2024 Field

Carp said:
1. Insulin is extremely cheap to make. As low as $2 -$4 per vial to produce. The original inventor of insulin purposely didn't seek a patent because they thought it was unethical for a doctor to make money off a drug that could save lives. But to answer your question, I absolutely think capping the cost of life saving cancer drugs is a good thing. Either make the cost affordable or do not patent your discoveries. You cannot do both ethically. That makes you a monopoly. Bio-tech companies spend wildly, often times worse than the US Government, precisely because they know they receive government funding for development of these drugs. Reign in the frivolous spending and the cost to develop and produce the drugs become inexplicably cheaper.


2. I am suggesting nothing of the such. The roads we drive on, the police that serve us, all the services provided to us as a society, the costs of those services far outweigh the individual cost we pay in taxes. They are all forms of socialism. Either you are against all forms of socialism or you are FOS.
Click to expand...

1. We just fundamentally disagree on point 1, and that's OK. I think you could make the argument that all doctor/nurses/hospice income should be capped following your logic, and that again is the government mandating the right to someone's labor/products

2. I'm generally opposed to all forms of socialism because it almost always a worse outcome. However, the smaller the community and people participating, the less problematic it is. I have far fewer complaints about the local taxes I pay than the federal taxes, because I don't want to go through the hassle of hiring private security, private firefighters, etc. But those services exist and they work quite well. Regardless, we still do not have a right to those services. We are paying for them, and the people delivering them are being paid to do so, no mandated to
 
sturg33 said:
1. We just fundamentally disagree on point 1, and that's OK. I think you could make the argument that all doctor/nurses/hospice income should be capped following your logic, and that again is the government mandating the right to someone's labor/products

2. I'm generally opposed to all forms of socialism because it almost always a worse outcome. However, the smaller the community and people participating, the less problematic it is. I have far fewer complaints about the local taxes I pay than the federal taxes, because I don't want to go through the hassle of hiring private security, private firefighters, etc.But those services exist and they work quite well. Regardless, we still do not have a right to those services. We are paying for them, and the people delivering them are being paid to do so, no mandated to
Click to expand...

Do you support the military?

This isn’t meant to be flippant, either. I’m just curious as to what you think a government should actually do.
 
sturg33 said:
1. We just fundamentally disagree on point 1, and that's OK. I think you could make the argument that all doctor/nurses/hospice income should be capped following your logic, and that again is the government mandating the right to someone's labor/products

2. I'm generally opposed to all forms of socialism because it almost always a worse outcome. However, the smaller the community and people participating, the less problematic it is. I have far fewer complaints about the local taxes I pay than the federal taxes, because I don't want to go through the hassle of hiring private security, private firefighters, etc. But those services exist and they work quite well. Regardless, we still do not have a right to those services. We are paying for them, and the people delivering them are being paid to do so, no mandated to
Click to expand...

1. No you can't. Drugs are not the same as services provided. Doctors are required to provide emergency medical treatment and/or stabilize patients, regardless if you can pay for those services or not. You (or your insurance by proxy) has to pay before you can receive any drugs.

2. We absolutely have the right to those services. People that don't pay taxes are entitled to the same services as those that do. Although it's good to know you don't support the military.
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
Yes I do. And it is a legitimate use of federal funds, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

When considering what is important for taxes to be used for, how do you justify the need for safety in this sense but oppose other efforts to use public funding to keep people safe from things like disease, hunger and crime? The right person could theoretically afford an army of mercenaries and keep themselves protected from others, so why is that different?
 
mqt said:
When considering what is important for taxes to be used for, how do you justify the need for safety in this sense but oppose other efforts to use public funding to keep people safe from things like disease, hunger and crime? The right person could theoretically afford an army of mercenaries and keep themselves protected from others, so why is that different?
Click to expand...

There are strategic interests beyond my own personal safety that a military protects, like energy, food, supply chains, etc that I don't believe the average American would be capable of affording on their own

The average American is capable of buying their own food, medicines, etc.
 
Carp said:
1. No you can't. Drugs are not the same as services provided. Doctors are required to provide life saving services to all, regardless if you can pay for those services or not. You (or your insurance by proxy) has to pay before you can receive any drugs.

2. We absolutely have the right to those services. People that don't pay taxes are entitled to the same services as those that do. Although it's good to know you don't support the military.
Click to expand...

1. Drugs are a product of one's labor, and you do not have a right to another person's labor, unless you support slavery

2. Let me know what happens when you don't pay your electric bill
 
Fun fact, if we eliminated the income tax on all Americans, and replaced it with nothing, we would have to the federal budget all the way back to 2017 to maintain the same deficit
 
mqt said:
When considering what is important for taxes to be used for, how do you justify the need for safety in this sense but oppose other efforts to use public funding to keep people safe from things like disease, hunger and crime? The right person could theoretically afford an army of mercenaries and keep themselves protected from others, so why is that different?
Click to expand...

The military is a public good. “Consumption” of national defense is non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
 
sturg33 said:
1. Drugs are a product of one's labor, and you do not have a right to another person's labor, unless you support slavery

2. Let me know what happens when you don't pay your electric bill
Click to expand...

1. Life saving drugs are developed specifically to save lives. It is unethical to develop life saving drugs and then charge prohibitively high prices for them, particularly while you take money hand over fist from the government while developing the drug. That makes you a monopoly.

2. Access to electricity is what I am talking about.
 
sturg33 said:
@carp should we put price controls on food? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Wow, what a non-sequitur.

Everyone has access to food and to grow their own food.

Hey sturg, should we stop funding border security and just let border states take care of it themselves? I mean it's not local to me, why should I care?
 
Carp said:
1. Life saving drugs are developed specifically to save lives. It is unethical to develop life saving drugs and then charge prohibitively high prices for them, particularly while you take money hand over fist from the government while developing the drug. That makes you a monopoly.

2. Access to electricity is what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

1. life saving drugs are developed with intention to save lives and make money. If you do not offer the second incentive there, there will be less innovation to create life saving drugs. There is a reason why America is the world leader in developing life saving drugs, because they can make lots of money doing so. Whereas Europe gets to mooch off of our innovation due to our charity to them

2. There are many places around the world and even in America that does not have access to electricity because they can't afford it or don't have the skills to develop it or don't have the need to do so. You would be insinuating that we should ship our electrical engineers to those spaces to develop it for free because those people have a right to it
 
Carp said:
Wow, what a non-sequitur.

Everyone has access to food and to grow their own food.

Hey sturg, should we stop funding border security and just let border states take care of it themselves? I mean it's not local to me, why should I care?
Click to expand...

I'm simply extending your flawed logic. If "life saving" is the prerequisite to capping costs, then food should be the top of the list as every human requires it. Instead of dealing with 30% food inflation ,the government should force farmers and grocers to cap the costs, right?

Border security is once again one of this strategic interests that benefits all Americans and is an excellent use case for our public military to manage. I believe the mayor of NYC would vehemently disagree that they are not impacted by the lack of border security
 
sturg33 said:
1. life saving drugs are developed with intention to save lives and make money. If you do not offer the second incentive there, there will be less innovation to create life saving drugs. There is a reason why America is the world leader in developing life saving drugs, because they can make lots of money doing so. Whereas Europe gets to mooch off of our innovation due to our charity to them

2. There are many places around the world and even in America that does not have access to electricity because they can't afford it or don't have the skills to develop it or don't have the need to do so. You would be insinuating that we should ship our electrical engineers to those spaces to develop it for free because those people have a right to it
Click to expand...

1. Pharma companies make plenty enough to cover their costs and then about 10 times over. Much of the money Big Pharma spends on "development" is simply buying out smaller pharmaceutical companies (or their patent) that actually did 99% of the work.

2. Since when did I say or even imply that other countries or non-Americans are entitled to the rights of US citizens?
 
mqt said:
Do you support the military?

This isn’t meant to be flippant, either. I’m just curious as to what you think a government should actually do.
Click to expand...

National defense. Secure borders. Protect property rights. Establish and run courts to ensure contracts among people/businesses are enforced. Negotiate international treaties. Protect people from crimes against our bodies & property. Actually follow Constitution.
 
sturg33 said:
I'm simply extending your flawed logic. If "life saving" is the prerequisite to capping costs, then food should be the top of the list as every human requires it. Instead of dealing with 30% food inflation ,the government should force farmers and grocers to cap the costs, right?

Border security is once again one of this strategic interests that benefits all Americans and is an excellent use case for our public military to manage. I believe the mayor of NYC would vehemently disagree that they are not impacted by the lack of border security
Click to expand...

There is no flawed logic. Do farmers (well any farmer in particular) have a monopoly over food? But more to your point, we do offer food programs for the poor and elderly. I guess we should take those away too, eh? I mean eff those people, let 'em die, amirite?

So border security is something that benefits all Americans, but literal life saving drugs do not.... sure that checks out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top