Epi Pen
So you were not judging ? Didn't come across that way.
I was answering what appeared to be a math question, although as I look back perhaps it was rhetorical.
You know, I don't sit on my ARZ doing nothing but scrutinizing and poking fun of the others. Before you even try to understand the whole picture. I guess some are born blind and no one could help them.
I can't save the world by myself. But at least I tried to take care of my own and those around me as much as I could.
It's not measuring a human live by the dollar amount like you trying to stick it in. I used to carry EpiPen kit because I thought I could help just in case some of the kids in school have an allergy reaction. I'd love to continue to carry a kit in my car but I need to draw a line where the cost had starting to be a concern. Out of the 3 years I had it, never once did I have to use it.
The schools all have EpiPen in the nurse's room now and also one or two of the defibrillators kit. So the urgency of playing God is not there now.
What have you done ?
I was only pointing out the irony of your initial post's rhetorical question.
I'm sorry that you took it as an attack on your willingness to help those in need, as it wasn't intended that way.
His post was rhetorical. My guess is he may not know the meaning of rhetorical.
- Edited
Sneaky,
Why don't you just bug off ?
Go find your kicks somewhere else.
Sometimes there is no obvious answers to a question. It takes a little higher I.Q. to get the picture.
And you don't. I guess you'll never have, and never will.
Asking a question without the obvious answer from one's point of view does not exclude the possible answers.
If you have nothing to contribute but to poke fun at the others, go bug those whom have to live with you.
- Edited
It was pointed out that you answered your own question. You put a (personal) price on a human life at $50.00. But you most likely meant it as rhetorical. That's all dan pointed out. You jumped on him like you jumped on me in the past when you obviously don't fully understand what's being said. I point this out because you may have a problem comprehending what's being posted. Similar to when you thought I posted Physiology and you took it as Philosophy and then ran off in a disjointed direction. The one to look at here is yourself.
Hopefully our neighbors to the north have pharmacies that are stocked up.
It would be irrational to not expect the cost of product to increase given the times. Anyone who has gone to the local grocery and purchased vegetables (like tomatoes!) in the past few months knows precisely how much more expensive things are today versus just a decade ago.
So to expect the price of medications and the like to stay the same is very short-sided by the consumer.
At the same time, however, there is indeed a notable difference between inflating costs to reflect the assumed increases in current inflation and rising costs to produce versus outright price-gouging.
Hopefully two things occur as a result. Hopefully the fallout with such drastic increase in costs spurs the government to investigate potential price-gouging activity, and more hopeful - this spurs on another company to enter the market to help offset supply versus demand, which most of the time helps dictate (if not ensure) fair-market pricing.
To me - this sounds like a pharmaceutical company taking advantage of their position within the market. And if so - hopefully they're investigated and held accountable accordingly.
PA-PLAYA Hopefully two things occur as a result. Hopefully the fallout with such drastic increase in costs spurs the government to investigate potential price-gouging activity, and more hopeful - this spurs on another company to enter the market to help offset supply versus demand, which most of the time helps dictate (if not ensure) fair-market pricing.
To me - this sounds like a pharmaceutical company taking advantage of their position within the market. And if so - hopefully they're investigated and held accountable accordingly.
Who do you think caused this "rapid inflation" ? It's a tool to control the debt. If we could not trust our government and our banks, ..... who could we trust ?
Probably other alternative are already in the pipe line, after all, it's an industry of more than a billion in sales.
Pharmaceutical company taking advantage of their position? You'd bet, however, need to look behind the curtain for hidden cause.
Sometimes, Release, it's not a cut-n-dried conspiracy. I know that's usually the first thing we look for... but sometimes it's just a matter of greed and a business ceo with other compromising interests trying to get his'/her's.
See Martin Shkreli.
To assume that it's anything beyond that, at least in this instance, is jumping to unfounded conclusions.
This week alone, roughly 5000 adults were informed by their personal physicians that they have type-2 diabetes. One of two things will happen as a result: the patient will either commit to changing their lifestyle and eating habits in hopes of potentially reversing the course of the disease, or they will ignore that warning altogether and continue living like they always have, almost assuredly having major health complications in the near future that costs them much more than just a dollar amount.
Some will go out and purchase gym memberships... which probably average $400 per year, maybe more. Some will purchase exercise equipment or a treadmill and have it delivered to their homes. Some will change their buying habits at the local grocery, purchasing more healthy foods versus the processed foods and high-carb items that they usually prefer. And some, depending on their disposable income perhaps - will do little or none of those things.
Whatever the case - treating this disease isn't inexpensive. Why? Because it involves much more than just one aspect of our lives much of the time. When you start considering the total expense of treating diabetes - that easily can lead to an additional several thousand dollars per year, especially when you factor in the additional costs of more needed routine checkups and blood work. Of course, providing that you're fortunate enough to have medical insurance and can afford it.
So although I personally could use an Epi-Pen, as I'm allergic to bees and shellfish, cost isn't the reason why I don't carry one. Convenience is my reasoning... can't leave it in the car during the summer months, because it's supposed to be stored at room temperature. Wouldn't always remember to throw it in my golf bag when I go out to play otherwise if it were stored at home. Or maybe the fact that every two years I'm thinking it should be replaced, even though I've yet to encounter a time in my life that I've even needed one to begin with.
But if there ever is a time that I stumble across a nest of bees at my golf course and get stung enough times that an Epi-Pen might save my life, I'm not thinking about that CEO who decided to increase the price. I'm thinking about how stupid I was to not deal with the inconvenience, despite however expensive it is now or however inexpensive it used to be.
I'm just trying to keep things in perspective here.
Considering all of the expenses needed to manage a potentially serious medical condition, a couple hundred bucks every couple years ain't life changing to me. It's probably not life changing to you either.
Above and beyond that - yep. Price gouging should be investigated and dealt with the same way it was dealt with regarding Shkreli. But I don't expect the continued advancements in medication and treatment of diseases and potentially life-threatening conditions to maintain 1990-level costs. I do believe that 95% of the medical scientists and researchers are trying to add both quality and years to our lives, and because of that experience and technology - stuff gets more expensive to produce. These people researching this stuff and coming up with better treatment options aren't working pro-bono.
I'm not about to assume that two bad apples represent the majority.
First, anyone wish to carry one needs to have the $600 needed. If you get in trouble, I'd sincerely hope either you or someone nearby has the remedy you'll need.
I know many family will be priced out of this product even if their kid's life is depending on it should an allergy episode occurred.
It is no illusion and it is a cut and dry issue with the relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the members on the Capital Hill. It is also clear of the monetary policy handed down for the past 8 years.
If a person is paying attention and not being blinded by the propaganda.
Kinda like anyone one boast a great golf game, can't beat seeing it with your own eyes. Either telling the truth or lied.
I'm gonna wager a guess that the company will either eventually buckle under the barrage of criticism and lower the price significantly or lose significant profit. They're not going to sell many kits at the $600 price range, not when generic alternatives are available at a fraction of the cost, regardless of the politics involved.
It sets the stage for another company to seize the opportunity by entering the market and offering a more economical alternative.
So although I think what the company is doing is unethical and warrants investigation, Epi-Pen kits were in the $50 range back in the 90's when I carried one, so it's irrational to assume that the cost will remain the same 20 years later. But there's no question that they should still be affordable.
It's not just one or two incidents of robbing the needy regardless of the consequences.
It's the downfall of the moral standard we hold these days. It used to be things shouldn't do, things tabooed to practice. These days ...... everything is a digit on the screen. I guess we did not set a good example for the kids.
It's all in the history if you have a few days ( weeks ) to read the complete history of the Roman Empire , the many Dynasties from China and Egypt..... in fact any leader of civilization. Wealth and peace time create corruption, the decline of moral standard, the use of mind altering drugs. It's all in the pages.
It is not unusual for these occurrence, It's the increase of the frequency of the occurrence which is alarming.