You are a phrasing nazi now? You are definitely turning liberal.  :teehee:  :yes:

Eh, it felt like you were indirectly affixing the word "scumbag" to someone else, and that deeply offends me even though I don't think that being offended should matter.

---

Eh, it felt like you were indirectly affixing the word "scumbag" to someone else, and that deeply offends me even though I don't think that being offended should matter.

Fair enough.  :thumbsup:

---

You can't define morals for people who don't have them to begin with.

 

That aside I remember all those times you said the same thing to conservatives on here, or about conservative politicians. Oh right...... hypocrisy. 

 

Oh [BAD WORD REMOVED]. Morals cannot be defined as only what you think is right, and it's ridiculous for you to say that because someone else's morals are different from yours they don't have any. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don't agree with how boudreaumw phrased it, but he does have a point. In your mind, an unborn child has a right to life regardless of the desires of the mother, but the right of a born human to life is subjugated to the right of a corporation to control its intellectual property? Do I have that about right?

 

Yes, I'm opposed to abortion but do not believe it should be outlawed for other people. Yes, I believe that companies should make their product available to those in need for a reasonable price but I do not believe it should be mandated. 

 

Do you see the trend there? Because it's pretty consistent.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Most pharmaceutical money comes from insurance companies, which would obviously not qualify for the life-saving exemption.

 

Maybe I misunderstood your position. I thought you were advocating that the government set the price on drugs.


 

So now you're advocating that the government set the price only when the patient doesn't have insurance? The drug companies would then raise the price for insured people to compensate, at best only raising the co-pay and at worst hitting people who have a high deductible with paying the entire inflated price to subsidize those who don't have insurance. That would hit hardest those people who are marginally above the medicaid cut off and are most likely to have huge deductibles. Doesn't that basically say screw you to the people who actually took responsibility to make sure they had insurance?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Yes, I'm opposed to abortion but do not believe it should be outlawed for other people. Yes, I believe that companies should make their product available to those in need for a reasonable price but I do not believe it should be mandated.


Do you see the trend there? Because it's pretty consistent.

Yeah, it is. I disagree, but I do understand exactly where you're coming from now.

---

Yeah, it is. I disagree, but I do understand exactly where you're coming from now.

 

So you believe that the government should set price controls then?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Oh [BAD WORD REMOVED]. Morals cannot be defined as only what you think is right, and it's ridiculous for you to say that because someone else's morals are different from yours they don't have any. 

What is morally right and wrong is pretty easy for most people. Is ISIS morally wrong? Yes. Is murder morally wrong? Yes. Is helping those that are sick and need of treatment morally right? Yes. Is what this guy did morally wrong? Yes. It's not ridiculous for me to call a spade a spade. 

 

I think the vast majority of people would agree with me and you probably would too if unregulated capitalism wasn't being attacked forcing you to defend it because you have to. 

---

What is morally right and wrong is pretty easy for most people. Is ISIS morally wrong? Yes. Is murder morally wrong? Yes. Is helping those that are sick and need of treatment morally right? Yes. Is what this guy did morally wrong? Yes. It's not ridiculous for me to call a spade a spade. 

 

I think the vast majority of people would agree with me and you probably would too if unregulated capitalism wasn't being attacked forcing you to defend it because you have to. 

 

You can call it whatever you like, you're advocating action to stop him from doing something you find immoral. That is immoral.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Maybe I misunderstood your position. I thought you were advocating that the government set the price on drugs.

Not as a general practice, no. Only in extreme outlier situations.

 

So now you're advocating that the government set the price only when the patient doesn't have insurance? The drug companies would then raise the price for insured people to compensate, at best only raising the co-pay and at worst hitting people who have a high deductible with paying the entire inflated price to subsidize those who don't have insurance. That would hit hardest those people who are marginally above the medicaid cut off and are most likely to have huge deductibles. Doesn't that basically say screw you to the people who actually took responsibility to make sure they had insurance?

I don't want the government to set the price at all. I don't get what's so hard to understand about my position, so I'll say it one more time:

 

If a medication is available that is necessary to keep a person alive and that person, insured or not, cannot afford that medication and there are no lower-cost medications with the same effects available, the pharmaceutical company should be required to make the drug affordable for that person and only that person, on a case-by-case basis. No one's talking about giving the drug away. If the pharmaceutical company has set the price of a medication needed to prolong a cancer patient's life at $15,000 per month's supply but that cancer patient is only making $3,000 per month and their insurance company only covers 50% of the drug's cost, the pharmaceutical company should lower the price of that one patient's supply so that it is affordable--not free--for that one patient, and the adjusted price should be reviewed monthly so that if the patient's income goes up or expenses go down, the cost of the drug increases.

 

I'm talking about true "take this or you die" life-saving drugs only. Not even quality of life drugs for COPD, asthma, whatever, just the drugs that a doctor would take the stand and tell a judge are absolutely essential to this particular person's survival, and that person would die in short order without them. That's it. My view, simply put, is that the right of a human being to continue being alive outweighs the right of a pharmaceutical company's right to charge whatever it wants whenever it wants, but that is the only case in which pharmaceutical companies should be compelled to lower prices by a government entity.

 

Once again, life and death only. I believe that a human being's right to life outweighs a pharmaceutical company's desire for profit.

 

 

So you believe that the government should set price controls then?

See above.

---

You can call it whatever you like, you're advocating action to stop him from doing something you find immoral. That is immoral.

Incorrect. I am saying what he is doing is immoral and I said so in my statement regarding what he is doing is immoral yet is supported by those of "morals and values"

 

My comment was about a single person and event not about the whole issue. My position on regulating the pharma industry has nothing to do with the morality or lack there of, of a single person or even the group as a whole.

---

Not as a general practice, no. Only in extreme outlier situations.

 

I don't want the government to set the price at all. I don't get what's so hard to understand about my position, so I'll say it one more time:

 

If a medication is available that is necessary to keep a person alive and that person, insured or not, cannot afford that medication and there are no lower-cost medications with the same effects available, the pharmaceutical company should be required to make the drug affordable for that person and only that person, on a case-by-case basis. No one's talking about giving the drug away. If the pharmaceutical company has set the price of a medication needed to prolong a cancer patient's life at $15,000 per month's supply but that cancer patient is only making $3,000 per month and their insurance company only covers 50% of the drug's cost, the pharmaceutical company should lower the price of that one patient's supply so that it is affordable--not free--for that one patient, and the adjusted price should be reviewed monthly so that if the patient's income goes up or expenses go down, the cost of the drug increases.

 

I'm talking about true "take this or you die" life-saving drugs only. Not even quality of life drugs for COPD, asthma, whatever, just the drugs that a doctor would take the stand and tell a judge are absolutely essential to this particular person's survival, and that person would die in short order without them. That's it. My view, simply put, is that the right of a human being to continue being alive outweighs the right of a pharmaceutical company's right to charge whatever it wants whenever it wants, but that is the only case in which pharmaceutical companies should be compelled to lower prices by a government entity.

 

Once again, life and death only. I believe that a human being's right to life outweighs a pharmaceutical company's desire for profit.

 

 

See above.

Where is the liberty in that?

---

Incorrect. I am saying what he is doing is immoral and I said so in my statement regarding what he is doing is immoral yet is supported by those of "morals and values"

 

My comment was about a single person and event not about the whole issue. My position on regulating the pharma industry has nothing to do with the morality or lack there of, of a single person or even the group as a whole.

 

Right, you believe.

 

Where is the liberty in that?

 

There is none, only tyranny for a specific cause.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Right, you believe.

 

 

There is none, only tyranny for a specific cause.

I know I am right but thanks for agreeing.

 

You all never stop being the weird kid on the block. It must be awfully terrifying for you to live in a modern society if this is your idea of tyranny:

 

Once again, life and death only. I believe that a human being's right to life outweighs a pharmaceutical company's desire for profit.

---

I know I am right but thanks for agreeing.

 

You all never stop being the weird kid on the block. It must be awfully terrifying for you to live in a modern society if this is your idea of tyranny:

 

Once again, life and death only. I believe that a human being's right to life outweighs a pharmaceutical company's desire for profit.

 

Life and death only? People starve to death in this world every day. If life and death is your standard then there is absolutely nothing that cannot be taken for your purposes.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Life and death only? People starve to death in this world every day. If life and death is your standard then there is absolutely nothing that cannot be taken for your purposes.

Anyone--literally anyone--can find $2 to walk into McDonald's and buy a cheeseburger and a drink. McDonald's, unfortunately, does not sell life-saving medications on the dollar menu.

---

Anyone--literally anyone--can find $2 to walk into McDonald's and buy a cheeseburger and a drink. McDonald's, unfortunately, does not sell life-saving medications on the dollar menu.

 

Clearly we should take all the food and start distributing it to those who don't have any and who can't possibly get any. It's a matter of life and death for so many that only the most heartless person would oppose providing it to all people for free.

 

See, you simply can't limit your red line to just medication if life or death is the delineation. You're simply creating a false parameter that, once instilled, will easily become whatever those in charge want it to be. Once you start saying private property is community property the opportunistic will ensure that you'll never get that genie back in the bottle. Don't vote for "X" because they'll take away your "Y." Vote for A because he'll make sure that B "pays their fair share." All the same principle, that what you have isn't ever really yours, it's just yours until we decide someone else needs it more, which sounds a whole lot like what ol' Oklahomie was gunning for back in the day.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Clearly we should take all the food and start distributing it to those who don't have any and who can't possibly get any. It's a matter of life and death for so many that only the most heartless person would oppose providing it to all people for free.

You completely missed the point of that example. Food is readily available to every American, whether it's nice crap from Whole Foods, dollar menu fare from McDonald's or meals from a soup kitchen. There are enough sources of food that "life or death" shouldn't enter into it. That's not the case for medicine.

---

You completely missed the point of that example. Food is readily available to every American, whether it's nice crap from Whole Foods, dollar menu fare from McDonald's or meals from a soup kitchen. There are enough sources of food that "life or death" shouldn't enter into it. That's not the case for medicine.

 

I didn't miss the point, your point is overly narrow. If life and death is the standard then there are dozens of other things that could fall in the "essential enough to override private property rights" category. Why should the border be a parameter? Life and death doesn't just apply to Americans. Why does it just apply to a product and not to labor? People will die without the medical services of a physician. This winter there are millions of people who will die from exposure if they don't have heating fuel or electricity. We should immediately mandate that all those things be given away. That they are readily available for a price is irrelevant, I think the price is too high. That is what you are saying, that the price has to be one that you agree with in order for the owner to have the right to sell it, because the product is too important for someone else to own it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

flpsportsgod,

 

Do you believe we should have an entirely free market with no government intervention?

---