On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:20:36 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:10:39 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:45:14 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:55:02 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 8/28/16 11:48 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:30:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

So, the libertarian approach is...thalidomide?

===

Is thalidomide what stunted your personal development?


What a singular honor to be insulted in junior high school fashion by so
distinguished a slimeball bankster who likely was the first Zika virus
baby.

This from one who's never hurled an insult to anyone in rec.boats, let alone the other groups he's
been kicked out of.

===

Wasn't there a group that called him an asshat and then tossed him
out?

I believe so. But he's said they unfairly tossed him out. So, the folks in the group must have been
all bad.

===

That's too bad if they unfairly tossed out an asshat.

On 8/28/16 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

You mean, a free market doesn't mean those doing the marketing have the
freedom to do anything they wish?

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:19:26 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

You mean, a free market doesn't mean those doing the marketing have the
freedom to do anything they wish?

Perhaps that is the meaning to a socialist like you, Herr Krause.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:19:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

You mean, a free market doesn't mean those doing the marketing have the
freedom to do anything they wish?

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?
It is the FDA that says the competition can't enter new delivery
devices into the market ... or even old designs until they get
specifically accepted and that takes years.
Why are there only 2 companies selling that insulin device you talked
about? Insulin itself is a commodity item. pretty much selling for the
cost of production so it must be a proprietary delivery device.
The same is true of the Epi pen. The drug itself is generically
available dirt cheap. You are just paying for the syringe.
Who is holding up the approval of the 50 cent one?

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 9:58:43 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:19:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:13:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.

I have never supported monopolies or market collusion. That is not a
free market. In the case of insulin, why are there only 2 sources.

You mean, a free market doesn't mean those doing the marketing have the
freedom to do anything they wish?

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?
It is the FDA that says the competition can't enter new delivery
devices into the market ... or even old designs until they get
specifically accepted and that takes years.
Why are there only 2 companies selling that insulin device you talked
about? Insulin itself is a commodity item. pretty much selling for the
cost of production so it must be a proprietary delivery device.
The same is true of the Epi pen. The drug itself is generically
available dirt cheap. You are just paying for the syringe.
Who is holding up the approval of the 50 cent one?

Krause can't hold the talking point. He must attempt to derail the conversation at his convenience. He is a desperate thinker, that is, if you can call his MO as truly thinking.

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."

One of my neighbors is diabetic and earlier this week when the Epipen
scandal broke, he mentioned that two insulin products he has used,
Novolog something or other and Humalog something or other, from two
competing manufacturers, had "list prices" of around $1100 for a one
month supply. He pays less because of his insurance, but he still pays a
lot. No competition in price. It's the American way for many products.
Competition is not the answer.

I doubt the Epipens cost more than $2 or $3 to manufacture, including
the drug and the injector. I read a report that in Canada, a Canadian in
need of an Epipen pays about $12.

This is a classic result of a monopoly, which in this case exists because the FDA(government) has blocked every attempt by other companies to produce a generic Epi-Pen! I wonder if it could have something to do with the CEO's father being a US Senator (a Democrat who undoubtedly hates big corporations!).....nah, just a coincidence, especially since CNBC also reported Mylan paid over $400 million to Teva (the generic producer of the drug) to keep it off the market for a set period of time to allow them this to reap in billions. Patents have expired for this drug and the US government (i.e. taxpayers=all of us) paid for the patent on the delivery system (the pen) in the 1960s.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 12:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/28/16 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT), Keyser Soze
wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:33:15 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/27/16 9:52 PM, Tim wrote:
Actually I hope this inspires competition.



Ahhh...that old American dream...the "free market" and "competition."


Exactly. the more the "competition" the better the pricing. Yes "free
market" is part of the "American dream"


Ahhh. Sorta like that GOP b.s. about trickle down economics...

Only a democrat would believe a government imposed monopoly is the way
to go. I bet you think Comcast is good too.



There's no monopoly in the insulin drugs I previously mentioned, yet
both competitors charge the same outrageous price for their
products...and there have been numerous news articles discussing
collusion in the pharma industry to avoid "competitiveness." In many
market segments, even though there are competitors, there is no
competition.


How come a mostly Democrat controlled presidency has not fixed that in the
last 2 years? Maybe because they are controlled by Wall Street?


The Repugnant-controlled Congress won't allow the proper legislation to
get anyway. Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill to remedy and reign in
the Big Pharma Banksters, but it isn't going to go anywhere until
Hillary takes over the White House.


..yup, all republican fault. Not the fact a Democrat senator's daughter is
in charge of the ripoff.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:47:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/31/16 10:57 AM, wrote:

That still is not going to do anything about the Epi Pen that we are
talking about. The people and insurance companies paying $300-600 for
these are generally not on medicaid or medicare. S.2023 is just to cut
the government's exposure for the most part.
Also why do you think it is only republicans who are blocking this?
Hillary alone has taken over $20 million from "big medicine" and it is
still August. The idea that most democrats are going to shut down
their gravy train is ridiculous. Notice the only co-sponsor along with
Sanders was Franken. Most democrats are not Sanders and Franken. You
only had to watch the DNC convention and the roadblocks they threw in
front of Sanders in the primaries to see that.


No it isn't, because the Bill, because of the current GOP control of
Congress, isn't going anywhere. That's the same reason Social Security
why Medicare isn't able to negotiate drug prices, because of the GOP
control of Congress. That impediment has to be removed.

Also the Bill provides remedies to get around the raping of the public
being perpetrated by the drug manufacturers.


You still have not said why this is only the republicans.
When the democrats were ramming their health plan through the all
democrat congress, why wasn't drug reform part of it?
Could it possibly be that the democrats are bought by the people you
are blaming?

Your Republican Libertarians have nothing that will help...they're
against regulation.

Bear in mind, the abusive patent protection laws that make all of this
possible are "regulation" too.
Most of this is simply abuse of the patent law. It tends to reward the
person with the best lawyer, not the inventor.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:12:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I suggest you read for content and get back to us.

I read the "Canada" part and my first thought is I bet Canada might
ban exports to the US if this passes because it would make their
prices go up if they didn't. Their negotiations with the drug
companies will change if the companies realize this is not just the
small Canadian market but the much larger US market.
I don't think it is a secret that the US has always subsidized foreign
sales.

wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:12:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I suggest you read for content and get back to us.

I read the "Canada" part and my first thought is I bet Canada might
ban exports to the US if this passes because it would make their
prices go up if they didn't. Their negotiations with the drug
companies will change if the companies realize this is not just the
small Canadian market but the much larger US market.
I don't think it is a secret that the US has always subsidized foreign
sales.


Most foreign countries regulate the price per manufacturing cost plus a
reasonable profit. They do not figure in development costs. Therefore the
USA consumer pays for all development costs.