CDZ EpiPens, who knows the whole story?

[GaryDog]

A valid point you have made.

Do you find the price increase for epipens to be called for? Is the company getting sued out of existence or something?

Whether the increase was called for or not is none of my business.

They own the product, they can do what they want with it.
People can pay for it or go elsewhere.
What did people do before epipens?
New businesses can start up to offer alternatives.
When a door closes, a window opens.

Sorry, but the fanciful idea of a "free market" does not apply to medical industries. Free market necessarily requires consumer choice. When you're nearly dead, choice goes out the window.

While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.

"Free market necessarily requires consumer choice." Finally, we actually agree on something. Why, in your opinion, is there no consumer choice for these? Furthermore, do you think it's a "good thing"? Should there be a period of time where a new product is "protected" from competition? If so, how long?

Why do you believe that free market "rules" do not, or more accurately "should not", apply to medical industries? Is it that they are "too important"? What other industries should not be subject to free market "rules"?

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

 

[RodISHI]

A valid point you have made.

Do you find the price increase for epipens to be called for? Is the company getting sued out of existence or something?

Whether the increase was called for or not is none of my business.

They own the product, they can do what they want with it.
People can pay for it or go elsewhere.
What did people do before epipens?
New businesses can start up to offer alternatives.
When a door closes, a window opens.

Sorry, but the fanciful idea of a "free market" does not apply to medical industries. Free market necessarily requires consumer choice. When you're nearly dead, choice goes out the window.

While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.

"Free market necessarily requires consumer choice." Finally, we actually agree on something. Why, in your opinion, is there no consumer choice for these? Furthermore, do you think it's a "good thing"? Should there be a period of time where a new product is "protected" from competition? If so, how long?

Why do you believe that free market "rules" do not, or more accurately "should not", apply to medical industries? Is it that they are "too important"? What other industries should not be subject to free market "rules"?

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

If you do not have the money every year to replace these things you do not keep them on hand for that possibility of a once every thirty year event.

 

[oldsoul]

Whether the increase was called for or not is none of my business.

They own the product, they can do what they want with it.
People can pay for it or go elsewhere.
What did people do before epipens?
New businesses can start up to offer alternatives.
When a door closes, a window opens.

Sorry, but the fanciful idea of a "free market" does not apply to medical industries. Free market necessarily requires consumer choice. When you're nearly dead, choice goes out the window.

While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.

"Free market necessarily requires consumer choice." Finally, we actually agree on something. Why, in your opinion, is there no consumer choice for these? Furthermore, do you think it's a "good thing"? Should there be a period of time where a new product is "protected" from competition? If so, how long?

Why do you believe that free market "rules" do not, or more accurately "should not", apply to medical industries? Is it that they are "too important"? What other industries should not be subject to free market "rules"?

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

 

[GaryDog]

Sorry, but the fanciful idea of a "free market" does not apply to medical industries. Free market necessarily requires consumer choice. When you're nearly dead, choice goes out the window.

While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.

"Free market necessarily requires consumer choice." Finally, we actually agree on something. Why, in your opinion, is there no consumer choice for these? Furthermore, do you think it's a "good thing"? Should there be a period of time where a new product is "protected" from competition? If so, how long?

Why do you believe that free market "rules" do not, or more accurately "should not", apply to medical industries? Is it that they are "too important"? What other industries should not be subject to free market "rules"?

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

Ok, then I spoke too soon about the position you're holding. Apparently you agree that this is crony capitalism at its worst, and it should be more heavily regulated, along with much of the rest of the medical industry.

 

[oldsoul]

Whether the increase was called for or not is none of my business.

They own the product, they can do what they want with it.
People can pay for it or go elsewhere.
What did people do before epipens?
New businesses can start up to offer alternatives.
When a door closes, a window opens.

Sorry, but the fanciful idea of a "free market" does not apply to medical industries. Free market necessarily requires consumer choice. When you're nearly dead, choice goes out the window.

While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.

"Free market necessarily requires consumer choice." Finally, we actually agree on something. Why, in your opinion, is there no consumer choice for these? Furthermore, do you think it's a "good thing"? Should there be a period of time where a new product is "protected" from competition? If so, how long?

Why do you believe that free market "rules" do not, or more accurately "should not", apply to medical industries? Is it that they are "too important"? What other industries should not be subject to free market "rules"?

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

If you do not have the money every year to replace these things you do not keep them on hand for that possibility of a once every thirty year event.

It has come to my attention that there are alternatives, the cost of which I do not know. However, if one has such an allergy, and knows it, one should do what they must to be prepared for the possibility. This is one of the reasons most people carry insurance. Now, for those who do not carry insurance, but could, well, they are taking their lives in their own hands so I have no sympathy for them. For those who cannot get insurance, that is a problem.

 

[oldsoul]

While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.

"Free market necessarily requires consumer choice." Finally, we actually agree on something. Why, in your opinion, is there no consumer choice for these? Furthermore, do you think it's a "good thing"? Should there be a period of time where a new product is "protected" from competition? If so, how long?

Why do you believe that free market "rules" do not, or more accurately "should not", apply to medical industries? Is it that they are "too important"? What other industries should not be subject to free market "rules"?

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

Ok, then I spoke too soon about the position you're holding. Apparently you agree that this is crony capitalism at its worst, and it should be more heavily regulated, along with much of the rest of the medical industry.

Possibly. I do not have enough information at this time to make such a determination.

 

[RodISHI]

Sorry, but the fanciful idea of a "free market" does not apply to medical industries. Free market necessarily requires consumer choice. When you're nearly dead, choice goes out the window.

While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.

"Free market necessarily requires consumer choice." Finally, we actually agree on something. Why, in your opinion, is there no consumer choice for these? Furthermore, do you think it's a "good thing"? Should there be a period of time where a new product is "protected" from competition? If so, how long?

Why do you believe that free market "rules" do not, or more accurately "should not", apply to medical industries? Is it that they are "too important"? What other industries should not be subject to free market "rules"?

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

If you do not have the money every year to replace these things you do not keep them on hand for that possibility of a once every thirty year event.

It has come to my attention that there are alternatives, the cost of which I do not know. However, if one has such an allergy, and knows it, one should do what they must to be prepared for the possibility. This is one of the reasons most people carry insurance. Now, for those who do not carry insurance, but could, well, they are taking their lives in their own hands so I have no sympathy for them. For those who cannot get insurance, that is a problem.

We do not have insurance, too poor for Obama care and SSI is not available to us here (I'd say that last one is more of a political bs thing from the corrupt that seem to have a stranglehold here). Previously I paid cash for medical care. Being self insured should not be an issue when/if you have saved up plenty and have the ability to do so. IMO the insurance companies and many of these pharmaceutical companies and chemical companies are more like the old mobster racketeers these days than anything else.

 

[2aguy]

While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.

"Free market necessarily requires consumer choice." Finally, we actually agree on something. Why, in your opinion, is there no consumer choice for these? Furthermore, do you think it's a "good thing"? Should there be a period of time where a new product is "protected" from competition? If so, how long?

Why do you believe that free market "rules" do not, or more accurately "should not", apply to medical industries? Is it that they are "too important"? What other industries should not be subject to free market "rules"?

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

Ok, then I spoke too soon about the position you're holding. Apparently you agree that this is crony capitalism at its worst, and it should be more heavily regulated, along with much of the rest of the medical industry.

It is crony socialism.....this company has been getting protection from the government....namely through it's connections to her father, the democrat Senator, and through the clinton foundation........

Capitalism has nothing to do with what is happening here...you don't get monopolies in Capitalism...competition breaks them up...the only monopolies happen when the government protects friends and donors....

 

[Toronado3800]

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

Ok, then I spoke too soon about the position you're holding. Apparently you agree that this is crony capitalism at its worst, and it should be more heavily regulated, along with much of the rest of the medical industry.

It is crony socialism.....this company has been getting protection from the government....namely through it's connections to her father, the democrat Senator, and through the clinton foundation........

Capitalism has nothing to do with what is happening here...you don't get monopolies in Capitalism...competition breaks them up...the only monopolies happen when the government protects friends and donors....

In some ways I think we agree. By getting rid of the big government patent office anyone could produce epipens and the price would go down.

Not sure I wanna go that far, but I agree.

 

[oldsoul]

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

Ok, then I spoke too soon about the position you're holding. Apparently you agree that this is crony capitalism at its worst, and it should be more heavily regulated, along with much of the rest of the medical industry.

It is crony socialism.....this company has been getting protection from the government....namely through it's connections to her father, the democrat Senator, and through the clinton foundation........

Capitalism has nothing to do with what is happening here...you don't get monopolies in Capitalism...competition breaks them up...the only monopolies happen when the government protects friends and donors....

In some ways I think we agree. By getting rid of the big government patent office anyone could produce epipens and the price would go down.

Not sure I wanna go that far, but I agree.

It doesn't seem as though the patent office has anything to do with this, though I could be wrong. It seems as though "the powers that be" in Washington are protecting the makers of the Epi-pen. Therefore, as 2AGUY said, this is crony-socialism. At least that's what it looks like given the information I have.

In my opinion, the patent office is worth having, it does serve a purpose, that being protecting the intellectual property of innovators/inventors. That said, big government does need to get out of the way, so market forces can prevail.

 

[GaryDog]

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

Ok, then I spoke too soon about the position you're holding. Apparently you agree that this is crony capitalism at its worst, and it should be more heavily regulated, along with much of the rest of the medical industry.

It is crony socialism.....this company has been getting protection from the government....namely through it's connections to her father, the democrat Senator, and through the clinton foundation........

Capitalism has nothing to do with what is happening here...you don't get monopolies in Capitalism...competition breaks them up...the only monopolies happen when the government protects friends and donors....

Exactly, and the crony capitalism that your party supports has been 100x more costly to the American taxpayer. (Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.) So you making it a partisan issue is beyond stupid.

 

[GaryDog]

Medical needs watched in my opinion. Think this was left alone until an oddity arose.

I disagree with your logic on the "While I agree with your last statement, this product is not purchased when you are "nearly dead". So that fails.". If I was soo allergic to whatever I would consider keeping one necessary for life.

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

Ok, then I spoke too soon about the position you're holding. Apparently you agree that this is crony capitalism at its worst, and it should be more heavily regulated, along with much of the rest of the medical industry.

Possibly. I do not have enough information at this time to make such a determination.

Apparently you have enough information to weigh in and disagree with me though?

 

[320 Years of History]

EpiPens, who knows the whole story?

Let me google that for you

 

[Toronado3800]

EpiPens, who knows the whole story?

Let me google that for you

lol, that animation is pretty humorous.

On a practical note, sometimes I ask that here because I get some unique responses not just recycled versions of the news articles which alerted me to the problem.

 

[320 Years of History]

EpiPens, who knows the whole story?

Let me google that for you

lol, that animation is pretty humorous.

On a practical note, sometimes I ask that here because I get some unique responses not just recycled versions of the news articles which alerted me to the problem.

Can you point to some of those "unique responses" to an objective question, such as the one your thread title asks, that (1) differ from what one/you would find at credible sources on the Internet and that (2) are the result of someone here having conducted rigorous data gathering and analysis and then presenting to you the results of that analysis?

I suspect that not one response you've gotten meets both those criteria. Why?

• Because for questions for which the answer is a set of objective facts, there is only one accurate answer, and it doesn't matter who presents it.
• Because people are well paid to perform the kind of analysis noted, and I suspect you aren't compensating anyone for their replies to your questions.
• Because for questions having only subjective answers, aside from there being no point in asking for an objective answer, looking at the cognitive insufficiency of most remarks posted on this website, about all the uniqueness is immediately good for is entertainment value, which may indeed be what you are after...

 

[Bush92]

A politician's kin benefits from political connections. Hmmmm. Imagine that.

 

[320 Years of History]

A politician's kin benefits from political connections. Hmmmm. Imagine that.

That correlation is hard enough to discover and prove when the parties involved are required to make comprehensive financial disclosures...At least the money can be followed. Now consider a situation where none of the parties involved is required/permitted to disclose anything.

 

[Bush92]

A politician's kin benefits from political connections. Hmmmm. Imagine that.

That correlation is hard enough to discover and prove when the parties involved are required to make comprehensive financial disclosures...At least the money can be followed. Now consider a situation where none of the parties involved is required/permitted to disclose anything.

Yep. It's called WashingtonDC politics and the news media that supports it.

 

[Picaro]

What's the truth about Epipens? It's another government funded and developed medical device, like pretty much all medical research, that gets given away for nothing to private corporations, i.e. another corporate welfare program paid for by taxpayers. Why government funded research and development technologies aren't paying part of their royalties back to the Fed is worth investigating, and we can ignore the knee-jerk morons who jump in with the usual memes and tropes about 'privatization' being the greatest thing evar n stuff. These same corporations then turn around and whine about paying a token amount of taxes back to the body that feeds them and makes them rich in the first place.

The strange history of the EpiPen, the device developed by the military that turned into a billion-dollar business

 

[oldsoul]

Actually you are agreeing with me. When one is allergic to something to the point of life and death situations stemming from said allergy, and one has prior knowledge of this, one would generally be prepared for said situations in advance. Imagine being deathly allergic to bee stings, knowing it, and waiting until you are sting to head down to Walmart to get an Epi-pen. That would be insane.

So they should pay for that mistake with their life due to the outlandish cost???

I have said no such thing.

Ok, then I spoke too soon about the position you're holding. Apparently you agree that this is crony capitalism at its worst, and it should be more heavily regulated, along with much of the rest of the medical industry.

Possibly. I do not have enough information at this time to make such a determination.

Apparently you have enough information to weigh in and disagree with me though?

Yes, actually I do. I know that this is not "crony Capitalism" (it can't be as there is no competition). I know that regulation is not the answer, competition is. I know that regulating the medical industry (short of price controls) will do nothing to lower prices. So, yes, I do have enough information to disagree with you. I do not, however, have enough information to determine if this particular case requires more regulation.