ABC has no shame in their mission...

This is the kind of stuff that just urks the crap out of me.

This is the story that just aired on ABC World News tonight.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/year-3d-printed-bionic-arm-24729055

It was the last story of the night, a feel good piece. But leave it to the intellectually dishonesty of journalists and editors in the media to take it from feel good to non-sense rhetoric.

They claim that some engineering students were able to build the little boy a prosthetic arm for just $350.00! Not the "absurd" $40,000.00 that medical prosthetic companies do.



Where to begin!

First of all, I am sure that the figure doesn't consider the labor that went into designing the arm and then overseeing its production. Speaking of "printing" the arm... who has the 3d printer, and why was it less than $350.00.

You know... this assault on profit is just down to the level of stupid. Do we really have one of our broadcasts national news show suggesting that prosthetic companies are over charging by $39,650? Do they think were stupid? Maybe the people who buy that propaganda can't see it, but the rest of us do.

You have scientists, medical experts, anatomical specialists, and a host of other HUGELY qualified individuals working on these high tech prosthetics, and ABC news expects you to believe that the 3d printed lego looking hand and arm is the same thing for $350.

Unreal.

The assault on profits gets a little stupider.

 

And if there are no profits .......................WTF will they tax?

 

Do they really think that people believe that you can develop and build prosthetic arms for humans for $350.00?

Who is this gullible?

What an embarrassment for our national news.

 

Dont really see the big deal . Part of the business market is image . Something like this can force companies to work on public image which includes pricing and profit spending .

 

SO other than the time and know-how for development (which I take it was donated) and the use of a 3D printer (you wouldn't have to buy your own), why is it that you think this couldn't be made for $350?

 

Its based on nothing.

There is no equal comparison.

I suppose we can make the claim that any industry over charges, if we use students as the comparison, and then push them to price themselves more competitively.

In my opinion, thats just non-sense demonizing profit as usual. This time with dishonesty.

 

Other than the time and printer? Thats the whole point! You can't just remove those factors.

That would be like me claiming that I can build a car for $4,500 bucks... if somebody donates the factor and I hire slaves.

What kind of logic is that?

This was simply another attempt to demonize profits.

 

I don't get the outrage....if someone can produce a product that does the same thing for much less, that's healthy competition right?

It either makes the original higher priced manufacturer adapt, or lose out.

Rigging the playing field with regulation that favors the big medical companies sounds like something righties would hate.

I'm confused

 

First off, as already stated, you wouldn't have to buy the printer. Secondly, volunteers aren't slaves. 3rd, once the design is made, often it is open sourced, so it IS free now.

Ridiculous. You DO know that all mainstream media is owned by large profit-seeking corporations, right? And that the news is consequently about as pro-corporate as it can get?

 

They think this exists

View attachment 29835

So you tell me?

 

Ok cool.

So now people are expected to work for free?

Comparing for profit employee wages to volunteers is not logical.

Do we claim that home builders are over profiting because Habitat for Humanity can build houses for under $10,000?

Is that logical?

Clearly.

 

Why not?

Are they handing them out like Obama phones now?

So... we should compare volunteers to waged employees? If we do... then yes they are slaves. You don't get to have it both ways.

Prosthetic companies open source their R&D? Source.

LOL. All lefties are pro-corporate, right up and to the point that they see the opportunity to divide for political gain. In this case, the division is made by class war fare and demonization of profit.

Are you really trying to suggest that news agencies don't have agendas?

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly, I am actually convinced that some of these people just have absolutely no concept of our our economic and capitalist systems work. I really do think they are completely ignorant.

 

Funny you should mention cheap houses.

In China, they come in a kit, and they're plastic, and they cost around $15,000 USD. They last for hundreds of years.

 

https://newyork-ny-4766.theupsstorelocal.com/products--services/small-business-solutions/3d-printing

You're the one who compared the two.

Not prosthetic companies, but I'll bet the people who did THIS R&D open sourced it.

Of course the news agencies have an agenda: to make profits for the corporations that own them. Which completely flies in the face of your OP. Speaking of agendas, why are YOU so upset that a child with one arm now has an affordable alternative, something that the parents could actually buy for him without mortgaging the house?

 

This is call good ole American ingenuity. That is how companies often start.

 

You used to could buy one of those in America from Sears

 

Lowest common denominator is your goal obviously.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong... ABC World News did.

Exactly my point.

Comparing the two is disingenuous

 

Obviously your goal is to price people out of home ownership, just like you want to price children out of arm ownership.

Yeah, it really is too bad that there are some people out there who would want to develop a prosthetic arm without financially raping the people who need it. And how dare ABC report on it! And there was only ONE sentence in that whole segment about "it shouldn't have to cost that much" - and the statement was from one of the engineers who did something about it.

 

Lets see if I can make this simple.

The cost of anything can't be based on "free" labor. It is simply not reality. If you have to validate a price point against something that was donated, then everything has to be donated from that point forward to meet your expectations. You following? For instance, if I we used home construction through Habitat for Humanity as the basis for the price point for construction, then everybody would be required to have hundreds of volunteers help build their house to meet that price expectation.

How would our economy work, if the basis for anything's price was qualified with services and products derived from free labor?

The $350 prosthetic isn't reality. Its charity. Thus using charity as a means of demonizing profit is pretty ridiculous.

Anything? Did you follow?

Nope. Clearly you aren't going to get it. Its going to fly right over your head.

Sadly, the propaganda has been successful on some.

Its ironic that you are here validating my very point.

ABC had full opportunity to edit as they saw fit. They made the decision to run that one line. Their bad.

 

!st, they wouldn't have a clue where to start if not for the preceding developers. 2nd, assuming they build this for $350.00 is utterly absurd unless you disregard labor costs, computers, imaging costs, and host of other things they needed to accomplish this. I mean really, there are college books that cost damn near $350, and they want to report these kids manufactured a prosthetic arm for $350???? BS...

 

Umm... it's a printer... think of it like your printer.

I don't have to generate the document you spent months researching and perfecting... my labor includes pressing "print" and adding paper (extruding material).

 

Since the R&D is done, it IS reality now. Understand? The arm DOES cost $350, or at least very close to it. The prosthetics companies are free to continue selling their products for the price they have been selling them at. Their products are superior, so they can sell them for more. But now there is a much more affordable alternative. And it's not "lowest common denominator" since the option before was no arm, or an arm they could not afford (again, no arm). Maybe the reason you're so mad is that you've been taught that the profit motive is the only thing which drives innovation, and here it was driven by -gasp- compassion.

Why should they censor the viewpoint of the engineers who made this product? Talk about having an agenda.

 

So.. right after the R&D completes, it becomes public information? How exactly is the investment paid off then?
[/QUOTE]

 

I don't think these guys were looking to make money. They invested in human well-being.

 

Because its a flawed opinion.

If not censor it, then correct it at a minimum.