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



## Deleted User (Sep 23, 2015)

> Turing bought the rights to the drug, which is said to cost around $1 to produce, in August for $55 million and immediately raised its price. It was $25.20 (AU) but is now $1051 (AU).



Source 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...s-drug-overnight/story-fnu2q2e9-1227539365710


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 23, 2015)

This type of shit is why I lean towards socialism. For-profit medicine is an abomination; everyone deserves free medical care.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 23, 2015)

I recall an older thread for something similar ( http://gbatemp.net/threads/drug-price-jumps-from-20-to-1500.282738/ ).

How did they manage to buy a 62 year old drug though? I am going to have to read further.


----------



## TeamScriptKiddies (Sep 23, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> I recall an older thread for something similar ( http://gbatemp.net/threads/drug-price-jumps-from-20-to-1500.282738/ ).
> 
> How did they manage to buy a 62 year old drug though? I am going to have to read further.


There's no way this is covered under patent laws, other manufacturers will certainly step in and put him out of business....


----------



## Selim873 (Sep 23, 2015)

That's all kinds of fucked up...


----------



## TeamScriptKiddies (Sep 23, 2015)

Selim873 said:


> That's all kinds of fucked up...



Its all good, his pharmaceutical empire will soon crumble around him and he will be living on the streets in no time. Serves him right


----------



## Selim873 (Sep 23, 2015)

TeamScriptKiddies said:


> Its all good, his pharmaceutical empire will soon crumble around him and he will be living on the streets in no time. Serves him right


Hopefully.  If this ended up staying, he's not realizing that he pretty much just bankrupted and possibly even killed thousands upon thousands of people because of something they can't control.


----------



## TeamScriptKiddies (Sep 23, 2015)

Selim873 said:


> Hopefully.  If this ended up staying, he's not realizing that he pretty much just bankrupted and possibly even killed thousands upon thousands of people because of something they can't control.


 F*** that guy! Some people make me so sick....


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 23, 2015)

So I did some more reading. Apparently this was marketing rights (so I am guessing some variation on the theme of trademark) and a lack of other manufacturers making it for a drug otherwise known as Pyrimethamine (a relatively simple chemical -- 5-(4-chlorophenyl)-6-ethyl- 2,4-pyrimidinediamine -- http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB8461315.htm ). Manufacture seems to be relatively simple and doable with fairly common chemicals but I do not know how easy it would be to pull off in compounding pharmacies (organic chemistry, much less for medicinal purposes, is not really my thing).


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 23, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> This type of shit is why I lean towards socialism. For-profit medicine is an abomination; everyone deserves free medical care.


This kind of shit happens to be bullshit.  It's not an AIDS drug, and there are SIX generics, so not a single person would be affected by this.

Considering you just believed this without any real research, I'm not surprised socialism appeals to you.


----------



## Veho (Sep 24, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> This type of shit is why I lean towards socialism. For-profit medicine is an abomination; everyone deserves free medical care.


"Socialism" and "free medical care" wouldn't prevent this guy doing what he did. The health care system would still have to purchase the drugs from the manufacturer, and the manufacturer would still be free to set the prices however he liked.


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Sep 24, 2015)

TeamScriptKiddies said:


> Its all good, his pharmaceutical empire will soon crumble around him and he will be living on the streets in no time. Serves him right


I should short sell his company's stock!


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Sep 24, 2015)

I just searched the full CBS news video.


----------



## Hells Malice (Sep 24, 2015)

It literally said he was going to lower it due to criticism in the OPs linked article.
Making this entire thread and that article pointless.

It's likely a force he could not avoid forced him to back down. Guys like that don't back down just cuz some people got angry with him. You go into that commitment knowing you're being a scumbag and can live with that just fine.


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Sep 24, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> It literally said he was going to lower it due to criticism in the OPs linked article.
> Making this entire thread and that article pointless.


Yes, I apologize for that.  I only watched the short video of the OP's linked article (which left out this point) and forgot about reading the text.  Sorry for my ignorance; I took down the link I provided.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 24, 2015)

I hope that douche goes out of business and gets comeuppance for doing this.


----------



## Hells Malice (Sep 24, 2015)

HaloEffect17 said:


> Yes, I apologize for that.  I only watched the short video of the OP's linked article (which left out this point) and forgot about reading the text.  Sorry for my ignorance; I took down the link I provided.



This post is incredibly Canadian.


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Sep 24, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> This post is incredibly Canadian.


What are you insinuating?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 24, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> This post is incredibly Canadian.


That is the most insulting thing anyone has ever said...ever.  Too harsh man.  What's next, you going to find him and kick him in the balls too?


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Sep 24, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> That is the most insulting thing anyone has ever said...ever.


Yeah, that came out of nowhere... haha.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 24, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> This kind of shit happens to be bullshit.  It's not an AIDS drug, and there are SIX generics, so not a single person would be affected by this.
> 
> Considering you just believed this without any real research, I'm not surprised socialism appeals to you.



You caught me in that I didn't read the article, but I was talking about for-profit medicine in a general sense rather than this one specific subject. I was responding in a bit of a hurry so I should have waited to respond. I'm not a pure socialist either but things like medical care should be absolutely free. My point still remains, and it's a moral argument/opinion.

Price gouging in the pharmaceutical industry is hardly a new thing and it's still a fact that prescription drugs are, in a general sense, much more expensive in the US than in Canada and most other "first world" countries. I think medical care should be a basic human right. Additional regulations should be put in place to prevent things like price gouging but I'm a little too sleep deprived to get into technical stuff right now. The problem with passing things like anti-price gouging legislation is that here in the US we have a political system that is almost entirely based upon candidates taking bribes, and a lot of those bribes are coming from the pharma industry so until we deal with campaign finance reform there's really nothing meaningful that can be done that doesn't have a million loopholes in it.

However, campaign finance reform in the US is a bit of a catch-22 because the individuals who would have to vote for it are the ones taking tons of bribes.

Either way, excuse me for not reading the article; that was rude of me.

edit: article on price gouging

Capping drug prices based on what medicare or whatever reference(s) you want to use pays sounds like it could work but I am not an expert on this subject, obviously.


----------



## Vipera (Sep 25, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> You caught me in that I didn't read the article, but I was talking about for-profit medicine in a general sense rather than this one specific subject. I was responding in a bit of a hurry so I should have waited to respond. I'm not a pure socialist either but things like medical care should be absolutely free. My point still remains, and it's a moral argument/opinion.
> 
> Price gouging in the pharmaceutical industry is hardly a new thing and it's still a fact that prescription drugs are, in a general sense, much more expensive in the US than in Canada and most other "first world" countries. I think medical care should be a basic human right.


We got "absolutely free medical care", for a while. You know why we don't anymore?

Because people are fucking scum, when it comes to free stuff. I have been 4 months on hold for a simple medical visit. Why? Because there are many people who abuse the medical system by going to the hospital for the stupidest shit. "Oh, my head hurts slightly after watching 5 hours of television. I saw on the internet that might be a tumor. Better go to the doctor, it's free!".

Now we got VERY long waiting times, but if you are in a hurry you can go to a private hospital because they have smaller queues, because that kind of scum who will waste a doctor's time will never pay to get a "light headche" checked out. We got it free, then you only had to pay the ticket, now you have to pay a bigger ticket and it's free only for certain groups of people. There was the story, not long ago, of an old man who felt a light pain in his leg, he called our version of 911 to get an ambulance, even though he lived one street away from the hospital and his son was there. Why? "Because it's free".

So no, medical care shouldn't be absolutely free. My taxes shouldn't pay the visits of time wasters. And I'm not even going to talk about those assholes who fake an illness while waiting in a queue to get first. It's not too common, but it's not too rare either.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 25, 2015)

Those who fake illnesses may be addicts or something but I don't know. At the same time, serious, life threatening illnesses(as in people that can prove they need immediate care) should be prioritized over, say, a minor headache or someone who just obsessively goes to the doctor for any silly little reason. Is there no regulation when it comes to prioritization? I at least think people should have a public health care option rather than having private insurance be the only way to have any sort of safety net. How do you think situations like the ones you mentioned could be dealt with? It sounds like in Italy you have a public/private mix of which almost 80% is public but I'm also using Wikipedia which isn't exactly reliable. I do think all health care should be free but it sounds like where you live the management of the public part is pretty iffy at times. It's never going to be perfect but even if free health care wouldn't prevent shitheads like the guy in the OP from price gouging, at least everyone would have to foot the bill instead of individual patients which, logically speaking, would provide more incentive for your government to regulate things like price gouging. Politicians are corrupt as shit no matter where you live, unfortunately.

Basically, it really messes with me when I hear about someone going broke because of how expensive cancer treatment is for example, and in the US, that's very common. At the same time, I share you lack of faith in the general human population and it's not like I'm a really nice guy either.

Health care reform here in the US was originally designed to at least provide a public option but politics got in the way and weakened the bill. I've been very much out of the loop when it comes to politics since around 2012 so my information is really outdated.


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Sep 25, 2015)

Vipera said:


> So no, medical care shouldn't be absolutely free. My taxes shouldn't pay the visits of time wasters. And I'm not even going to talk about those assholes who fake an illness while waiting in a queue to get first. It's not too common, but it's not too rare either.


Yeah, in Canada as well, we are subjected to long extended wait times for our medical care.  Even though it's free, it has its drawbacks for sure.  Not to mention that we're taxed to death to pay for it.


----------



## Redhorse (Sep 25, 2015)

This type of price gouging has been going on since the beginning of the drug industry. Most American made pharmaceuticals are sold cheaper to other countries when  exported from the US. In other words most Americans pay several times the value for drugs made in he US than the other countries do for the very same drugs, from the very same countries. Pharmac. companies are forever re-positioning themselves to keep their prices up (most often by patent first of the drug then by the form in which it is distributed. See the history of Suboxone by Reckitt Benckiser Pharm. When the drugs patent expired they put a recall for the same drug (in it's original tablet form only) (to prevent other companies from producing it once their patent expired. Their reasoning/excuse was children might accidentally take it for a vitamin. THEN they released the same drug in dissoluble strip form which had a patent to the drug delivery process insuring their sole distribution for  long time to come.

In spite of the recall, the US military still makes the same med. in it's recalled form (orange pill) for the military yet no  profit making company is allowed this right. This was also difficult to prevent as the US gov. poured billions into the development of this foreign made drug. Just a case in point. The drug industry is just that, a money making industry, don't kid yourself, their concern for health is only secondary to the motive to sell the drug. As long as they're not causing damage (bad press) they could care less who buys the meds and will get the highest price a given market will bear.

It's all about the Benjamin s.

I'm not being pessimistic, that's realistic. This is not a rant I don't pay for it.. Fortunately I've had many family members, friends and even employers in the Medical field.
Peace


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 25, 2015)

You know what's great? Literally killing people by withholding medicine that they need to live. You know what's even better? Doing it in a way that we can profit off of!


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 25, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> You caught me in that I didn't read the article, but I was talking about for-profit medicine in a general sense rather than this one specific subject. I was responding in a bit of a hurry so I should have waited to respond. I'm not a pure socialist either but things like medical care should be absolutely free. My point still remains, and it's a moral argument/opinion.
> 
> Price gouging in the pharmaceutical industry is hardly a new thing and it's still a fact that prescription drugs are, in a general sense, much more expensive in the US than in Canada and most other "first world" countries. I think medical care should be a basic human right. Additional regulations should be put in place to prevent things like price gouging but I'm a little too sleep deprived to get into technical stuff right now. The problem with passing things like anti-price gouging legislation is that here in the US we have a political system that is almost entirely based upon candidates taking bribes, and a lot of those bribes are coming from the pharma industry so until we deal with campaign finance reform there's really nothing meaningful that can be done that doesn't have a million loopholes in it.
> 
> ...


Medicine is a business like everything else.  People work hard to find new solutions to disease, and deserve to be paid for it.

Give away ever penny you have (because profit is bad), then you can start suggesting places go non-profit.


HaloEffect17 said:


> Yeah, in Canada as well, we are subjected to long extended wait times for our medical care.  Even though it's free, it has its drawbacks for sure.  Not to mention that we're taxed to death to pay for it.


Thank you.  People in the US talk about Canadian healthcare as if it was perfect.  Nothing is free.

Running a forum (albeit a small one) has brought some new light to stories like this.  Ads pay, so clickbait (or just flat out lies) are a great way to make money.  Remember that fake source-less "coke is like heroin" picture that viral like a month ago (to which I responded by making this)?  The site must have made sooooooooo much money off of that.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> You know what's great? Literally killing people by withholding medicine that they need to live. You know what's even better? Doing it in a way that we can profit off of!


If you read my first post, you'd know that's not what's happening here.  The guy made a terrible business decision and he won't see a penny from it, just bad PR.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 26, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> Medicine is a business like everything else.  People work hard to find new solutions to disease, and deserve to be paid for it.
> 
> *Give away ever penny you have (because profit is bad), then you can start suggesting places go non-profit.*



Ad hominem attacks against me plus a snarky, condescending tone are not a good defense against pharma companies price gouging and skirting every regulation they possibly can to make a buck. I believe medicine should be one of those industries kept away from profit motive as much as possible, ie give people public healthcare options but still allow people to use private insurance if they want to to avoid things like waiting lists. Nobody should ever have to go broke because they need medical treatment, and while my knowledge of the technical aspects of the industry is near zero, we need more regulations put in place to prevent big pharmaceutical companies from overcharging/gouging patients, insurance companies etc. I'm not budging on this because I see it as a moral/religious argument personally.

Not all profit is bad, but profiting more than you need to on drugs that are used for things like toxoplasmosis is pretty damned evil, and he's just one example of extreme price gouging that the media picked up because he's easy to make an example out of. I believe people, generally speaking should be allowed to start businesses, make money etc. but there should be limits which is why I said I *lean towards being a socialist. *If I were 100% socialist it would simply be the other extreme next to totally unregulated capitalism which is just as foolish because it would give the state WAY too much power among other things.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 26, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> If you read my first post, you'd know that's not what's happening here.  The guy made a terrible business decision and he won't see a penny from it, just bad PR.





> Daraprim is used to treat life-threatening parasitic infections in babies born to women who become infected during pregnancy as well as those with a compromised immune system.


And it's not that he's making a profit from the medicine that's bad, it's that he's a selfish jacka** that believes that he can buy the rights to a drug that he had absolutely no part in developing and making a ridiculous fortune off of it at the expense of people who need it. On top of that, the base drug is "pyrimethamine", and unless drugs.com only lists name brands, there IS no alternative besides Daraprim. If you would like to show me generic alternatives be my guest


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 27, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> Ad hominem attacks against me plus a snarky, condescending tone are not a good defense against pharma companies price gouging and skirting every regulation they possibly can to make a buck. I believe medicine should be one of those industries kept away from profit motive as much as possible, ie give people public healthcare options but still allow people to use private insurance if they want to to avoid things like waiting lists. Nobody should ever have to go broke because they need medical treatment, and while my knowledge of the technical aspects of the industry is near zero, we need more regulations put in place to prevent big pharmaceutical companies from overcharging/gouging patients, insurance companies etc. I'm not budging on this because I see it as a moral/religious argument personally.
> 
> Not all profit is bad, but profiting more than you need to on drugs that are used for things like toxoplasmosis is pretty damned evil, and he's just one example of extreme price gouging that the media picked up because he's easy to make an example out of. I believe people, generally speaking should be allowed to start businesses, make money etc. but there should be limits which is why I said I *lean towards being a socialist. *If I were 100% socialist it would simply be the other extreme next to totally unregulated capitalism which is just as foolish because it would give the state WAY too much power among other things.


Pointing out hypocrisy is not the same as using an ad hominem argument.  It's easier to feel something should be non-profit when it has no effect on you.  And no, I'm not in the pharmaceutical business.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> And it's not that he's making a profit from the medicine that's bad, it's that he's a selfish jacka** that believes that he can buy the rights to a drug that he had absolutely no part in developing and making a ridiculous fortune off of it at the expense of people who need it. On top of that, the base drug is "pyrimethamine", and unless drugs.com only lists name brands, there IS no alternative besides Daraprim. If you would like to show me generic alternatives be my guest


It's time you read my first post.


JoostinOnline said:


> This kind of shit happens to be bullshit.  It's not an AIDS drug, and there are SIX generics, so not a single person would be affected by this.


It's currently down for maintenance, but in 8 hours you can view this.  There is a cached version here.

Nobody is going to buy a drug for that much when they can get an alternative for a few bucks.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 27, 2015)

There is such a thing as empathy, and like I said price gouging is very common in the pharmaceutical industry and needs to be properly regulated. Saying I have no right to argue because I haven't given away every penny I have is the definition of an ad hom attack so don't be silly. You're trying to redirect attention away from my arguments against abusive price gouging techniques and redirect it towards me for not being Christ-like and giving away every penny I have which is a very manipulative tactic. This issue doesn't affect me directly but price gouging in the industry affects millions of people and not only patients but hospitals, pharmacies, insurance companies etc. are being ripped off by ridiculous price gouging practices and the fact that I'm not a perfect, Christ-like saint should not be used to distract people from that fact.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 27, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> There is such a thing as empathy, and like I said price gouging is very common in the pharmaceutical industry and needs to be properly regulated. Saying I have no right to argue because I haven't given away every penny I have is the definition of an ad hom attack so don't be silly. You're trying to redirect attention away from my arguments against abusive price gouging techniques and redirect it towards me for not being Christ-like and giving away every penny I have which is a very manipulative tactic. This issue doesn't affect me directly but price gouging in the industry affects millions of people and not only patients but hospitals, pharmacies, insurance companies etc. are being ripped off by ridiculous price gouging practices and the fact that I'm not a perfect, Christ-like saint should not be used to distract people from that fact.


That's not what I was referring to, and you know it.  You said it should be *non-profit*.  Your specific wording was "For-profit medicine is an abomination."  You can't tell people to give up any profit when you yourself haven't.  Asking someone to do something that you won't is hypocrisy.  An ad hominem argument would be if my whole defense was "you're stupid".

As someone who is on quite a few medications for very serious health concerns, I am not a stranger to price gouging.  I'm not defending that.  I'm pointing out that making money is not the same as price-gouging.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 27, 2015)

I was saying in an idea world medicine would be fully subsidized by non-corrupt governments which would eliminate the need for a profit motive in the industry and even if there is still SOME need for profit to be made for things like R&D(needs extra money) I'm arguing that at the very least, the patient at the end shouldn't have to pay any money for medical care. The technical aspects are admittedly beyond me as I'm not a businessman or a doctor and I've been tuned out of politics for the last 3+ years, but a world like that is just a fantasy at this point I admit. At bare minimum people should have a free public healthcare option(of good quality and unlike medicare here in the Us it would pay for everything) with the additional option for patients to use private insurance as well.

Admittedly it's more of a philosophical argument than anything else but ideally certain things like medicine shouldn't be for profit, or at least profit motives should be minimized as much as possible. The US wastes so much money on shit like weapons development, pointless wars, locking people up(largest # imprisoned per capita on Earth) as well as a lot of other wasteful shit that we could easily afford to give people free health care.

Also, pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to waste money on shit like advertising their drugs on TV which is perfectly legal where I live and those types of commercials probably cost a ton of money because they are shown CONSTANTLY. They're behaving more like typical drug pushers than people who want to develop life-saving medicines.

edit3: As a compromise, shouldn't profiteering in the medical field at least be properly regulated and limited in your view?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 27, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> I was saying in an idea world medicine would be fully subsidized by non-corrupt governments which would eliminate the need for a profit motive in the industry and even if there is still SOME need for profit to be made for things like R&D(needs extra money)


That may have been what you meant, but it's not what you said.  Despite what your stereotypical female TV character says, you can't blame me for not knowing what you are thinking, even though you said something else.



Hungry Friend said:


> I'm arguing that at the very least, the patient at the end shouldn't have to pay any money for medical care. The technical aspects are admittedly beyond me as I'm not a businessman or a doctor and I've been tuned out of politics for the last 3+ years, but a world like that is just a fantasy at this point I admit. At bare minimum people should have a free public healthcare option(of good quality and unlike medicare here in the Us it would pay for everything) with the additional option for patients to use private insurance as well.
> 
> Admittedly it's more of a philosophical argument than anything else but ideally certain things like medicine shouldn't be for profit, or at least profit motives should be minimized as much as possible. The US wastes so much money on shit like weapons development, pointless wars, locking people up(largest # imprisoned per capita on Earth) as well as a lot of other wasteful shit that we could easily afford to give people free health care.
> 
> ...


There are limitations.  For example, after a certain period of time (10 years I think, but my doctor told me about it a long time ago), you no longer have exclusive rights to a drug.  That's when generics become available (generally at cheaper prices), which is why the idiot who raised the price of the drug won't make any profit from it.  I actually suspect it might have been for attention.  People certainly know about him now.

Free healthcare is impossible.  People pay for it through taxes, and just end up getting shitty healthcare anyway.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 27, 2015)

Better for an entire country to pay for universal healthcare than for the poor to go untreated or be in severe debt because they can't afford medical care. Nothing is really free true and I still think for-profit medicine is an abomination from a moral standpoint. Human nature just gets in the way of ideal situations which can be said about anything, and differing opinions complicate things even further. When it comes to medicine and quite a few other things I am a socialist so my beliefs and general feelings of disgust towards pharma companies, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals charging way too much money for medical care have not changed.

On the other hand, there are medical issues where over-regulation is the problem, an obvious example being drug prohibition.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Sep 27, 2015)

_"Playing With People's Lives, For Fun and Profit"_. 

I would totally believe that's a real book and that this bastard has read it.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 27, 2015)

I would call this guy a piece of shit, but at least shit doesn't hold people's live's hostage for profit.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 27, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> Better for an entire country to pay for universal healthcare than for the poor to go untreated or be in severe debt because they can't afford medical care. Nothing is really free true and I still think for-profit medicine is an abomination from a moral standpoint. Human nature just gets in the way of ideal situations which can be said about anything, and differing opinions complicate things even further. When it comes to medicine and quite a few other things I am a socialist so my beliefs and general feelings of disgust towards pharma companies, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals charging way too much money for medical care have not changed.
> 
> On the other hand, there are medical issues where over-regulation is the problem, an obvious example being drug prohibition.


First you said healthcare profit is bad, then you said okay, and now you're saying bad again.

You are failing to realize that taxes cost money.  If you can't afford healthcare to begin with, why would you be able to pay for it through taxes?  People like you who say healthcare should be free don't actually realize how the world works, and think that the government has an unlimited amount of money just lying around.  The government doesn't have ANY money.  It all comes from citizens.  You are essentially making additional healthcare costs mandatory for everyone, even for those who don't use it.  Because hey, everyone has extra money for more taxes.



Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I would call this guy a piece of shit, but at least shit doesn't hold people's live's hostage for profit.


Neither does this guy.  Read my first post.  He's just an idiot.  The thread title should be changed to "CEO makes terrible PR decision that doesn't actually have any effect"


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 27, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> Neither does this guy.  Read my first post.  He's just an idiot.  The thread title should be changed to "CEO makes terrible PR decision that doesn't actually have any effect"


I did and I know, but he's still not worth calling a piece of shit because it would insult shit.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 27, 2015)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I did and I know, but he's still not worth calling a piece of shit because it would insult shit.


At the very worst, he's an attention seeker.  He didn't risk anybody's life by doing this.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 27, 2015)

Welp, Joostin's right, this appears to be a PR stunt


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 28, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> First you said healthcare profit is bad, then you said okay, and now you're saying bad again.
> 
> You are failing to realize that taxes cost money.  If you can't afford healthcare to begin with, why would you be able to pay for it through taxes?  People like you who say healthcare should be free don't actually realize how the world works, and think that the government has an unlimited amount of money just lying around.  The government doesn't have ANY money.  It all comes from citizens.  You are essentially making additional healthcare costs mandatory for everyone, even for those who don't use it.  Because hey, everyone has extra money for more taxes.
> 
> Neither does this guy.  Read my first post.  He's just an idiot.  The thread title should be changed to "CEO makes terrible PR decision that doesn't actually have any effect"



I'm saying the additional taxes are, in my opinion, worth everyone getting health care. I do think for-profit medicine from a purely moral a philosophical standpoint is wrong but I also realize that ideal situations and the political and policy reality are almost always if not always very different which is why I'm willing to compromise, so I do know how the world works in a big picture sense and personally attacking me for "not knowing how the world works" just makes you sound incredibly condescending. Social systems are fucking complicated, I get it dude, which is why I said for-profit medicine is wrong from a purely moral and philosophical point of view which you didn't seem to catch.

Don't pretend you have all the answers as far as solving the world's health care woes either. Both of us are utterly clueless because human nature is a bitch.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 28, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> I'm saying the additional taxes are, in my opinion, worth everyone getting health care.


This is your solution in a nutshell:
Jim can't afford to pay for healthcare right now.  Therefore, by charging Jim for healthcare anyway, he will be able to pay for it.

The problem is that Jim can't pull extra money out of his ass to cover the now mandatory charge of healthcare.  If people can't afford to pay for healthcare as it is, they can't afford to pay for it through taxes.


Hungry Friend said:


> Don't pretend you have all the answers as far as solving the world's health care woes either. Both of us are utterly clueless because human nature is a bitch.


I don't have all the answers.  I never claimed I did.  That doesn't mean I can't recognize a logically flawed idea when I see it.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 28, 2015)

Wow. What a cruel world we are in! Too expensive. They are greedy people.

People, maybe it is not helping but use the condom if you have to. It is not 100 percent protection but its effective. Don't be stupid and its priceless, you know!


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 28, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> This is your solution in a nutshell: Jim can't afford to pay for healthcare right now.  Therefore, by charging Jim for healthcare anyway, he will be able to pay for it. The problem is that Jim can't pull extra money out of his ass to cover the now mandatory charge of healthcare.  If people can't afford to pay for healthcare as it is, they can't afford to pay for it through taxes.


It's actually worse than that - Jim can't afford to pay for his own healthcare right now, so in order to make it more affordable for him, the government will take money from Josh, Jack, Mary and Lydia who _do_ pay for their own healthcare, _as well as_ from Jim who _doesn't_ and pay for Jim's healthcare because _"sharing is caring"_ or some other nonsense. In short, it's mandatory charity which goes against the very idea of a _"good deed"_ - cumpulsive charity is no charity at all.

EDIT: This is a message specifically to @Hungry Friend - you do understand that "the government" has no money of its own, right? The gross majority of the money they do have comes from taxation (unless a country has profitable public industry and the words "public" and "profitable" don't go together). By suggesting subsidizing medicine completely you forget that you'd be still paying for medication, just via a subscription model through a mandatory tax. Moreover, you're actually opening the floodgates for price gouging and abuse. A private individual is not capable of paying, say, $500 for a packet of cold and flu tablets - a government can, because for every one John with a flu there's five hundred Janes who are healthy from whom you can steal $1 to cover the cost. The reason why paracetamol doesn't cost $500 is because nobody would buy it, everyone would just stick it out. Were it subsidized, every individual would pay a small amount of cash for that one packet, so the price tag can skyrocket without anyone batting an eye - it would become an invisible issue wheras in fact it'd be a price we'd all pay. The fact that it's over the counter and not subsidized is what keeps it affordable. I don't see a reason why I should be held liable for John's cold - I don't even know John and his affliction is not my fault. I refuse to pay, via taxes, for something I had no hand in - John can pay his own bills, he's not a child.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 28, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> It's actually worse than that - Jim can't afford to pay for his own healthcare right now, so in order to make it more affordable for him, the government will take money from Josh, Jack, Mary and Lydia who _do_ pay for their own healthcare, _as well as_ from Jim who _doesn't_ and pay for Jim's healthcare because _"sharing is caring"_ or some other nonsense. In short, it's mandatory charity which goes against the very idea of a _"good deed"_ - cumpulsive charity is no charity at all.
> 
> EDIT: This is a message specifically to @Hungry Friend - you do understand that "the government" has no money of its own, right? The gross majority of the money they do have comes from taxation (unless a country has profitable public industry and the words "public" and "profitable" don't go together). By suggesting subsidizing medicine completely you forget that you'd be still paying for medication, just via a subscription model through a mandatory tax. Moreover, you're actually opening the floodgates for price gouging and abuse. A private individual is not capable of paying, say, $500 for a packet of cold and flu tablets - a government can, because for every one John with a flu there's five hundred Janes who are healthy from whom you can steal $1 to cover the cost. The reason why paracetamol doesn't cost $500 is because nobody would buy it, everyone would just stick it out. Were it subsidized, every individual would pay a small amount of cash for that one packet, so the price tag can skyrocket without anyone batting an eye - it would become an invisible issue wheras in fact it'd be a price we'd all pay. The fact that it's over the counter and not subsidized is what keeps it affordable. I don't see a reason why I should be held liable for John's cold - I don't even know John and his affliction is not my fault. I refuse to pay, via taxes, for something I had no hand in - John can pay his own bills, he's not a child.


Thank you.  I'll be honest, I didn't want to go through the process of explaining all that too, lol.

Obamacare is another failure that can be used as an example, particularly requiring insurance for people who work full time.  While that seems great, the flaw lies in that it depends on (1) every business being able to afford to pay insurance costs for each full time employee, and (2) that the businesses that CAN afford it will WANT to.  Smaller businesses didn't want to go bankrupt, and bigger ones didn't want to lose money.  As a way around this, they just hired more employees, and cut the hours in half.  That's why it's hard to find a full time minimum wage job now.  In the end, nobody who needed it got covered by Obamacare.  All they got was cut hours, forcing them to find a second job.  It's one of the reasons why poverty is higher than it's been in 50 years.

The moral of this story is that good intentions aren't enough to make something successful.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 29, 2015)

Yes I do understand your argument and I also understand that if you fundamentally change an entire part of the economy, raise taxes etc it disrupts the entire interconnected clusterfuck we call a global economy. Some people will always slip through the cracks and I'm certainly no expert on the best way or ways to provide universal healthcare but all I'm trying to say is that everyone deserves medical care, free medical care if possible but yes nothing is free because people have to pay for stuff like single payers systems and such through taxes.

However, for example, the US could defense by like 70% and still be by far the most powerful military in the world and cut other types of waste, so saying severe taxation(although some extra taxation would be needed) is the only way to attain universal healthcare isn't quite right although it is partially so. Naturally Vets should get a free ride but we waste a shit ton of money on military spending here in the US as well as locking people up for stupid shit and there are so many other wasteful things we do that if I tried to list them all it would take up about 10 pages.

I get your points though; breaking one link in the chain will cause the entire global, interconnected system to go haywire if you wanna talk big picture and there's no black and white fairy tale solution. I gotcha. Doesn't mean I can't have my own morals/beliefs on how things _*SHOULD*_ be _*in an idea world.*_


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 29, 2015)

No, you can't drop U.S. military spending because of WWII and the military-industrial complex that was established at that time. The U.S. created a strong military production system and divided it by state - a fighterjet for example has its parts manufactured in almost every state before it's assembled, it gives jobs to thousands of Americans. In fact, some of the weapons the U.S. manufactures are obsolete and not in use anymore, they're still manufactured though exclusively to keep workers employed. To cut military spending would mean that some factories would have to be closed and the unemployment rate would skyrocket because the only experience these workers have is military manufacture. Believe me, smarter heads than yours tackled this problem, even anti-interventionalists don't want to touch the complex because it'd plunge the states into another great depression.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 29, 2015)

I'll have to personally do more research on the subject and ask some veteran buddies but for now I'll take your word for it. Sounds like a damned mess, much like the rest of the world economy. That's the problem; everything is so interconnected that if you try to really, seriously change something even with good intentions you're bound to destroy a lot of lives. Something has to give, especially when it comes to things like health care and climate change.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 29, 2015)

The idea of cutting military spending isn't necessarily to cut local spending, but international spending (i.e. pulling troops, stop sending unnecessary forces overseas, etc.)

Regardless, this is way off-topic now. I actually had an idea a while back to start a "GBATemp Debate Team" but thought that might not be a good idea  However, if you want I could try something like that and rotate out on major issues weekly, that could be interesting


----------



## TheCasketMan (Sep 29, 2015)

This is how most libertarians act.  Money first, emotions last.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 30, 2015)

I saw this on Facebook and felt it had a place here 







TheCasketMan said:


> This is how most libertarians act.  Money first, emotions last.


Who was that addressed to?


----------



## TheCasketMan (Sep 30, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> I saw this on Facebook and felt it had a place here
> 
> 
> Who was that addressed to?



To the radical and full-on libertarians.  Just because I think some libertarians aren't humanitarian doesn't mean I hate capitalism, but price gouging a treatment or potential cure to a serious illness which costs a buck to produce is very greedy.  It is like scalping, but with lives on the line.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 30, 2015)

TheCasketMan said:


> To the radical and full-on libertarians.  Just because I think some libertarians aren't humanitarian doesn't mean I hate capitalism, but price gouging a treatment or potential cure to a serious illness which costs a buck to produce is very greedy.  It is like scalping, but with lives on the line.


Libertarians had nothing to do with this. You've also fallen victim to false information. See my first post. 

The picture was not directed at you either.


----------



## Pleng (Sep 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> It's actually worse than that - Jim can't afford to pay for his own healthcare right now, so in order to make it more affordable for him, the government will take money from Josh, Jack, Mary and Lydia who _do_ pay for their own healthcare, _as well as_ from Jim who _doesn't_ and pay for Jim's healthcare because _"sharing is caring"_ or some other nonsense. In short, it's mandatory charity which goes against the very idea of a _"good deed"_ - cumpulsive charity is no charity at all..... The reason why paracetamol doesn't cost $500 is because nobody would buy it, everyone would just stick it out. Were it subsidized, every individual would pay a small amount of cash for that one packet, so the price tag can skyrocket without anyone batting an eye - it would become an invisible issue wheras in fact it'd be a price we'd all pay. The fact that it's over the counter and not subsidized is what keeps it affordable.



An interesting theory in principle. But isn't medication in the US, which traditionally hasn't has government subsidised health care, generally a lot more expensive than it is in the UK - where health care is provided by the tax payer?



> I don't see a reason why I should be held liable for John's cold - I don't even know John and his affliction is not my fault. I refuse to pay, via taxes, for something I had no hand in - John can pay his own bills, he's not a child.



Firstly, are we sure that John is not a child? And what if he is?

Secondly, and more seriously, how is insurance any different? It works on _exactly_ the same principle... more people will be paying INTO it than are claiming FROM it. Insurance simply wouldn't work if there was more money coming out that going in. So, by choosing to pay for health care, you are buying into the exact same system of paying for other people's illnesses (or benefiting from other people's payments if you are unfortunate enough to get seriously ill) that you are protesting about. The only difference with government-funded health care is that those living on the breadline, who can't afford to pay for insurance, are also able to benefit.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 30, 2015)

Pleng said:


> The only difference with government-funded health care is that those living on the breadline, who can't afford to pay for insurance, are also able to benefit.


Except they can't afford to pay extra taxes either.  You are sharing the same flawed logic as Hungry Friend:
"Jim can't afford to pay for healthcare right now. Therefore, by charging Jim for healthcare anyway, he will be able to pay for it."


----------



## Pleng (Sep 30, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> Except they can't afford to pay extra taxes either.  You are sharing the same flawed logic as Hungry Friend:
> "Jim can't afford to pay for healthcare right now. Therefore, by charging Jim for healthcare anyway, he will be able to pay for it."



That's not how tax distribution works...

(edit) hint: it's not the *poor* people who pay the higher rates of tax. You don't charge Jim, you charge his boss


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 30, 2015)

Pleng said:


> That's not how tax distribution works...
> 
> (edit) hint: it's not the *poor* people who pay the higher rates of tax. You don't charge Jim, you charge his boss


I'm well aware of the graduated income tax system.  Unless Jim lives in a box, he still has to pay some taxes.  The rate doesn't just change for people in the middle and upper class.  You're also neglecting that there are other kinds of tax, such as sales and property taxes.

Thinks might be very different in Thailand, and even if they aren't, I couldn't expect you to understand the finer points of the US government.


----------



## Pleng (Sep 30, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> I'm well aware of the graduated income tax system.  Unless Jim lives in a box, he still has to pay some taxes.  The rate doesn't just change for people in the middle and upper class.  You're also neglecting that there are other kinds of tax, such as sales and property taxes.
> 
> Thinks might be very different in Thailand, and even if they aren't, I couldn't expect you to understand the finer points of the US government.



Things are different in Thailand. Though they have implemented 'free' healthcare here.
I'm originally from the UK which has had 'free' healthcare for years.

And, yes, it is perfectly possible to raise taxes for just the middle and upper classed. Why wouldn't it be?
Even _if_ Jim's tax bill went up slightly, your argument still makes no sense.

In fact, your sarcastic argument is in fact correct... I've filled in the gaps for you:

"Jim can't afford to pay for medical care[at several hundreds of dollars per month], so by charging him [a few dollars per month] anyway, he will be able to pay for it"


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 30, 2015)

Pleng said:


> Things are different in Thailand. Though they have implemented 'free' healthcare here.
> I'm originally from the UK which has had 'free' healthcare for years.
> 
> And, yes, it is perfectly possible to raise taxes for just the middle and upper classed. Why wouldn't it be?
> ...


If you want to do that, then you have to start charging the middle and upper class several thousand dollars a month.  That would quickly destabilize the (already fragile) economy.

Btw, I'm in the lower class.


----------



## Pleng (Sep 30, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> If you want to do that, then you have to start charging the middle and upper class several thousand dollars a month.  That would quickly destabilize the (already fragile) economy.
> 
> Btw, I'm in the lower class.



I don't know the details of how taxes are staggered in the US but, no, you don't. Nobody in the UK is paying several thousand dollars for their National Insurance (not unless they're earning hundreds of thousands a year, anyway...)

Because _everybody_ is paying into it, the cost per head is lower to begin with. And many people who are paying in will have alternative healthcare arrangements anyway, and therefore won't make use of the free service. So you can further reduce the amount that needs to be collected. Even little poor old Jim is still paying in his 35cents a week or whatever.... and of course he may never even get sick (after all of our worrying..!) and therefore not need the service - and all those Jims out there paying their 35 cents.... they all add up.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 30, 2015)

Pleng said:


> I don't know the details of how taxes are staggered in the US but, no, you don't. Nobody in the UK is paying several thousand dollars for their National Insurance (not unless they're earning hundreds of thousands a year, anyway...)
> 
> Because _everybody_ is paying into it, the cost per head is lower to begin with. And many people who are paying in will have alternative healthcare arrangements anyway, and therefore won't make use of the free service. So you can further reduce the amount that needs to be collected. Even little poor old Jim is still paying in his 35cents a week or whatever.... and of course he may never even get sick (after all of our worrying..!) and therefore not need the service - and all those Jims out there paying their 35 cents.... they all add up.


I think that maybe you don't understand how great poverty has become since Obama went into office.  We're at the highest point in 50 years.  With a large portion paying almost nothing, everyone else has to pick up the slack.


----------



## Pleng (Sep 30, 2015)

Ah so you're against free health care because it's an Obama policy. At least that shows why your arguments aren't making any sense.

Anyway.... I can promise you that poverty over here is much more rife. And the Thai government have managed to implement a free healthcare system. And that's in a country where pretty much NOBODY seems to be paying any tax.

So that, combined with the (far from perfect, I'll give you that) NHS system in the UK, are proof that it _can_ be done.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2015)

Pleng said:


> An interesting theory in principle. But isn't medication in the US, which traditionally hasn't has government subsidised health care, generally a lot more expensive than it is in the UK - where health care is provided by the tax payer?
> 
> Firstly, are we sure that John is not a child? And what if he is?
> 
> Secondly, and more seriously, how is insurance any different? It works on _exactly_ the same principle... more people will be paying INTO it than are claiming FROM it. Insurance simply wouldn't work if there was more money coming out that going in. So, by choosing to pay for health care, you are buying into the exact same system of paying for other people's illnesses (or benefiting from other people's payments if you are unfortunate enough to get seriously ill) that you are protesting about. The only difference with government-funded health care is that those living on the breadline, who can't afford to pay for insurance, are also able to benefit.


It's hard to quantify the cost as the statistics I usually see don't count the average per capita cost of NHS into the equation, just the cost of procedures, which is misleading. There's also the matter of quality of service - public healthcare is not a competitive space and it shows, private healthcare is.

As for insurance versus taxation, the difference is that one is mandatory and one is not - I can choose to take a gamble in life and not insure myself, I cannot stop paying taxes.

There's also competitiveness - I have a choice of various insurance agencies providing various levels of coverage, but only one tax with one kind of cover.

Your theory about John paying much less than his boss is nice, however doesn't take into account the fact that wealth is accumulated in a small percentage of the populace - there's 100 Johns every Richard. Ultimately, Johns collectively pay more than any Richard, plus Johns have substantially less wealth, so it's a bigger burden.

John also cannot be a child in this context because children are not taxpayers - they are covered by the insurance/healthcare plan of their parents, therefore they are irrelevant in our debate.


----------



## Pleng (Sep 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> It's hard to quantify the cost as the statistics I usually see don't count the average per capita cost of NHS into the equation, just the cost of procedures, which is misleading. There's also the matter of quality of service - public healthcare is not a competitive space and it shows, private healthcare is.
> 
> As for insurance versus taxation, the difference is that one is mandatory and one is not - I can choose to take a gamble in life and not insure myself, I cannot stop paying taxes.
> 
> ...



You can choose to take a gamble but in the end you end up being a burden to somebody if you get seriously ill; unless you really have no friends and family who care about you. So your little gamble could end up bankrupting your entire family. Seems like a good system...

You can talk about competitiveness and choice of covers and the burden on the Johns but the fact is I came from a country where helthcare was considered a basic human right; much like water and shelter. I now live in a country where I _could_ register for free health care but, being in a privileged position as I am, I choose to pay for my health care.

The amount I pay for my healthcare _alone_ is nearly half of my entire UK tax bill. People on and even just above the breadline in the UK don't pay tax at all - and they _still_ get free health care. So no, it's proven that the Johns _don't_ have to feel the burden for free health care. Any more than they have to feel the burden for having their trash collected, their education (next debate - make education optional and force people to pay for that??), or having the potholes in the road dealt with.


----------



## Vipera (Sep 30, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> I think that maybe you don't understand how great poverty has become since Obama went into office.  We're at the highest point in 50 years.  With a large portion paying almost nothing, everyone else has to pick up the slack.


Hold on... What do you mean by "poverty"?
I checked the threshold, according to the US government.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh14.xls

Almost all the families with children are bs if you ask me. Do you really need 24k per year to raise a family of 4? Unless this graph doesn't include taxes, I don't think it's right. I want to believe that the USA has the same, if not cheaper, euro stores we got here.
But even if it were right, why are you having so many kids when you can't afford them? Are all those people below those threshold eligible for welfare? Might as well find some chick and have 3-4 babies. There is no way I'll ever find a job that puts me above the line of poverty at that point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2015)

Pleng said:


> You can choose to take a gamble but in the end you end up being a burden to somebody if you get seriously ill; unless you really have no friends and family who care about you. So your little gamble could end up bankrupting your entire family. Seems like a good system...


I never said that not being insured is a good choice, it should however be an option.


> You can talk about competitiveness and choice of covers and the burden on the Johns but the fact is I came from a country where helthcare was considered a basic human right; much like water and shelter. I now live in a country where I _could_ register for free health care but, being in a privileged position as I am, I choose to pay for my health care.


I also come from a country with free healthcare and I was dissastisfied with the coverage, thus most of my dental was done privately since due to lack of competition the public dental services sucked dick.


> The amount I pay for my healthcare _alone_ is nearly half of my entire UK tax bill. People on and even just above the breadline in the UK don't pay tax at all - and they _still_ get free health care. So no, it's proven that the Johns _don't_ have to feel the burden for free health care. Any more than they have to feel the burden for having their trash collected, their education (next debate - make education optional and force people to pay for that??), or having the potholes in the road dealt with.


See, this is the core problem. I too live in the UK now, you're cool with having half of your earning being taken away, I am not, especially if it's not beneficial to me in any way and merely exists to cover healthcare needs of Johns who do not contribute to the greater good by not paying taxes.

This is not to say that healthcare should not be provided in life-threatening situations - that's covered by the Hippocratic Oath, it just shouldn't be national because I don't feel comfortable with my wealth being forcibly taken away from me Robin Hood style, regardless of whether it's for a good or bad cause. Sorry, but the NHS is crazy-inefficient, much like every single public healthcare system, and you would know that if you were not priviledged to the point of not having to use it, as you mentioned above. Citizens should be in charge of their wealth and control its spending as they deem fit, they should only be taxed for public utilities that they actually use.


----------



## Pleng (Sep 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> This is not to say that healthcare should not be provided in life-threatening situations - that's covered by the Hipocratic Oath



So who's going to pay for this treatment in life-threatening situations? An oath doesn't have a bank account.



> , it just shouldn't be national because I don't feel comfortable with my wealth being forcibly taken away from me Robin Hood style, regardless of whether it's for a good or bad cause. Sorry, but the NHS is crazy-inefficient, much like every single public healthcare system, and you would know that if you were not priviledged to the point of not having to use it, as you mentioned above. Citizens should be in charge of their wealth and control its spending as they deem fit, they should only be taxed for public utilities that they actually use.



I used the NHS for years before I moved away. As did, and still do, my family. For every horror story you hear, there's tens of thousands of perfectly happy customers. No, it's not perfect, but it's for 'free' (which it is to those who can't afford to pay taxes) and I don't begrudge any of my tax money going towards helping out the needy. It's far better than the 80% of your 'efficient' policy premiums that are going towards keeping rich lawyers rich; as they are the ones who generally profit out of any kind of insurance. 

It's all very well having an 'opt-out' system but where does it stop? Do you want to 'opt-out' of Education? There are a lot of people who have very little chance of making it through to graduate school. So maybe they should just go straight into work and not be given the chance of an education; unless they want to pay for it, of course? What about rubbish collection? Should we just not pay per bag of rubbish we generate (and conveniently forget about how to deal with the fly-tipping problem it would create) and not be taxed for that? I have no intention of having children... therefore I want to claim back my x percentage of tax that's going towards building playgrounds that are of no use to me. That's fair, right?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 30, 2015)

Vipera said:


> Hold on... What do you mean by "poverty"?
> I checked the threshold, according to the US government.
> 
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh14.xls
> ...



For this discussion, an important part of defining "poverty" is that you don't pay any taxes.  Everyone who makes more than the threshold is carrying your entire weight.
Read this http://www.wisegeek.org/who-is-eligible-for-welfare-in-the-united-states.htm

I have no clue what you mean about families with children being BS.
What you want to believe has no effect on things.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2015)

Pleng said:


> So who's going to pay for this treatment in life-threatening situations? An oath doesn't have a bank account.


Who pays for bankrupcies? It's a very simple economic question - such care either turns into debt payable in instalments once the individual is capable of payment or, in the worst-case scenario (aka when no bank wishes to purchase the debt) is subsidized from other taxes, which is not the same as public healthcare.


> I used the NHS for years before I moved away. As did, and still do, my family. For every horror story you hear, there's tens of thousands of perfectly happy customers. No, it's not perfect, but it's for 'free' (which it is to those who can't afford to pay taxes) and I don't begrudge any of my tax money going towards helping out the needy. It's far better than the 80% of your 'efficient' policy premiums that are going towards keeping rich lawyers rich; as they are the ones who generally profit out of any kind of insurance.


So lawyers are despicable and profit on insurance, but politicians are lovable and profit on taxes? Okay. Sorry, but any government-ran system is just a bag of red tape and lacks accountability - the private sector is the exact opposite.


> It's all very well having an 'opt-out' system but where does it stop? Do you want to 'opt-out' of Education? There are a lot of people who have very little chance of making it through to graduate school. So maybe they should just go straight into work and not be given the chance of an education; unless they want to pay for it, of course? What about rubbish collection? Should we just not pay per bag of rubbish we generate (and conveniently forget about how to deal with the fly-tipping problem it would create) and not be taxed for that? I have no intention of having children... therefore I want to claim back my x percentage of tax that's going towards building playgrounds that are of no use to me. That's fair, right?


Did you not read my post? Utilities that are factually used should be taxed. Do you have rubbish? Pay for collection. Do you have a car? Pay road tax. Do you or your children go to school? Pay the education tax. It's really not rocket science.


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I never said that not being insured is a good choice, it should however be an option.


And that's how the US ended up with the most expensive system with the shittiest care in the first place, isn't it?


----------



## Pleng (Sep 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> So lawyers are despicable and profit on insurance, but politicians are lovable and profit on taxes? Okay. Sorry, but any government-ran system is just a bag of red tape and lacks accountability - the private sector is the exact opposite.



No, politicians are *not* lovable but the the fact is that tax money paid into the NHS *does* go towards funding health care for those less fortunate than you and I. Yes there are politicians creaming off the top but at least _some_ of it is used for the greater good. A private insurance ensures the rich stay rich and the poor stay sick.



> Do you have rubbish? Pay for collection.


I can see that working out very well. Fly tipping is already a big issue in the UK - now you want to give people the opportunity to opt out of paying for collection?



> Do you or your children go to school? Pay the education tax.



Which will severely dilute the intelligence level of your country as you're giving the option of not paying and therefore not learning.



Nightwish said:


> And that's how the US ended up with the most expensive system with the shittiest care in the first place, isn't it?



Boom


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2015)

Pleng said:


> No, politicians are *not* lovable but the the fact is that tax money paid into the NHS *does* go towards funding health care for those less fortunate than you and I. Yes there are politicians creaming off the top but at least _some_ of it is used for the greater good. A private insurance ensures the rich stay rich and the poor stay sick.


Except you have less poor to deal with because the government doesn't take almost half their income to fund an inefficient system with no accountability that oversees itself, therefore is not subject to critique and is artificially outside of the economy. You also spoke of NHS horror stories and how for every shoddy experience you get a thousand great ones - poor argument, because in the health sector you focus on outliers. A murderer isn't an okay guy because he met a thousand people and only killed one - accountability is important.


> I can see that working out very well. Fly tipping is already a big issue in the UK - now you want to give people the opportunity to opt out of paying for collection?


Yes, because tipping is a criminal offense either way.


> Which will severely dilute the intelligence level of your country as you're giving the option of not paying and therefore not learning.


I'm of the opinion that my money should go to the educational outlet of my choosing with shit ones going out of business and good ones staying afloat instead of diluting the funds across the board to create an overall mediocre system.


> Boom


Not really - decisions have consequences. If you choose not to be insured, you pay the price in the event of health issues or accidents. The state is not your nanny.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Sep 30, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> I saw this on Facebook and felt it had a place here
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Personally attacking me will neither piss me off nor change my point of view, or at least I assume it was directed at me since you've been following me around. Capitalism in certain fields, like healthcare, namely when taken to the extreme is a bad thing. I support the individual right to starts businesses, profit from them etc but deceptive practices, price gouging and a million other things could be improved. Making silly, blanket statements that come from goofy stereotypes doesn't strike me as particularly constructive.

Naturally when it comes to regulations you can't just say "regulate capitalism" because different industries and even different sectors of the same industry need to be treated separately.

*EDIT:* Also, you seem to think I'm coming from a purely black & white point of view but sometimes, as I said earlier, over-regulation is the problem like when dealing with the issue of drug prohibition. Private, unregulated prisons play a big part as well but I'll save you that rant.

In the US, until we can get at least most of the money out of politics, nothing is going to change. Corruption will always exist because of human nature but at the very least bribery(fundraising) should be illegal or at least seriously limited to very small contributions. what we have now is basically a feudal system, billionaire VS billionaire with politicians being marionettes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> Personally attacking me will neither piss me off nor change my point of view, or at least I assume it was directed at me since you've been following me around. Capitalism in certain fields, like healthcare, namely when taken to the extreme is a bad thing. I support the individual right to starts businesses, profit from them etc but deceptive practices, price gouging and a million other things could be improved. Making silly, blanket statements that come from goofy stereotypes doesn't strike me as particularly constructive.
> 
> Naturally when it comes to regulations you can't just say "regulate capitalism" because different industries and even different sectors of the same industry need to be treated separately.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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.


I would think the more reps the better, that way you actually get a better cross-section of the people you're representing...


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I would think the more reps the better, that way you actually get a better cross-section of the people you're representing...


It's a tough balance to strike - the more representatives and the more parties the harder it is to get a majority decision on anything and thus legislature and reform sits at a standstill. On the other side of the coin there's the situation where you don't have enough parties or representatives, thus the interests of all classes of society are not properly represented. A good government sits somewhere in between, leading to faster compromises and less public spending. I think that the government should be comprised of a large number of parties presenting different views, from the furthest left to the furthest right and a lot in-between, but the parties themselves should be relatively small - variety is superior to number in this case. That way, you won't get situations where a big party is stonewalling or artificially pushing legislature due to its sheer size.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> It's a tough balance to strike - the more representatives and the more parties the harder it is to get a majority decision on anything and thus legislature and reform sits at a standstill. On the other side of the coin there's the situation where you don't have enough parties or representatives, thus the interests of all classes of society are not properly represented. A good government sits somewhere in between, leading to faster compromises and less public spending. I think that the government should be comprised of a large number of parties presenting different views, from the furthest left to the furthest right and a lot in-between, but the parties themselves should be relatively small - variety is superior to number in this case. That way, you won't get situations where a big party is stonewalling or artificially pushing legislature due to its sheer size.


I suppose that's reasonable, but in most situations I would almost rather not much getting done over something being hastily passed without any consideration for other parties


----------



## JoostinOnline (Oct 1, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> Personally attacking me will neither piss me off nor change my point of view, or at least I assume it was directed at me since you've been following me around. Capitalism in certain fields, like healthcare, namely when taken to the extreme is a bad thing. I support the individual right to starts businesses, profit from them etc but deceptive practices, price gouging and a million other things could be improved. Making silly, blanket statements that come from goofy stereotypes doesn't strike me as particularly constructive.
> 
> Naturally when it comes to regulations you can't just say "regulate capitalism" because different industries and even different sectors of the same industry need to be treated separately.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 1, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Not really - decisions have consequences. If you choose not to be insured, you pay the price in the event of health issues or accidents. The state is not your nanny.


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.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 1, 2015)

Nightwish said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> 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.



Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.



			
				Foxi4 said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> 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.


Hungry Friend said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

JoostinOnline said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

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


Hungry Friend said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2015)

@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 (Oct 1, 2015)

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 (Oct 2, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Jul 31, 2016)

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 (Aug 2, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2016)

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 (Aug 2, 2016)

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


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> 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.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Aug 2, 2016)

Foxi4 said:


> ...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.


I think you should wait for the debate before saying that.  In the few weeks that they've even been advertising, they've taken 13% of the vote, all on a very low budget.  In the last election, it was less than 2% as I recall.  If they get on national television things could really change.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 3, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> I think you should wait for the debate before saying that.  In the few weeks that they've even been advertising, they've taken %13 of the vote, all on a very low budget.  In the last election, it was less than 2% as I recall.  If they get on national television things could really change.


One can only hope, as the alternatives are Trump who will bring change, but God only knows what kind of change, and Hillary who will uphold the status quo, or worse, make things even shittier.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 3, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> I think you should wait for the debate before saying that.  In the few weeks that they've even been advertising, they've taken %13 of the vote, all on a very low budget.  In the last election, it was less than 2% as I recall.  If they get on national television things could really change.


Governor Johnson's aggregate polling is actually about 7-8% right now. He got just under 1% in 2012. I don't think he will qualify for the debates, but who knows? I hope he does, even though I'm not supporting him.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Aug 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Governor Johnson's aggregate polling is actually about 7-8% right now. He got just under 1% in 2012. I don't think he will qualify for the debates, but who knows? I hope he does, even though I'm not supporting him.


It's at 13%.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Governor Johnson's aggregate polling is actually about 7-8% right now. He got just under 1% in 2012. I don't think he will qualify for the debates, but who knows? I hope he does, even though I'm not supporting him.


Thoses numbers are pretty low since he has gotten from 8% to 13% depending on the method and polling group. 

He has (according to one estimate) 1/3 chance of getting the 15% of the polls for the debates. I like those odds as it is possible.

There is still alot of time until then. What if Wikileaks comes out with news that causes more distrust of the dnc? Or if Romney or the Bush family endorse him? There are alot of things that could happen until then which can help him.

Either way I think we have a decent chance of making it and if we do then I feel it will be a much better debate for the American people. If not maybe one of the candidates will debate him 1 on 1 like Reagan did Anderson? Ultimately I like Johnson and am proud to support him.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 3, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> It's at 13%.


A CNN poll earlier in July showed him at 13%, but it's always a mistake to focus on just one poll. Focusing on only one poll can allow someone see anything he or she wants to see. As someone here once put it:


Foxi4 said:


> Unless your methodology involves magical fairy dust and unicorns, a group of 1000 individuals is not representative of 318 million. It just isn't, I'm sorry. I treat polls as jerk-off material for people with confirmation bias, I'm only interested in the real deal now.


I agree with @Foxi4 at least that focusing on just one poll and ignoring the others is to engage in confirmation bias. To get an accurate reading of the state of the election, one needs to focus on the aggregate number. The criteria to get into the debates is also dependent on an aggregate of five specific polls, not single polls.

I should also note that if one is going to make the mistake of focusing on a single poll, then in order to be consistent, one should focus on any polling that comes out from that same polling group with the same methodology. A CNN poll from two weeks later showed Johnson's support had dropped to 9%.

If one looks at the aggregate polling, it showed Johnson with about 7.8% at the beginning of June, 9.8% in the middle of July, and about 7.5% now. Like it or not, it doesn't look like he's going anywhere. Hold-outs from either major party are slowly coming around to either Clinton or Trump. I would like to see him in the debates though.

Edit: Not to beat a dead horse, but if one looks at the methodology of the CNN polls, they make some notable mistakes. The sample size is slightly smaller than average (872-894 people), and it polls registered voters instead of likely voters. Again, that's why aggregates are so important in order to minimize the effects of these kinds of variables.



RevPokemon said:


> Thoses numbers are pretty low since he has gotten from 8% to 13% depending on the method and polling group.


Don't make the mistake of ignoring the quantity and quality of polls that put Johnson at 5-6%. That's why aggregates are so important.



RevPokemon said:


> He has (according to one estimate) 1/3 chance of getting the 15% of the polls for the debates. I like those odds as it is possible.


That might be about right. I don't know how that would be calculated.



RevPokemon said:


> There is still alot of time until then. What if Wikileaks comes out with news that causes more distrust of the dnc? Or if Romney or the Bush family endorse him? There are alot of things that could happen until then which can help him.
> 
> Either way I think we have a decent chance of making it and if we do then I feel it will be a much better debate for the American people. If not maybe one of the candidates will debate him 1 on 1 like Reagan did Anderson? Ultimately I like Johnson and am proud to support him.


There is a lot of time between now and the debates. Anything could happen.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Don't make the mistake of ignoring the quantity and quality of polls that put Johnson at 5-6%. That's why aggregates are so important.


I know but that is very low for him. Lowest I have seen is 7% with a 4 way including Stein.



Lacius said:


> That might be about right. I don't know how that would be calculated.


Again it depends on how you perceive the polls. I think if you believe he gets around 8-10% then it is right.



Lacius said:


> I should also note that if one is going to make the mistake of focusing on a single poll, then in order to be consistent, one should focus on any polling that comes out from that same polling group with the same methodology. A CNN poll from two weeks later showed Johnson's support had dropped to 9%.
> 
> If one looks at the aggregate polling, it showed Johnson with about 7.8% at the beginning of June, 9.8% in the middle of July, and about 7.5% now. Like it or not, it doesn't look like he's going anywher


Again it depends on what polls and aggregate you use. Normally what I have been reading generally is describing him as doing better since June, although if it is better enough to get 15% is debatable.





Lacius said:


> Hold-outs from either major party are slowly coming around to either Clinton or Trump.


Well i would say so more for Clinton but then again he splits Clinton votes with Stein according to most polls. As for trump if Johnson gets Romney or Bush support it would really help him with never trump people.

Although ultimately I think even if he gets the 15% the Democrats and GOP will try to do something to stop him.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I know but that is very low for him. Lowest I have seen is 7% with a 4 way including Stein.



Monmouth put Johnson at 5% in mid July.
SurveyUSA put him at 6% in mid June.
Ipsos put him at 5% in late July and early August.
This is by far not an extensive list. Focus on the aggregates, not individual polls.



RevPokemon said:


> Again it depends on how you perceive the polls. I think if you believe he gets around 8-10% then it is right.


Focusing on some polls and not others is special pleading and won't get you very close to the truth. His aggregate is around 7.5% right now.



RevPokemon said:


> Again it depends on what polls and aggregate you use.


It's true that not all aggregates work exactly the same, but they're usually comparable.

RealClearPolitics' aggregate puts him at 7.4%.
FiveThirtyEight's polls-only aggregate puts him at around 7.5%.
FiveThirtyEight's polls-plus aggregate (adds fundamentals and historical trends) puts him at around 7.6%.
FiveThirtyEight's now-cast aggregate (same as polls-only but only takes into account the most recent of polls regardless of methodology and historical accuracy) puts him at around 8.1%.
HuffPost Pollster's aggregate puts him at 8.7%.



RevPokemon said:


> Normally what I have been reading generally is describing him as doing better since June, although if it is better enough to get 15% is debatable.


His overall polling was relatively flat in June, ticked up briefly in July, and has come back down to its June level.



RevPokemon said:


> Well i would say so more for Clinton but then again he splits Clinton votes with Stein according to most polls. As for trump if Johnson gets Romney or Bush support it would really help him with never trump people.
> 
> Although ultimately I think even if he gets the 15% the Democrats and GOP will try to do something to stop him.


How he's taking votes from Clinton and/or Trump is unclear right now. Earlier in the summer, he was disproportionately taking votes from Clinton. We will see.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> This is by far not an extensive list. Focus on the aggregates, not individual polls.


Very true.



Lacius said:


> His overall polling was relatively flat in June, ticked up briefly in July, and has come back down to its June level.


Yeah i have seen that but when you had a terrible gop convention then a mostly good democratic convention (which Hillary did great imo) then it makes sense.



Lacius said:


> How he's taking votes from Clinton and/or Trump is unclear right now. Earlier in the summer, he was disproportionately taking votes from Clinton. We will see.


In 4 way polls he takes a split with Stein from unhappy Sanders supports according to most things I have seen and thst makes sense. Her progressive ideas balance out his more well known status. After the two conventions i think it is safe to say he probably will take more Gop voters. 
Why?
1. Many notable conservatives have endorsed him like Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, and Matt Kibbe
2. Democrats like Hillary more than Republicans like Trump. About 1/4 Democrats dont like Clinton while 1/3 gopers do not like trump
3. The bernie sanders officials have been doing alot to support Clinton and help her. Compared to the gop where alot of the notable people like Bush,Romney, amd Criz have basically said "F you donald" amd have not been supportive.
4. The Democratic convention was much better then the Gop convention


----------



## Lacius (Aug 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> In 4 way polls he takes a split with Stein from unhappy Sanders supports according to most things I have seen and thst makes sense. Her progressive ideas balance out his more well known status. After the two conventions i think it is safe to say he probably will take more Gop voters.
> Why?
> 1. Many notable conservatives have endorsed him like Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, and Matt Kibbe
> *2. Democrats like Hillary more than Republicans like Trump. About 1/4 Democrats dont like Clinton while 1/3 gopers do not like trump*
> ...


I feel like Johnson will probably take more votes from Trump than Clinton in November for most of the reasons you stated, but I don't have any polling evidence to back it up (yet), so I'm not going to claim that it's likely to happen; I can't make that assessment. I felt like Trump wasn't going to get the Republican nomination, but I didn't have any polling evidence to back me up then either. Fundamentals and feelings are much less indicative than polling.

With regard to the part of your message that I bolded, Donald Trump has roughly 85% support from Republicans, which is comparable with other election years. It's also comparable with Democratic support for Clinton. When it comes to support from actual Republican voters, Trump is no different than any other Republican candidate.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> With regard to the part of your message that I bolded, Donald Trump has roughly 85% support from Republicans, which is comparable with other election years. It's also comparable with Democratic support for Clinton.


Note I stated "dont like" not "wont vote for", but it is reasonable to assume people who dont like a candidate are more likely to vote for another one (like johnson). Also the amount of Republicans (if your numbers are right which thry probably are) who do not support him is higher then normal by a bit (McCain lost about 11% of Republicans to Obama) at 15% and evem more so when you consider how disliked Clinton is among Republicans (I would like to say her popularity with Republicans is lower then with Obama in 12 but i am not fully certain).

Again as for who he would hurt more I think it is safe to say it would be Trump but either way i thnk we need to give it a week or two to fully see how the conventions will have affected the voters.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Note I stated "dont like" not "wont vote for", but it is reasonable to assume people who dont like a candidate are more likely to vote for another one (like johnson). Also the amount of Republicans (if your numbers are right which thry probably are) who do not support him is higher then normal by a bit (McCain lost about 11% of Republicans to Obama) at 15% and evem more so when you consider how disliked Clinton is among Republicans (I would like to say her popularity with Republicans is lower then with Obama in 12 but i am not fully certain).
> 
> Again as for who he would hurt more I think it is safe to say it would be Trump but either way i thnk we need to give it a week or two to fully see how the conventions will have affected the voters.


What matters are votes, since they're what we're talking about.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What matters are votes, since they're what we're talking about.


Although I feel that people who Don't like Trump are still probably more likely to go to Clinton or Johnson come November since they are sceptical about him, so what Republicans do think about him matters to a degree (especially in say utah which is very Republican yet hates trump).


----------



## TeamScriptKiddies (Aug 4, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> 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.



I use speed (medically) aka Adderall. Like its actually prescribed to me (I would never abuse it, don't have a deathwish). It does have its medical benefits when used in the right context under the supervision of a healthcare provider. This is actually the only medication that really works for me to treat my ADD properly without major side effects etc. 

I also fully support medical cannabis for people that need it. Such as chemo patients, and people with seizure disorders who don't respond well to traditional medications etc. Cannabis is actually fairly harmless if you don't smoke it but ingest it in one form or another and usually what you get from a medical dispensary has lower THC levels than what you usually find on the street. Anyways I digress.... lol


----------



## Feeling it! (Aug 7, 2016)

..........You guys know that if he lowers the price then the goverment is just going to buy out his drug and then take it off the shelves right?


----------



## dimmidice (Aug 7, 2016)

sometimes i wish this forum had a dislike button.


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 7, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> ..........You guys know that if he lowers the price then the goverment is just going to buy out his drug and then take it off the shelves right?



Wouldn't be a problem for old medication.
Pretty much yearly, improved versions or complete new formulas come out.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 7, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> ..........You guys know that if he lowers the price then the goverment is just going to buy out his drug and then take it off the shelves right?


And why do you think they would do that?


----------



## Feeling it! (Aug 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> And why do you think they would do that?


They make more money off of long and tedious treatments for various other problems so I could see it happening here.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 7, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> They make more money off of long and tedious treatments for various other problems so I could see it happening here.


I doubt they would do that since we are talking about what it is being sold for to consumers. Pfizer or some other pharma company is way way way more likely to do that


----------



## Lacius (Aug 7, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> ..........You guys know that if he lowers the price then the goverment is just going to buy out his drug and then take it off the shelves right?


There's no history of something like this happening in modern history, and it wasn't happening before the price increase.


----------



## Feeling it! (Aug 7, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I doubt they would do that since we are talking about what it is being sold for to consumers. Pfizer or some other pharma company is way way way more likely to do that


True however I always get paranoid with advances in technology when money gets involved.
Get my tinfoil armor.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Aug 7, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> ..........You guys know that if he lowers the price then the goverment is just going to buy out his drug and then take it off the shelves right?


As I've stated many times, there was never any problem with him increasing it, as there are several generics available.  The whole thing was blown out of proportion.  The discussion has moved on.  After a few years (I think 10), anyone can legally make the drug.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2016)

Are they not allowed to legally make it now? As far as I could tell it was a trademark thing and an arsehole business practice wound into the deal. Much like any pharmacist can probably compound acetylsalicylic acid, they just might not be able to call it aspirin in many countries. Here though nobody really cared about it and were content to allow the one company to make it, until the naming rights got sold, prices got hiked and we have this thread.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 7, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Are they not allowed to legally make it now? As far as I could tell it was a trademark thing and an arsehole business practice wound into the deal. Much like any pharmacist can probably compound acetylsalicylic acid, they just might not be able to call it aspirin in many countries.


It really depends upon the laws in the area as to the legal status of generics since the can widely vary as to what is considered a "generic" and what is not.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2016)

Hmm, looks like I have more reading to do on IP law. That said this thing is 62 years old (or was at the time of the OP, older now) so if there is any way they can still have any non trademark claims over it then the IP law situation in the US is even more hosed than I thought it was (and between the DNA patents, software patents, much of the DMCA, a patent office that has never seemed to have heard of non patent prior art and obviousness, the whole Eastern District of Texas thing and everything that has resulted from that and more I did not hold it in high esteem to begin with), that said the whole states vs Federal thing which led to Eastern District of Texas being a thing probably says much there.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Aug 8, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Are they not allowed to legally make it now? As far as I could tell it was a trademark thing and an arsehole business practice wound into the deal. Much like any pharmacist can probably compound acetylsalicylic acid, they just might not be able to call it aspirin in many countries. Here though nobody really cared about it and were content to allow the one company to make it, until the naming rights got sold, prices got hiked and we have this thread.


Considering there are no less than six generics, I'd say they're allowed to make it. 

The whole thing was ridiculous from the start.  People said it was a cure for AIDS, which it wasn't, and acted like raising the price meant nobody could get the drug.  It's easily obtainable as a generic.  I imagine most people were already on that.  I have some medical issues, and I switch to generics when they are available because they're cheaper, and in the case of my epilepsy medicine, more effective.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 8, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> Considering there are no less than six generics, I'd say they're allowed to make it.
> 
> The whole thing was ridiculous from the start.  People said it was a cure for AIDS, which it wasn't, and acted like raising the price meant nobody could get the drug.  It's easily obtainable as a generic.  I imagine most people were already on that.  I have some medical issues, and I switch to generics when they are available because they're cheaper, and in the case of my epilepsy medicine, more effective.


What you linked to is just the list of generic antimalarial drugs, regardless of how they work or how comparable they are to Daraprim. In reality, Daraprim has no generic alternative. Your weird defense of an arbitrary price-increase for a drug that people need in order to live was what was ridiculous from the start.


----------



## Daggot (Aug 8, 2016)

The guy who jacked up the AIDS pill lost his job as a CEO so he now does livestreams to pass the time. FYI the next pill he's trying to do this to is that revolutionary new asthma medication coming out on the market. He does this for fun. This and threatening to sue kids so hard their parents are gonna lose the house on legal fees alone live on stream.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 8, 2016)

Daggot said:


> The guy who jacked up the AIDS pill lost his job as a CEO so he now does livestreams to pass the time. FYI the next pill he's trying to do this to is that revolutionary new asthma medication coming out on the market. He does this for fun. This and threatening to sue kids so hard their parents are gonna lose the house on legal fees alone live on stream.


Isn't capitalism great


----------



## Daggot (Aug 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Isn't capitalism great


It actually is but this guy is just sadistic.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 8, 2016)

Daggot said:


> It actually is but this guy is just sadistic.


I mean yeah

But the fact that he owns a company means that not only does he have the right to do that, he also gets tax breaks! Yay! c:


----------



## Daggot (Aug 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I mean yeah
> 
> But the fact that he owns a company means that not only does he have the right to do that, he also gets tax breaks! Yay! c:


Actually he pissed one too many people off and was booted from that position and was then subsequently arrested and charged for securities fraud only to get out on $5 million bail.

He didn't make it out unscathed at all.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 8, 2016)

Daggot said:


> Actually he pissed one too many people off and was booted from that position and was then subsequently arrested and charged for securities fraud only to get out on $5 million bail.
> 
> He didn't make it out unscathed at all.


Oh I know, but he's clearly planning on pulling the same shenanigans again as you pointed out, just because he can. He's rich enough to be a dick and not think about the potentially fatal consequences of his actions

Edit: So to clarify, yes, while you're right, he _legally _didn't make it out unscathed, he most certainly did not by any means pay for the consequences of his actions


----------



## JoostinOnline (Aug 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> What you linked to is just the list of generic antimalarial drugs, regardless of how they work or how comparable they are to Daraprim. In reality, Daraprim has no generic alternative. Your weird defense of an arbitrary price-increase for a drug that people need in order to live was what was ridiculous from the start.


They're generics to Daraprim.  And Daraprim wasn't needed to live.  The whole "it's a cure for AIDS" was a lie that anyone with even a moderate amount of intelligence should have been able to figure out.

Nobody had any medical problems when the price was raised.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh I know, but he's clearly planning on pulling the same shenanigans again as you pointed out, just because he can. He's rich enough to be a dick and not think about the potentially fatal consequences of his actions


Out of context this sounds like a prime example of Donald Trump.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 8, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Out of context this sounds like a prime example of Donald Trump.


I mean in any context it's a perfect example of Donald Trump, let's be honest


----------



## JoostinOnline (Aug 8, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He's rich enough to be a dick and not think about the potentially fatal consequences of his actions


Except none of the consequences were fatal, potentially or otherwise.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 8, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> They're generics to Daraprim.


No, in the United States, there are not. You'd be stupid to have toxoplasmosis and not use Daraprim. It was also the lack of a generic alternative that caused the drug to be bought and the price to be raised in the first place.
https://www.drugs.com/availability/generic-daraprim.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimethamine



JoostinOnline said:


> And Daraprim wasn't needed to live.


Daraprim is a lifesaving drug that's on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.



JoostinOnline said:


> The whole "it's a cure for AIDS" was a lie that anyone with even a moderate amount of intelligence should have been able to figure out.


You're the first person I've heard quote any sort of claim like that. Nobody's arguing the drug cures HIV/AIDS.



JoostinOnline said:


> Nobody had any medical problems when the price was raised.


The problem is predominantly financial.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Aug 8, 2016)

Lacius said:


> No, in the United States, there are not. You'd be stupid to have toxoplasmosis and not use Daraprim. It was also the lack of a generic alternative that caused the drug to be bought and the price to be raised in the first place.
> https://www.drugs.com/availability/generic-daraprim.html
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimethamine
> 
> ...


This all happened a year ago.  It was all over facebook.


----------

