BREAKING: Herman Cain Exposes Sick Truth Behind Epi-Pen Scandal

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 7 years, 7 months ago to Culture
25 comments | Share | Flag

D's fingerprints are all over this...over-regulation creating a monopoly. Cure, deregulation and diversification (aka free market).
SOURCE URL: http://conservativetribune.com/herman-cain-exposes-epi-pen/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 7 months ago
    The only "monopoly" is the perception, through aggressive lobbying and advertising, that the EpiPen is the only emergency medicine available for allergic reaction. Adrenaklick is a competing delivery system, available at half the price of the EpiPen, but most doctors have been brainwashed to think of only the one product.

    Mylan has been effective at sabotaging other companies efforts to get FDA approval for a generic version of the delivery system, but if more people made the existence of Adrenaklick known, the force of competitive pricing would help stop the gouging.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
      Like all of them they are trying to bring in extra bucks to make up for the extra expenses. Liability insurance alone and the paltry fees paid by the government program mean all the medical industry pads the bill. Add in the bean counters such as HMO Medicine did you get a double wammy. Biggest cost of medicine? Lawyers and Insurance.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mspalding 7 years, 7 months ago
    As Mary Ruwart noted, there are 3 companies with competing products that are currently being blocked by the FDA. The CEO of the Epi-pen company is a senator's daughter. Interesting coincidence.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 7 years, 7 months ago
    No one should need prior FDA approval to market any product. But at the very least, if we're going to have that approval, once given it should cover any company and any location where that product might be made. Under present law it does not, thus creating monopolies like this one. A completely stupid law and a good example of what happens when laws are made from public outrage over a scandal (in this case the thalidomide scandal in the '60s, which David Friedman discusses here: http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machine... ).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 7 months ago
    I don't think there's any scandal. Secretary Clinton's outrage is completely bogus IMHO. Selling something at some price does not obligate you to sell it for a certain price in the future. That's what a purchase option agreement is for. Even if there were no over-regulation, people would still create monopoly products. This is a good thing thing. It's what drives the economy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 7 months ago
      People creating and exchanging products is what drives the economy. The main difference between products and monopoly products is the higher prices that can be charged for some monopoly products (as long as the monopoly lasts).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 7 years, 7 months ago
        Its very dangerous for a monopoly to raise its prices. That just encourages others to find SOME way to horn in on the higher profits. We have monopolies granted by government somehow in the internet provider industry now. Huge price increases and terrible customer service. I bet within a few years the cable industry will be in shambles with some sort of new technology.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 7 years, 7 months ago
          everyone is mis-using the word monopoly! Do we have any actual proof that this company colluded with the government? FDA discriminates across all pharma
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 7 years, 7 months ago
            Fda implicitly protects the big companies through very difficult regulations. They delay the onset of competitors by placing regulatory roadblocks
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 7 months ago
            There are monopolies resulting from invention and intellectual property rights and there are monopolies created by government policies which exclude or prevent market competition. They're both monopolies in the current way we use the word, but maybe we ought to try to get a new word for the government-created monopolies in order to differentiate? I'm certainly open to suggestions:

            kakistopoly
            "Uncle Sam"-opoly
            bureaucrapopoly
            crony-opoly
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 7 years, 7 months ago
            Fda implicitly protects the big companies through very difficult regulations. They delay the onset of competitors by placing regulatory roadblocks
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 7 months ago
            "everyone is mis-using the word monopoly!"
            I'm using it in the sense that Google has a "monopoly" on web searches. Natural monopolies (i.e. not monopolies due to gov't protectionism) are good.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
              Natural monopolies are good? Not for a free market.
              And some instances of a government monopoly are useful, example Bell Telephone.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 7 months ago
                "Natural monopolies are good? Not for a free market."
                I think monopolies means someone has invented something so good that it just blows away other options-- like Google, FB, or Amazon.

                I have some limited understanding of gov't monopolies. The idea was it was impractical to have competing sets of phone and power lines, as I understand, so the gov't said the monopoly is okay, but they had to be regulated to keep them from abusing their monopolies. I wonder what would happen if gov't just stayed out of it. I am making no claims about this.

                I am claiming, though, that the appearance natural monopolies like Google is actually a good thing. Shell and Mobil trying to beat each other on price or additives is fine, but when someone creates an alternative that blows them away and becomes a monopoly, that's where real value was created.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
                  There is clear and ample competition to Google, Facebook and Amazon..that is a facet of a free market. Those companies would only be a monopoly if they had no competition for one reason or another.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 7 months ago
                    Things get commoditized (i.e. very competitive), and then someone invents a way to put those blocks together in a new way creating something non-commoditized. Whether that's a "monopoly" depends on what we consider the boundaries of the market in question. This Competition is for Losers video explains some of what I'm saying. https://youtu.be/5_0dVHMpJlo?t=4s

                    Almost all commentary on this product sounds like whining to me. I guess I shouldn't read it. It's like it's their job is to take something cool, turn it into something to be upset about, and then tell you who's to blame. I really should not even read their stuff. I would love to be a part of creating something they really bellyache about. :)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
                      I think you're misunderstanding the business meaning of the word monopoly.

                      "Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers. Most governments therefore try to control monopolies by (1) imposing price controls, (2) taking over their ownership (called 'nationalization'), or (3) by breaking them up into two or more competing firms."

                      Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/def...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      having more than one source allows the market to set the price. By over-regulating a market the government reduces the amount of profit a company can make (by siphoning it for themselves in the form of licenses, inspections, fees and fines) and cripples those who cannot carry the artificial costs and remain competitive. The Ds (and I'm sure more than a few R's as well) love to regulate as a form of control AND to solicit donations to their campaigns. This is what creates a monopoly, a single source of supply for an item which promotes complete control of its price.

      The scandal is the outrage over the increase in price WHEN it was the Ds regulations that allowed the environment to even exist.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 7 months ago
        I'm not commenting on this particular price change except to say it shouldn't require gov't intervention. This one may or may not be affected by gov't regulation. My perception just from hearing stories is that people are all fired up and the people who blame one another for a living can't let this opportunity pass by. They cannot make a new drug delivery device, but they sure as heck and tell you who's to blame for someone else not making them cheaply.

        Monopolies forming by being excellent and charging high prices is normal and productive behavior.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
          Monopolies also form when one company with more money and inferior product buys out or discredits the competition, leaving them to stand alone in the marketplace.

          Eg, Edison and Tesla.

          These injection systems are nothing new. Atropine was delivered this way in the USN (chem warfare) when I served about 20 years ago.

          The "evil free market" is what I'm hearing from the left...total BS considering why and how this company holds the market enough to raise prices 600%.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 7 years, 7 months ago
            you are using the word "monopoly" incorrectly. In economics, the only way to have a monopoly is if the govt prohibts others from entering or competing in a market area. Thus, real monopolies. Historical: salt, playing cards, Bell telephone, your power company. Edison vs Tesla do NOT fit the definition. Historically, comes from the "statute of monopolies of 1623" prohibited the govt from giving special market (economic) privileges to certain individuals. Monopolies violate natural rights, their ability to contract, create or purchase property. No one can be accused of monopoly by taking advantage of their natural rights. (this includes companies-which are made up of individuals)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 7 years, 7 months ago
              You are right. Monopolies result from cronyism in the government favoring one group over another.

              In a free market, a monopoly is the most difficult business to run. Everyone is after you, and your focus has to be on the customer in terms of design, quality, and price 100% of the time. This is what Bill Gates used to say about Microsoft's mission, and look what happened anyway- they lost their position.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo