What drugs really cost you...

[TravisT]

That's a tough decision for some people. My dad for example is allergic to specific kinds of insulin. If he just said 'well, i'm not going to purchase this other kind because it's to expensive'.. he'd die.

So really, this is an important issue and it's certainly not something you can just say.. 'well, don't buy it' when it comes to health care.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
You get struck down with a case of depression or some type of anxiety, you'll see how fvckin life-saving these pills can be.

:|

Originally posted by: Sysadmin
You obviously never have suffered from Chronic Depression.

Sysadmin

You 2 are "obviously" very wrong. You know nothing about me, and in your simple minds can only ASSume that I have no experience on this subject. Quite the contrary, I have FAR more than enough personal experience with chronic depression and anxiety. How could you possibly see someone as intense and angry as I am and then ASSume that I had "obviously" never suffered from depression or anxiety?
Maybe those pills are cures for some people, but not for me. I healed myself through execise, diet, and better living. But that's the "wrong way", right? :roll::disgust::|

Can depression and anxiety be harmful to someone's life? Of course. Will you die from it? Only if you think so. Are Prozac and Xanex miracle cures? Fsck no.

Whatever. This is the internet. God forbid that anyone think outside the herd.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TravisT
That's a tough decision for some people. My dad for example is allergic to specific kinds of insulin. If he just said 'well, i'm not going to purchase this other kind because it's to expensive'.. he'd die.

So really, this is an important issue and it's certainly not something you can just say.. 'well, don't buy it' when it comes to health care.

Yes, you can say just that. You are not entitled to be kept alive by other people's labor. That makes them your slave. Now, it would be nice if someone decided to be charitable and give you the drugs you need to live, and many charities do just that. But you cannot be entitled to the work product of another person. That means you subjugate their rights for your own.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Mwilding
1. that doesn't factor in the cost of the process to turn those raw materials into drugs.
2. that doesn't factor in the requirement to recoup the $400 million dollars it took to get the FDA to approve the drug.
3. $400 million

So.

explain to me why the same drug by the same company is cheaper in other countries?

Because those governments either subsidize the medication, place price limits on them, or both.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TravisT
That's a tough decision for some people. My dad for example is allergic to specific kinds of insulin. If he just said 'well, i'm not going to purchase this other kind because it's to expensive'.. he'd die.

So really, this is an important issue and it's certainly not something you can just say.. 'well, don't buy it' when it comes to health care.

Yes, you can say just that. You are not entitled to be kept alive by other people's labor. That makes them your slave. Now, it would be nice if someone decided to be charitable and give you the drugs you need to live, and many charities do just that. But you cannot be entitled to the work product of another person. That means you subjugate their rights for your own.

:Q

 

[samgau]

Exactly, if I choose to buy from Canada for example, and not them... why can't I? You are blocked from going where you can get a fair price... The system is corrupt... and that was the whole point all along...

Healthcare is a basic need, and something to which every taxpayer should have fair access to... yet in the most advanced/civilized country in the world, you have 15% of the population who can't afford it and a majority who can barely afford it... yet you see nothing wrong with that...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TravisT
That's a tough decision for some people. My dad for example is allergic to specific kinds of insulin. If he just said 'well, i'm not going to purchase this other kind because it's to expensive'.. he'd die.

So really, this is an important issue and it's certainly not something you can just say.. 'well, don't buy it' when it comes to health care.

Yes, you can say just that. You are not entitled to be kept alive by other people's labor. That makes them your slave. Now, it would be nice if someone decided to be charitable and give you the drugs you need to live, and many charities do just that. But you cannot be entitled to the work product of another person. That means you subjugate their rights for your own.

:Q

Why is this shocking? Why should the labor of another be your "right?" What becomes of their rights?

Everyone wants to keep their own rights, and limit everyone else's. It's bullsh!t.

 

[TitanDiddly]

I knew the markups were high, not that high though...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: samgau
Exactly, if I choose to buy from Canada for example, and not them... why can't I? You are blocked from going where you can get a fair price... The system is corrupt... and that was the whole point all along...

Healthcare is a basic need, and something to which every taxpayer should have fair access to... yet in the most advanced/civilized country in the world, you have 15% of the population who can't afford it and a majority who can barely afford it... yet you see nothing wrong with that...

I see plenty wrong with it. We never had this problem until after LBJ's failed "Great Society" socialist program that created welfare, Medicare and Medicaid in the mid 60s.

I also see something wrong with you mistaking a "need" with a "right." I need a LOT of things, and it is up to ME to get them, no one else.

No amount of advancement or civilization will cure laziness, stupidity, bad luck, or bad planning. You are now confusing advancment and civialization with collectivism. They are NOT the same. In fact, they are quite far apart from each other.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: samgau
Exactly, if I choose to buy from Canada for example, and not them... why can't I? You are blocked from going where you can get a fair price... The system is corrupt... and that was the whole point all along...

Healthcare is a basic need, and something to which every taxpayer should have fair access to... yet in the most advanced/civilized country in the world, you have 15% of the population who can't afford it and a majority who can barely afford it... yet you see nothing wrong with that...

No, it is not. Healthcare is product, sold for a profit. Get a clue.
It is a high technology product too, so using government intervention to stifle its profit will significantly reduce technological advancement, a problem that has already occurred in countries with socialized healthcare.

Canada's price for prescription drugs is not a fair price, it is a subsidized price. Buying from Canada is cheating the Canadian taxpayers.

You want to argue "basic needs" "to which every taxpayer should have fair access to" then you better start with REAL "basic needs" like food and housing.
Otherwise, you're just full of sh!t and want to cheat everyone else into paying for something you want but are unwilling to pay/work for.

Bah! Most of you people are drug addicts. You think just because you have an Rx that it makes it alright... but waahhh!!! you'd die without your smack, and everyone else should share the wealth. Classic drug addict mentality.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Amused
Everyone wants to keep their own rights, and limit everyone else's. It's bullsh!t.

Not only is it bullsh!t, it's also the heart and soul of democratic thinking. Wants become needs which become rights. "Goddamnit, there oughta be a law!" :roll:

 

[Nanotech]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
1. that doesn't factor in the cost of the process to turn those raw materials into drugs.
2. that doesn't factor in the requirement to recoup the $400 million dollars it took to get the FDA to approve the drug.
3. $400 million

Nor does it factor in the man hours spent on researching the correct combination/dosage of each active ingredient.

 

[Nitemare]

& people wonder why over the counter herbal remedies are so popular....

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: samgau
Healthcare is a basic need, and something to which every taxpayer should have fair access to... yet in the most advanced/civilized country in the world, you have 15% of the population who can't afford it and a majority who can barely afford it... yet you see nothing wrong with that...

I need food. Maybe I should drop by your house and take some. I need water, maybe I should take it out of your garden hose. I need heat, maybe I should break into your house and sleep on your bed. And take some of your clothes while I'm at it. I have many needs. I do not have the right to make you work to supply them for me.

Every tax payer does have fair access to health care. No one is going to bar you from entering a hospital on the basis of your skin color, religion, age, sex, etc. They might not give you care that you cannot pay for, but you wouldnt expect a grocery store to give you food you cant pay for, would you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Sysadmin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: samgau

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Well as one who has NO HEALTH INSURANCE, and NO HELP in BUYING drugs, it fries my ass that people in other countries in basically the same situation CAN and DO get drugs that I can't afford.

So it's OK for the drug companies to gouge Americans since most have insurance that can pay?
And as for those who can't, fvck'em? Also, just because the insurance companies pay, doesn't mean the costs aren't deferred by higher insurance costs!:roll:

I understand your anger, but keep in mind you live in America. This is a country that gives you opportunties that don't exist anywhere else. Is there a catch? Of course, things are more expensive here...

There is a difference between the land of opportunity and getting screwed at every turn by corporate america....

:roll:

No one is screwing you but yourself. "Corporate America" owes you nothing, and you owe it nothing. You are not entitled to it's goods, and it is not entitled to your money. As soon as you realize this, you'll stop acting like a victim.

Then why doesn't the damn government allow you to purchase drugs through Canada so we don't have to get raped with outrageous costs? If the government is not entitled to my money?!??!

Sysadmin

Because the nanny-state can't ensure the quality of those drugs. But that's another issue. The main issue here is you are not entitled to the work product of another... even if it means your death. Your life and lack of an ability to pay for preserving it should not make others slaves.

When people argue for freedom, ask yourself, are they asking for freedom for the wolves or the sheep. Lincoln would have found this all very interesting.

Does it matter? What makes a man a wolf or a sheep? His ability to succeed financially or lack thereof? Your question, and point, is irrelevant.

Yes it matters. I have no doubt the concept is beyond you, like it was in the day of Lincoln when people were deprived of their property.

You argue for society being based on the Lord of the Flys. I reject that, and fortunately there are enough of us to oppose those who think they are enslaved, when in truth they are more free than any real slave ever was.

How did you get away from your bondage long enough to get on here and post? Your masters will be along shortly I guess to take you back to the field.

Ayn Rand is a selfish twit.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Ayn Rand is a selfish twit.

There's two sides to selfish. It's a self-defeating statement.

I for one am glad there are enough people arguing the wolves' side to keep the lambs in check.
Either extreme is a bad place to be.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Sysadmin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: samgau

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Well as one who has NO HEALTH INSURANCE, and NO HELP in BUYING drugs, it fries my ass that people in other countries in basically the same situation CAN and DO get drugs that I can't afford.

So it's OK for the drug companies to gouge Americans since most have insurance that can pay?
And as for those who can't, fvck'em? Also, just because the insurance companies pay, doesn't mean the costs aren't deferred by higher insurance costs!:roll:

I understand your anger, but keep in mind you live in America. This is a country that gives you opportunties that don't exist anywhere else. Is there a catch? Of course, things are more expensive here...

There is a difference between the land of opportunity and getting screwed at every turn by corporate america....

:roll:

No one is screwing you but yourself. "Corporate America" owes you nothing, and you owe it nothing. You are not entitled to it's goods, and it is not entitled to your money. As soon as you realize this, you'll stop acting like a victim.

Then why doesn't the damn government allow you to purchase drugs through Canada so we don't have to get raped with outrageous costs? If the government is not entitled to my money?!??!

Sysadmin

Because the nanny-state can't ensure the quality of those drugs. But that's another issue. The main issue here is you are not entitled to the work product of another... even if it means your death. Your life and lack of an ability to pay for preserving it should not make others slaves.

When people argue for freedom, ask yourself, are they asking for freedom for the wolves or the sheep. Lincoln would have found this all very interesting.

Does it matter? What makes a man a wolf or a sheep? His ability to succeed financially or lack thereof? Your question, and point, is irrelevant.

Yes it matters. I have no doubt the concept is beyond you, like it was in the day of Lincoln when people were deprived of their property.

You argue for society being based on the Lord of the Flys. I reject that, and fortunately there are enough of us to oppose those who think they are enslaved, when in truth they are more free than any real slave ever was.

How did you get away from your bondage long enough to get on here and post? Your masters will be along shortly I guess to take you back to the field.

Ayn Rand is a selfish twit.

Who is being deprived of property here? Those who produce goods and services, or those who do not?

Selfishness is a virtue. The only people screaming about selfishness are those who produce little to nothing, yet consume more than they can pay for. Would that be you?

Meanwhile, the key here is not selfishness, as I give handsomely to charities. The key here is ENTITLEMENT vs charity. You scream about selfishness, care to match charitable donations made by me both privately, and through my business?

 

[huey1124]

seeing that there are over 7 pages of replies, i will not read through every single page. but i wanted to chime in, since i could be qualified to address some of the concerns.

i work as a cancer research scientist, for a big pharma everyone likes to hate (especially by BabyBaliDoc). i understand everyone's frustrations, looking at prices of several of those medications my employer makes. but did u know that roughly only 1 out of 20 drugs that make it through pre-clinical development ever makes it to the store shelves? pharmaceutical companies invest billions and billions of dollars every year into R&D (my employer will spend 7.9 billion this year alone). as a drug discovery scientist, i see how much resource and effort goes into a project, just to find out that it isn't going to work and we have to kill it. an army of scientists, consisting of medicinal chemists, biologists, pharmacologists, etc., can typically spend 2 years on a project, spending millions of dollars of company budget in the process. and even when a drug gets discovered in pre-clinical stage, we can only hope that it will clear many of the hurdles to be the one that will make it to the store shelves and into patients. but what about countless projects that will not even pass the pre-clinical stage?

when a drug does finally make it, of course the mark-ups need to be made to recoup all the R&D costs, as well as costs for advertising, manufacturing, distribution, etc. oh, and pharmaceutical companies also need to show a profit, otherwise investors will pull their money away. and there are countless legal battles, from frivolous lawsuits, generic companies challenging patents, settlements resulting from injuries caused by medications..... which all chew up company profits.

OP's sister (or whever) was unclear about the point she was trying to make. but she is right about being upset with the generic drugs. companies that make generic drugs have R&D cost of ZERO. once patent has expired for a medication, these generic drug companies have the recipe to manufacture the same drug with same ingredients, and without having to risk the gamble of safety or efficacy of these drugs. on the other hand, pharmaceutical companies that developed these drugs are taking an enormous risk, since safety of the drug is not always known in clinical trials (long-term drug safety). and when the patent expires, a pharmaceutical company has to deal with the generic drug competition, as well as competition from other pharmaceuticals in the same therapeutic area.

drugs are cheaper in other parts of the world, because of different laws and price control. that's why it is becoming less and less profitable for foreign pharmaceutical companies to do business in their respective countries. no wonder foreign companies such as Norvartis is investing huge amounts of R&D dollars in U.S., and we have a huge influx of scientists from foreign countries into U.S. on top of that, many of the brand name drugs being sold overseas are counterfeits. not necessarily fakes, but drugs made without proper QA standards, which will not pass FDA guidelines. there are many other reasons why drugs are cheaper overseas, but i don't have time to go into all the details.

i don't have any time to write anymore, but please educate yourselves before jumping on the bandwagon. like someone mentioned, drug companies do not exist to give away drugs or barely make any profit. but my employer does do a lot of charity work, as well as donating huge amounts of AIDS drug to African countries and other parts of the world every year, as well as making good progress on SARS treatment (although this will not be profitable for the company).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Ayn Rand is a selfish twit.

There's two sides to selfish. It's a self-defeating statement.

I for one am glad there are enough people arguing the wolves' side to keep the lambs in check.
Either extreme is a bad place to be.

I am not arguing for a free for all. Amused bared his soul and told us about his not so happy days. I will not do that, but I have literal scars, and the spoons we had were not silver.

The society that you and I and he and Ayn Rand benefits from is because in our collective history gave as well as got. The argument I see is take, take, take. There was a claim made that there is no altruism. Well, I believe some think that is so, but I have caught people doing good at their own expense when they thought no one was looking. They did what they did, because someone else needed what they had more than they themselves. That's altruism. The greedy want to be victims just as much as those who can help themselves, but do not want to. Note the slavery garbage thrown around. Want to see slavery? Go to the brothels in Asia where women are literally tied down and fscked, then thrown in a room till later called for. Slavery? Bullshit!

So a corporation or people have no responsibilities others? Well, then just south of us is a whole continent where you can find the fruits of those attitudes in full bloom. Well they can take themselves there and watch the peons go by.

There will still be a market here, and responsible people can make money and do fine thank you.

I have found that the measure of worth in a person is not what fortune they can amass, but rather in the good they do others. If they don't want to do good then they have no value as people.

BTW, the lamb and wolf line comes from Lincoln, when confronted by legal property owners crying they were being deprived of freedom because of the attempts to remove their posessions, namely slaves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Sysadmin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: samgau

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Well as one who has NO HEALTH INSURANCE, and NO HELP in BUYING drugs, it fries my ass that people in other countries in basically the same situation CAN and DO get drugs that I can't afford.

So it's OK for the drug companies to gouge Americans since most have insurance that can pay?
And as for those who can't, fvck'em? Also, just because the insurance companies pay, doesn't mean the costs aren't deferred by higher insurance costs!:roll:

I understand your anger, but keep in mind you live in America. This is a country that gives you opportunties that don't exist anywhere else. Is there a catch? Of course, things are more expensive here...

There is a difference between the land of opportunity and getting screwed at every turn by corporate america....

:roll:

No one is screwing you but yourself. "Corporate America" owes you nothing, and you owe it nothing. You are not entitled to it's goods, and it is not entitled to your money. As soon as you realize this, you'll stop acting like a victim.

Then why doesn't the damn government allow you to purchase drugs through Canada so we don't have to get raped with outrageous costs? If the government is not entitled to my money?!??!

Sysadmin

Because the nanny-state can't ensure the quality of those drugs. But that's another issue. The main issue here is you are not entitled to the work product of another... even if it means your death. Your life and lack of an ability to pay for preserving it should not make others slaves.

When people argue for freedom, ask yourself, are they asking for freedom for the wolves or the sheep. Lincoln would have found this all very interesting.

Does it matter? What makes a man a wolf or a sheep? His ability to succeed financially or lack thereof? Your question, and point, is irrelevant.

Yes it matters. I have no doubt the concept is beyond you, like it was in the day of Lincoln when people were deprived of their property.

You argue for society being based on the Lord of the Flys. I reject that, and fortunately there are enough of us to oppose those who think they are enslaved, when in truth they are more free than any real slave ever was.

How did you get away from your bondage long enough to get on here and post? Your masters will be along shortly I guess to take you back to the field.

Ayn Rand is a selfish twit.

Who is being deprived of property here? Those who produce goods and services, or those who do not?

Selfishness is a virtue. The only people screaming about selfishness are those who produce little to nothing, yet consume more than they can pay for. Would that be you?

Meanwhile, the key here is not selfishness, as I give handsomely to charities. The key here is ENTITLEMENT vs charity. You scream about selfishness, care to match charitable donations made by me both privately, and through my business?

What do I give? Tell me as you know so much. BTW thanks for the sig material.

 

[Vic]

Slavery is not a relative term. It either exists or does not. There is no in-between.

The prostitute who is forced to sexual servitude and the man who works to pay excessive taxes for government services that he will never receive are both slaves. Their sufferings may be of relatively different levels, but that does not make the arguably lesser suffering of the man unreal, or justifiable. Because he labors against his will for the benefit of others, he is still a slave regardless of the luxuries of his prison cell.

Slavery is when one is forced to labor for the benefit of others against one's will.
The socialists will simply never understand this. They're so wrapped up in their altruism and their "think of the poor" bullsh!t that they never stop to think of the nightmare world that they advocate. A world in which everyone is forced to serve everyone else... at gunpoint and by force of law. And that is slavery.

On the other hand, the very essence of freedom is choice. Including the choice to not take part. The freedom to opt out. Of course, that means the freedom to not receive the benefits of taking part (i.e. the freedom to starve and die, for example), but it also means the freedom to have the opportunity to take part, and to acheive and to earn your share in society, and thus the benefits. No nation in the world has ever done so well at freedom as America (though admittedly we fall far short of the ideal).

So why are so many socialists so eager to scrap freedom for mass collective enslavement? Simple. They want their cake and eat it too. Despite all their altruism, their position is really based on selfish fear. They want all the benefits that are to be found in a free society without the risks. That this is simply not possible they know all too well, which is why they understand fully why they must enslave the producers of society to their will.

Many people mistake Ayn Rand's statements regarding selfishness and selflessness (most commonly found in her book, "the Fountainhead"). The reason why she said selfishness is a virtue, and selflessness is an evil, is because selfishness is real and honest, and selflessness is a false deceit. Selflessness in fact rarely exists, and when it does, it looks NOTHING like socialism, but instead contains a deep appreciation of freedom, free will, and the desire to never see anyone suffer or be enslaved against their will, not even for the greater good.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Sysadmin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: samgau

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Well as one who has NO HEALTH INSURANCE, and NO HELP in BUYING drugs, it fries my ass that people in other countries in basically the same situation CAN and DO get drugs that I can't afford.

So it's OK for the drug companies to gouge Americans since most have insurance that can pay?
And as for those who can't, fvck'em? Also, just because the insurance companies pay, doesn't mean the costs aren't deferred by higher insurance costs!:roll:

I understand your anger, but keep in mind you live in America. This is a country that gives you opportunties that don't exist anywhere else. Is there a catch? Of course, things are more expensive here...

There is a difference between the land of opportunity and getting screwed at every turn by corporate america....

:roll:

No one is screwing you but yourself. "Corporate America" owes you nothing, and you owe it nothing. You are not entitled to it's goods, and it is not entitled to your money. As soon as you realize this, you'll stop acting like a victim.

Then why doesn't the damn government allow you to purchase drugs through Canada so we don't have to get raped with outrageous costs? If the government is not entitled to my money?!??!

Sysadmin

Because the nanny-state can't ensure the quality of those drugs. But that's another issue. The main issue here is you are not entitled to the work product of another... even if it means your death. Your life and lack of an ability to pay for preserving it should not make others slaves.

When people argue for freedom, ask yourself, are they asking for freedom for the wolves or the sheep. Lincoln would have found this all very interesting.

Does it matter? What makes a man a wolf or a sheep? His ability to succeed financially or lack thereof? Your question, and point, is irrelevant.

Yes it matters. I have no doubt the concept is beyond you, like it was in the day of Lincoln when people were deprived of their property.

You argue for society being based on the Lord of the Flys. I reject that, and fortunately there are enough of us to oppose those who think they are enslaved, when in truth they are more free than any real slave ever was.

How did you get away from your bondage long enough to get on here and post? Your masters will be along shortly I guess to take you back to the field.

Ayn Rand is a selfish twit.

Who is being deprived of property here? Those who produce goods and services, or those who do not?

Selfishness is a virtue. The only people screaming about selfishness are those who produce little to nothing, yet consume more than they can pay for. Would that be you?

Meanwhile, the key here is not selfishness, as I give handsomely to charities. The key here is ENTITLEMENT vs charity. You scream about selfishness, care to match charitable donations made by me both privately, and through my business?

What do I give? Tell me as you know so much. BTW thanks for the sig material.

Don't attribute that to me. That's a title of an Ayn Rand book.

And the point is over your head, I see.

The point of selfishness being a virtue is that if everyone takes care of their own families, no one will need taking care of by a government entitlement program.

And NO, this country does NOT owe it's success and standard of living to ANY form of collectivism. In fact, quite the opposite. It owes it's success to the freedom of the individual and individual rights. In case you didn't notice, collectivism is and always has been an abject failure. It invariably leads to a loss of individual freedoms, lack of innovation and growth and sooner or later bankrupts itself as the people have no motivation to be ambitious or even work beyond what is expected of them.

BTW, Ayn Rand is dead. She grew up in the USSR and saw the horrors of collectivism first hand.

Maybe you should actually read her stuff before passing judgement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic
Slavery is not a relative term. It either exists or does not. There is no in-between.

The prostitute who is forced to sexual servitude and the man who works to pay excessive taxes for government services that he will never receive are both slaves. Their sufferings may be of relatively different levels, but that does not make the arguably lesser of suffering of the man unreal, or justifiable. Because he labors against his will for the benefit of others, he is still a slave regardless of the luxuries of his prison cell.

Slavery is when one is forced to labor for the benefit of others against one's will.
The socialists will simply never understand this. They're so wrapped up in their altruism and their "think of the poor" bullsh!t that they never stop to think of the nightmare world that they advocate. A world in which everyone is forced to serve everyone else... at gunpoint and by force of law. And that is slavery.

On the other hand, the very essence of freedom is choice. Including the choice to not take part. The freedom to opt out. Of course, that means the freedom to not receive the benefits of taking part (i.e. the freedom to starve and die, for example), but it also means the freedom to have the opportunity to take part, and to acheive and to earn your share in society, and thus the benefits. No nation in the world has ever done so well at freedom as America.

So why are so many socialists so eager to scrap freedom for mass collective enslavement? Simple. They want their cake and eat it too. Despite all their altruism, their position is really based on selfish fear. They want all the benefits that are found in a free society without the risks. That this is simply not possible they know too well, which is why they understand fully why they must enslave the producers of society to their will.

Many people mistake Ayn Rand's statements regarding selfishness and selflessness (most commonly found in her book, "the Fountainhead"). The reason why she said selfishness is a virtue, and selflessness is an evil, is because selfishness is real and honest, and selflessness is a false deceit. Selflessness in fact rarely exists, and when it does, it looks NOTHING like socialism, but instead contains a deep appreciation of freedom, free will, and the desire to never see anyone suffer, not even for the greater good.

Well that is well and good, and when I meet a socialist, then I will be sure to point this out. I am not arguing for government ownership of business. Nor am I arguing for people suffering under a tax burden. I see how people boast about how much they can afford to give to charity, yet claim to be slaves. Tell me, who among you is not free to travel? Who has a literal collar and chains. If you did, I suspect you would not be arguing relativism.

This government was based on the principle of self sufficiency AND the common good. They need not be mutually exclusive except for extremists.

I have seen the argument put forward as a moral principle that the government should allow a citizen's child who is ill die if they have become unemployed and cannot afford insurance before they levy taxes. That is abhorent.

Yes our system SHOULD provide opportunities for people to achieve and fail. That does not mean we should let people die for it, which is the consequence of this policy taken too far.

As far as the premise that a thing is true makes a virtue..

That people hate is true and it's a virtue?
Putting Jews to death was common enough in Nazi Germany. It's a virtue?

No. That they are common AND true is an evil thing. Inhumanity to others ought to be fought not embraced.

Selfishness is a virtue belongs with Orwell's quotes, because the perversity of it make it just as evil.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Sysadmin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: samgau

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Well as one who has NO HEALTH INSURANCE, and NO HELP in BUYING drugs, it fries my ass that people in other countries in basically the same situation CAN and DO get drugs that I can't afford.

So it's OK for the drug companies to gouge Americans since most have insurance that can pay?
And as for those who can't, fvck'em? Also, just because the insurance companies pay, doesn't mean the costs aren't deferred by higher insurance costs!:roll:

I understand your anger, but keep in mind you live in America. This is a country that gives you opportunties that don't exist anywhere else. Is there a catch? Of course, things are more expensive here...

There is a difference between the land of opportunity and getting screwed at every turn by corporate america....

:roll:

No one is screwing you but yourself. "Corporate America" owes you nothing, and you owe it nothing. You are not entitled to it's goods, and it is not entitled to your money. As soon as you realize this, you'll stop acting like a victim.

Then why doesn't the damn government allow you to purchase drugs through Canada so we don't have to get raped with outrageous costs? If the government is not entitled to my money?!??!

Sysadmin

Because the nanny-state can't ensure the quality of those drugs. But that's another issue. The main issue here is you are not entitled to the work product of another... even if it means your death. Your life and lack of an ability to pay for preserving it should not make others slaves.

When people argue for freedom, ask yourself, are they asking for freedom for the wolves or the sheep. Lincoln would have found this all very interesting.

Does it matter? What makes a man a wolf or a sheep? His ability to succeed financially or lack thereof? Your question, and point, is irrelevant.

Yes it matters. I have no doubt the concept is beyond you, like it was in the day of Lincoln when people were deprived of their property.

You argue for society being based on the Lord of the Flys. I reject that, and fortunately there are enough of us to oppose those who think they are enslaved, when in truth they are more free than any real slave ever was.

How did you get away from your bondage long enough to get on here and post? Your masters will be along shortly I guess to take you back to the field.

Ayn Rand is a selfish twit.

Who is being deprived of property here? Those who produce goods and services, or those who do not?

Selfishness is a virtue. The only people screaming about selfishness are those who produce little to nothing, yet consume more than they can pay for. Would that be you?

Meanwhile, the key here is not selfishness, as I give handsomely to charities. The key here is ENTITLEMENT vs charity. You scream about selfishness, care to match charitable donations made by me both privately, and through my business?

What do I give? Tell me as you know so much. BTW thanks for the sig material.

Don't attribute that to me. That's a title of an Ayn Rand book.

And the point is over your head, I see.

The point of selfishness being a virtue is that if everyone takes care of their own families, no one will need taking care of by a government entitlement program.

And NO, this country does NOT owe it's success and standard of living to ANY form of collectivism. In fact, quite the opposite. It owes it's success to the freedom of the individual and individual rights. In case you didn't notice, collectivism is and always has been an abject failure. It invariably leads to a loss of individual freedoms, lack of innovation and growth and sooner or later bankrupts itself as the people have no motivation to be ambitious or even work beyond what is expected of them.

BTW, Ayn Rand is dead. She grew up in the USSR and saw the horrors of collectivism first hand.

Maybe you should actually read her stuff before passing judgement.

Perhaps I could take her more seriously if those who ascribe to her philosophy do not argue that children without insurance should die. That is not her, that can be attributed to your statement earlier.

"The main issue here is you are not entitled to the work product of another... even if it means your death. Your life and lack of an ability to pay for preserving it should not make others slaves."

If you notice I did NOT jump all over businesses when I entered this thread. I argued they do have a right to make a profit. The extreme opposite viewpoint that business should not be taxed when they benefit from what others put in place is not valid either. I claim there is middle ground.

 

[Wuffsunie]

A stated, drug R&D in insanely expensive, that's why drugs cost what they do. Most haven't tossed out a lot of costs, though. Single pieces of critical lab equipment like a centrifuge can easily cost a quarter million, chemical analysis machines can go over a million, and individual enzymes and chemicals needed can cost hundreds of dollars for a few microliters. Personnel in a university setting cost around $500 000-600 000 a year for a 10 person lab, so you can easily double that when you get into industry. You have to then consider that it takes 6-8 years for a drug to reach the public. And then there is all the expense in animal and human testing, as well as whatever else the FDA requires. Finally, as has been stated over and over, for every drug that makes it to market, about a lot more fail. Again, pharmaceutical reseach is NOT cheap!

Still, the drug companies are getting greedy in a lot of respects. Prices need to come down, whatever the method. The reason that a lot of other countries have cheaper versions of the drugs is because there's some sort of government subsidity going on.

Viper GTS is also wrong about keeping government out of things. I think they need to start investing way more in research geared specifically to antibiotic development. Leaving it up to industry alone gets you in the situation we're in now, where no new antibiotics have been developed since the 70s. The current last line of defence, Vancomycin, was developed back in in 1958. (If your doctor ever says they have to treat you with this stuff, worry. That means literally nothing else will kill what you have.) Leaving things in the hands of the industry has led to only one new class of antibiotics in the last 40 years. This is because governments have legislated that antibiotics must be made cheaply available to everyone. Thus, a company can't tack on to them the customary huge markups, and they thus have no insentive to develop them. This is going to be a huge problem in the near future.

And Vic owned the thread with his post on exactly what those drugs were