$84,000 Hepatitis C Drug For $1500 by Buying It From India

Name one.

Sofosbuvir was discovered and developed in New Jersey. Without that discovery single payer systems would have nothing to negotiate a price for.

 

I got my Hep-A shot last week. Next I need another booster in 6 months.

I passed on the Hep-B shot since it cost an extra $100 and since the only way you can catch Hep-B is to have sex with a homeless or use their needles -- neither of which I do.

But I do pass out blankets to them as a part of my fraternity effort to help them, and so I end up shaking their hands a lot.

There is no immunization for Hep-C. If you catch that then the treatment is expensive, yes.

 

Are you implying that medicines cannot be discovered without a privatized health insurance industry?

 

The drug companies soak the Americans who end up subsidizing drug costs for the rest of the world.

 

It's not about being a bleeding heart for pharmaceutical executives, but rather having principles. I believe in capitalism, so that principle extends to everybody from pharmaceutical execs to kids operating a lemonade stand.

Principles are also why I don't believe in initiating violence to achieve my ideas. Principles, my friend, are what separate us.

 

YEAHHHH Capitalism, Repub's best friend to screw sick Americans

 

Maybe principles that lead to people dying because they're too broke for medicine are bad.

 

Well, when you have the FDA taking years to approve a drug in the United States and patents that don't expire for years, the drugs end up costing a lot.

Both of those issues I mentioned above have nothing to do with capitalism or free markets and everything to do with government red tape.

But you alt-lefties are for more bigger government, right?

 

As a communist, I know that you aren't particularly concerned with death, just as I'm not. The difference is that I do not use the initiation of violence. I provide a commodity or service, and any transactions are mutually agreeable.

I kinda doubt all those Cambodians who were killed in the killing fields of Pol Pot's communist utopia gave up their lives willingly.

That is the difference, my friend.

 

Do you want me to explain why Pol Pot is ideologically different from me, or is my suspicion that you don't want to understand correct?

 

Ideologically different enough that you do not believe in violence to achieve your variant of communism?

 

Pol Pot, who believed in executing the intelligentsia in order to go back to agrarian primitivism, who was given support by the CIA, and who was overthrown by Vietnam, was not a communist, but a primitivist, as his vision of a perfect society was a return to an age before an economy of any kind other than barter did not exist rather than a vision of a post-national classless future achieved by collectivizing the means of production.

I loathe Stalin, but Stalin was a communist, just a branch I think sucks. Pol Pot was not. Don't get the idea that I'm moving any goalposts

 

"We", who is we? What type of return on you investment does it take to get you to invest in a company?

 

I don't give a **** about the investors. They can choke for all I care.

 

I only have one goalpost, and that is the initiation of violence to achieve an economic system. Both Pol Pot and Stalin, and many others have used violence in an attempt to control economies.

It is violence that distinguishes communism from capitalism.

 

Yup. Better that people die from disease that has no cure. Or even better, starvation.

 

I'm not implying anything. I asked you specifically where all the single payer solutions to the problem are. If the single payer system can cure hep c, why didn't it?

 

It's so easy to argue this from basic principles. The difference is negotiated value vs imposed value.

Capitalism describes a system of negotiated value. Communism describes a system that imposes value.

 

That's another way of putting it, but I prefer using initiating violence instead of "impose". That particular pig doesn't deserve to wear any lipstick. It has to be held up there for the public to see - warts and all.

 

"Negotiated value"

"Imposed value"

What do those terms mean?

 

How do you think value is determined?

 

Right, but you're trying to discuss this with people who are blinkered by their ideology. They think you are rediculous for calling society level descisions violence. To them it's the implementation of an ideal of cooperation, not violence. They think 80k for medicine is violence.

The problem is that they have no idea at all how value is determined, and they don't understand the relationship between value and price. If price is too high, must be greed. Can it be too low? Never.

And that's why everything runs out under commanded value systems.

 

I asked you what the terms you used mean. You can't answer?

 

I determine the value of something based upon how much I want it compared to everything else.

For instance, do I value a hamburger more than a slice of prime rib. That sort of thing.

Edit: I realize I explained how I value things relatively, which doesn't answer your exact question of how value is determined. To answer that specifically, I think value is determined by my tastes and preferences for a particular thing.

Also, you never said what you meant by "negotiated value" and "imposed value".

 

Do you think that someone can force you to value something differently than you do? For example, can you be forced to value prime rib the same as you value burger?