Because Kamala

[Murph]

Her way to the top:

 

[Ssnake]

So, that's from November 2019. Has she done anything of the sort in the meantime?

Also, I suppose that was done in the context of the Covid pandemic and it's about vaccine IP. A lot of not-very-well thought through ideas were floated back then, and sanity prevailed. But, I guess you did look at the date in that video and decided that, whatevs, let's just roll with it.

[17thfabn]

7 hours ago, bfng3569 said:

 

 

“I will snatch their patent, so that we [the government] will take over. Yes we can do that!”

Supposedly Mrs. Harris is a graduate of UC Law School San Fransisco? 

I wonder if they covered the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Again Mrs. Harris highlights the difference between a liberal and a leftist.

[rmgill]

4th and 5th. 
 

 

She just needs pickles and hot sauce…

 

 

[DKTanker]

12 hours ago, Ssnake said:

So, that's from November 2019. Has she done anything of the sort in the meantime?

Also, I suppose that was done in the context of the Covid pandemic and it's about vaccine IP. A lot of not-very-well thought through ideas were floated back then, and sanity prevailed. But, I guess you did look at the date in that video and decided that, whatevs, let's just roll with it.

Couldn't be in the context of the Covid pandemic because it was two months before Covid became known outside of China.  She said those things in the context of her being an authoritarian socialist.  As for doing anything about it, she hasn't been in a position to do anything about it.  But it's all rather beside the point because nationalizing patents isn't a novel concept, it's been routinely touted from those that believe the state should control all property to include intellectual.

[Murph]

Rumors are being circulated that Kamala has a little drinking problem.  That could be the cause of the word salad issue.

[Murph]

Ian does have a valid point here:

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

But it's all rather beside the point because nationalizing patents isn't a novel concept, it's been routinely touted from those that believe the state should control all property to include intellectual.

You'll own nothing, and be happy.

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

But it's all rather beside the point because nationalizing patents isn't a novel concept, 

Indeed, mere months into WWI the US nationalized all the patents held by the German chemical industry. Property rights have always been respected by those in power only to the extent that it was expedient. In capitalism these rights are better protected than is the historical norm, but by no means absolute.

This isn't a Kamala only thing. The difference is more gradual than you make it sound. Trump regularly declared bankruptcy so he wouldn't have to pay the construction firms in full. Just to name one other example. He didn't do that as a politician, but still from a position of power. It may have been "technically legal", just like I'm sure that the dispossession of the German chemical industry was done in a "technically legal" form, and so would be Kamala's move which, unlike Trump, she still hasn't done yet.

[R011]

16 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

 

“I will snatch their patent, so that we [the government] will take over. Yes we can do that!”

Supposedly Mrs. Harris is a graduate of UC Law School San Fransisco? 

I wonder if they covered the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Again Mrs. Harris highlights the difference between a liberal and a leftist.

 

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Couldn't be in the context of the Covid pandemic because it was two months before Covid became known outside of China.  She said those things in the context of her being an authoritarian socialist.  As for doing anything about it, she hasn't been in a position to do anything about it.  But it's all rather beside the point because nationalizing patents isn't a novel concept, it's been routinely touted from those that believe the state should control all property to include intellectual.

Was it in regards to the asshole who got the rights to produce insulin and then jacked up the price to ridiculous levels?

[DKTanker]

2 minutes ago, R011 said:

 

Was it in regards to the asshole who got the rights to produce insulin and then jacked up the price to ridiculous levels?

I have no idea what she was referring to, I'm not the one that was attempting to defend the practice.  In any case, nobody is forcing anybody to buy anything at any price.

[R011]

Just now, DKTanker said:

I have no idea what she was referring to, I'm not the one that was attempting to defend the practice.  In any case, nobody is forcing anybody to buy anything at any price.

No one is forced to buy insulin?  Well, they could die instead, I suppose.

[DKTanker]

21 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

 It may have been "technically legal", just like I'm sure that the dispossession of the German chemical industry was done in a "technically legal" form, and so would be Kamala's move which, unlike Trump, she still hasn't done yet.

If something is "technically" legal does that make it less legal than something that is not technically legal?

[Murph]

More proof on her Nazi/Communist ideas:  

 

[Ivanhoe]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

 

Was it in regards to the asshole who got the rights to produce insulin and then jacked up the price to ridiculous levels?

This may be of interest;

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/visualizing-cost-insulin-us-2004-2024

Tucker Carlon's interview of Shkreli. Long, but worth watching. Easy to see why he got demonized (an almost Asperger's disregard for managing expectations).

 

[R011]

7 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

This may be of interest;

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/visualizing-cost-insulin-us-2004-2024

Tucker Carlon's interview of Shkreli. Long, but worth watching. Easy to see why he got demonized (an almost Asperger's disregard for managing expectations).

 

Not watching a one hour video.  Got a summary?

[R011]

I did get the medicine he was profiteering incorrect, though.  Not insulin but a different drug.

As it happens, they managed to resolve the issue without confiscation of IP.

[rmgill]

10 hours ago, R011 said:

No one is forced to buy insulin?  Well, they could die instead, I suppose.

You’re forces to buy food too. And water.  Whats the point really? 
 

Is it a defense of non free market controls and rent seeking? Will price controls saying that insulin can only be $10 a vial make it available of the costs to make it are higher? 
 

The nonsense with insulin and market protection practices to the exclusion of competition is not an indictment of free marker economies because they are not free market. 

Edited August 19 by rmgill

[Ssnake]

11 hours ago, DKTanker said:

If something is "technically" legal does that make it less legal than something that is not technically legal?

If the invoked law is unjust, it may be legal, but sure as hell doesn't make it right.

[Josh]

There were a lot of controls administered on corporations a century ago because they had a tendency to exploit people horribly in monopoly. Those kinds of restrictions on the free market seemed to poll well. Insulin is now produced by exactly one company in the U.S. as I understand it, and it is sold at much greater cost to the consumer as a result, is my understanding. I do not see how that is either market driven or in the public good.

But insulin users are disproportionately red voters as I understand it, so hey, eventually people will vote against this practice given enough mortality.

Edited August 19 by Josh

[Josh]

47 minutes ago, rmgill said:

You’re forces to buy food too. And water.  Whats the point really? 
 

Is it a defense of non free market controls and rent seeking? Will price controls saying that insulin can only be $10 a vial make it available of the costs to make it are higher? 
 

The nonsense with insulin and market protection practices to the exclusion of competition is not an indictment of free marker economies because they are not free market. 

I guess it doesn’t matter until kills someone you know.

[DKTanker]

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

I guess it doesn’t matter until kills someone you know.

Personal emotional anecdotes is no way to run a country.  Should everybody with a personal emotional need have the legal right to obligate their neighbors to satisfy those needs?  No, it's no way to run a country, but it is a proven way to haul in votes for Dear Leader.  And for the MAGAts out there, The Donald and his Orange Army is no more immune from this than Kamalahoe and her Marxists Minions.

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

If the invoked law is unjust, it may be legal, but sure as hell doesn't make it right.

...and just to be clear, I'm not saying that I endorse the confiscation of property, intellectual or otherwise. It's just that a 30-second video sound bite from Nov 22 is insufficient to convince me that she meant confiscation without the necessary legal groundwork.

And on purely technical terms, she's right: The government can and will infringe on property rights under the right circumstances. If you think that this is robbery, then so is fraudulent bankruptcy or whatever accounting tricks banksters have up their sleeves when influencing Congress to make laws for them, or to shape them in their favor.

[Soren Ras]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

 Insulin is now produced by exactly one company in the U.S. as I understand it, and it is sold at much greater cost to the consumer as a result, is my understanding. I do not see how that is either market driven or in the public good.

No.  Insulin products are produced and sold in the US primarily by three competing companies, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi (and to lesser extent also by Pfizer and Biocon). And since the basic patents on insulin expired long before any of us were born, the products produced by those companies today are refined recipes with different characteristics in terms of how often you need to take them (and in what way), to what extent they allow you to live a normal life without having to monitor your diet intake, ease of use and side effects, how well they allow you to minimize risk of either hypo- or hyperclycemia (too low or too high level of blood sugar), and so on. And of course, there is some element of patent gaming as well.

As for pricing, well the US healthcare market is frankly, a mess, not least due to the often opaque mix of who is negotiating prices, the fact that there are many intermediate actors between the producer and the patient who have a financial interest (i.e. get some of the money), such as insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers,  healthcare providers, hospitals or even doctors. 

To be sure, a company will try to get a price that a given market can bear, and the US market has historically been willing to bear high prices, but as usual there are a number of factors in play above and beyond the stereotypical image of an evil pharma company executive twirling his moustache while driving up profits; an image assiduously nurtured by populists on both the right and the left.

Martin Shkreli was a nice poster boy for the caricature, but in the most widely known case involving him, Turing Pharmaceuticals (Shkreli's company) was in fact able to become a single source supplier of pyrimethamine, a niche drug that had been available since the early 1950s, which he used to jack up prices 5000%. (previously he had done the same thing on slightly smaller scale with other drugs used to treat rare diseases, where there were no competitors or generic alternatives available in the US). And such shenanigans are greatly facilitated by the extremely high barriers to entry into the US market set by the FDA, which prevent access or impose several years of delay before access is granted to medicine that might be identical to products already on the US market and approved for sale in Europe (or elsewhere), but are produced by someone else.

Shkreli could jack up prices on Darapram (the brand name of pyrimethamine in the US) because essentially identical tablets produced and sold in India, Brazil across Europe or Australia for less than a buck a tablet would not be able to be sold in the US for until several years after an application for permits had been submitted. 

--

Soren

[sunday]

One must love regulatory capture, even when it is transient.

Edited August 19 by sunday