On 10/25/2017 1:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2017 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what
is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their
medications that way.

Other examples abound.ÂÂ* But when an industry like this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to
buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking.

In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one
family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time
release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part
because there is no generic for that version. But there is a
generic for the alternative that you must remember to take
twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to
that generic, and there have been no problems.

Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the
medication in question is literally necessary for life.Â* One
recent example is the Epi-pen.Â* See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/



"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer,
Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for
EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy
reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to
about $500 today."Â* As I recall, the ultimate answer was "We
raised the price because we could."

Or more generally, there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html



There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle
and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in
other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to
control the patents not because of the medication, but
because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med
is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is
pretty offensive.

Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent
preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram
derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law
said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists
can change from one gear to another only using their bare
hands."

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints
about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been
inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?"
I just get a blank stare.

I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately.


Epinephrine is generic and old; predates FDA regulation.
The branded pen device is patented and they keep making minor changes to
extend the device patent.
Possession of a syringe was, in recent memory, a crime. That's no longer
true.
But hey if you find the pen device handy, it costs more.

Using your own epinephrine and your own syringe sounds fine. Unless,
that is, you're trying to fumble with it in the middle of an
anaphylactic event. Especially if you're a kid.

Fortunately, the public outcry and legislative interest kicked in and
forced that poor, poor corporation to backtrack a bit.

I do feel sorry for the corporation. Somebody needs to give it a nice
hug, to make it feel better.

--
- Frank Krygowski