issues like abortion for example and use said issues to manipulate people into voting for them as well as convincing people they're substantively different from the "other side" when in reality the differences are almost all image with very few major policy differences. Is there anyone in particular you're rooting for? I distrust everyone currently running but Bernie Sanders seems to be the least shitty. Hilary is kind of like Romney or John Kerry; stereotypical establishment type and same goes for Jeb and Rubio. I refuse to take Trump seriously in any way policy-wise although his ability to manipulate idiots should not be underestimated; he's a great salesman.

Lol, if you're a Sanders supporter, I don't think you'll like who I'm rooting for: Ben Carson. He's the biggest contender against Trump, which I'll admit is a huge selling point for me. Carson wasn't my first choice, but it's down to him or Trump, and Trump might make me vote Democrat, despite all the issues I have with the party. My main concern with Carson is that he's never been in politics.

 

[Foxi4]

@Hungry Friend See, this is a part of growing up - you want money to be out of politics because you consider fundraising bad, but campaigns cost, so you need fundraising to allow everymen to compete - this is what's called a necessary evil. In a perfect world of philosophy your idea would work, but it's not applicable, ergo fantasy. In my setup, politicians should stand to lose, not gain in campaigns, as they would wager their own money - how they got it is none of my concern. Should they have to open their own wallets, you can be sure that they would try to appease the public in order to attain the prestige of being a representative rather than losing their rally. By making it state-oriented rather than national, campaign costs would drop and represented interest would be more focused - it's a win-win. As for the number of representatives, you only really need few - the hard lifting can be done in their offices where everymen would work on legislature that would later be presented and argued for by the representative. I think it's a more transparent, cheaper way of governing a nation as compared to what you do now.

@JoostinOnline No shit lol, I'm surprised myself. I guess coders just think efficiently, not only in their coding, but also in real life.

 

[Hungry Friend]

tbh I don't know enough about Carson to have an opinion of him so at this point I'm neutral. Most people including myself expected Trump to fizzle out a long time ago and while he still could, I sure as fuck wouldn't bet on it because his success has totally blindsighted the entire presidential race, namely the Republican party. I guess his confidence and charisma attracts people because he's great at making sales pitches; I don't get it because he's an obvious con man. Not saying Bernie is great either but I'm picking the person I find the least repulsive out of a group of people I either don't know about like Carson or straight up distrust and dislike like Jeb or Hilary.

EDIT: Foxi, that's why I support public elections. It's an opinion, not a fantasy. There should also be independent oversight of said public funding to reduce any sort of unfair funding/advantages but I have already said I support public funding of elections and am not just making a philosophical point. It's very far from perfect but it's imo much better and less corrupt(yes, I know that term can be relative) than what we currently have or what your idea would produce.

edit2: Yeah we're going OT big time so we should probably end this debate or start a new thread. I'm indifferent.

 

[Nightwish]

You should probably ask yourself why people can't afford insurance, not whether or not healthcare should be public. At the end of the day, just a few decades back a normal blue collar worker could afford to pay for the upkeep of his wife and three kids with just one paycheck, today after all the wonderful social ideas that were supposed to make life easier for everybody have been implementes

It's obviously because it hasn't trickled down yet and must be clogged somewhere, because the western world has certainly not turned left at all in the last 40 years. It has absolutely nothing to do with inequality and having reforms to be able to fire anyone at will, surely not.

 

[FAST6191]

bump bump bump bump
Not really any news on the matter but of passing interest
Popular youtube chemist nurdrage is detailing how to make it from relatively easy to find gear with more modest equipment (certainly in the realm of compounding pharmacy), maybe not to pharma grade but interesting never the less

 

[Subtle Demise]

bump bump bump bump
Not really any news on the matter but of passing interest
Popular youtube chemist nurdrage is detailing how to make it from relatively easy to find gear with more modest equipment (certainly in the realm of compounding pharmacy), maybe not to pharma grade but interesting never the less

There's also an entire tutorial on how to make meth on youtube, but you need to find a guide first and then search every step on youtube. Everything from what kind of batteries work best and how to take them apart to...well I probably shouldn't say the rest here. Chemistry has always interested me, especially the kind that has a practical purpose.

 

[FAST6191]

Speed is such a boring drug, and if you are pulling apart batteries to make it (though a quick search says as a source of lithium rather than sulphuric like some other home chemistry I occasionally see). Though it is not really a thing around here and indeed some people tried to figure out why meth is not really a thing here, turned out easy and cheap cocaine was probably why.
I mentioned it before in that drugs topic but if you have not looked up Alexander Shulgin's pihkal and tihkal books yet then definitely do if this sort of chemistry interests you, the chemistry side of things they made available for free online. He details extensively how several things in the 2cb and mdma/md?? family as well as the tryptamines (the t in dmt) are made, all the intermediate stages and yields at each stage*. If you like the videos I linked then you will probably find it fascinating. I will stop short of linking it directly but it is not hard to find.

*and then he tried all sorts of variations on himself and wrote what happened when he did.

 

[JoostinOnline]

And I'm just here wondering if I'll get banned for reporting a staff member's necropost

 

[Foxi4]

And I'm just here wondering if I'll get banned for reporting a staff member's necropost

Hey, I'm glad he did! It allowed me to relive my beautiful libertarian dream of small government, transparent politics, excising money from the system and agreeing with you for the first time ever. #NvrFrgt

 

[JoostinOnline]

Hey, I'm glad he did! It allowed me to relive my beautiful libertarian dream of small government, transparent politics, excising money from the system and agreeing with you for the first time ever. #NvrFrgt

I'm not a libertarian, but I'm supporting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld (who happen to be the first cool candidates ever). They're only 2% away from being in the debate.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not a libertarian, but I'm supporting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld (who happen to be the first cool candidates ever). They're only 2% away from being in the debate.

...and about 49% away from being viable, realistic candidates, which is so sad. It breaks my heart that people will always vote Democrat or Republican just because they're used to, there are so many better options out there but tradition and brand association are nipping them in the bud. The UK suffers from the same shit - it's Tories or Labour each and every time.