LETSGOBROWNIES Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 Just now, Daniel said: I mean, when you structure corporate law the way it is, it'd be insanity not to do what they do. Doing anything other than maximizing profits for the shareholders (within legal and ethical limits, of course), is arguably a breach of fiduciary duty. Usually that's grounds right there to can whoever is in charge. If a big pharma CEO did decide to move the company toward cheaper prices, despite the market being willing to pay their exorbitant prices, they'd get forced out almost immediately, and replaced by someone who would maximize profits in almost every setting. That's why massive, sweeping changes to the law and a whole lot more federally funded R&D are literally the only solution to that problem. Oh I get it, I’m just trying to impress upon him the fact that they aren’t gonna “be nice and do something good for humanity”. They could do that any time and choose not to is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 5 minutes ago, Daniel said: I mean, when you structure corporate law the way it is, it'd be insanity not to do what they do. Doing anything other than maximizing profits for the shareholders (within legal and ethical limits, of course), is arguably a breach of fiduciary duty. Usually that's grounds right there to can whoever is in charge. If a big pharma CEO did decide to move the company toward cheaper prices, despite the market being willing to pay their exorbitant prices, they'd get forced out almost immediately, and replaced by someone who would maximize profits in almost every setting. That's why massive, sweeping changes to the law and a whole lot more federally funded R&D are literally the only solution to that problem. Ethical is the key word here. In almost all other cases, market dictates price. In necessary medication, the market is inherently flawed and skewed. It's one of the reasons why universal healthcare is such a hot button topic, especially pre-existing conditions like diabetes. If you have diabetes and need to get a new insurance due to a new job after a lay off or furlough from the pandemic and ACA is gone, that person probably wont be taken on because insulin prices are extremely high and that person doesn't have a right to healthcare anymore. At that point, they are expected to pay out of pocket for a medication they literally can't live without. So while the pharma company is maximizing profits based on insurance payouts, they are then pushing outside the limits of a traditional market if the ACA is gone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 8 minutes ago, Deadpulse said: Ethical is the key word here. In almost all other cases, market dictates price. In necessary medication, the market is inherently flawed and skewed. It's one of the reasons why universal healthcare is such a hot button topic, especially pre-existing conditions like diabetes. If you have diabetes and need to get a new insurance due to a new job after a lay off or furlough from the pandemic and ACA is gone, that person probably wont be taken on because insulin prices are extremely high and that person doesn't have a right to healthcare anymore. At that point, they are expected to pay out of pocket for a medication they literally can't live without. So while the pharma company is maximizing profits based on insurance payouts, they are then pushing outside the limits of a traditional market if the ACA is gone. Just to be clear, by ethical, I mean business ethics, not general ethics. As in, what are they allowed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 Just now, Daniel said: Just to be clear, by ethical, I mean business ethics, not general ethics. As in, what are they allowed to do. No I understand. I was just pointing out that the 'market' is unique in a way that it actually doesn't even exist traditionally. It's hard to apply business ethics to the scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwAg Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 Seems like we need another discussion on advocacy for social violence! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwAg Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 But no, really, Daniel is right about corporate law essentially requiring “bad behavior” from corporate actors in a social context. It’s shifting, but also not really. The other issue is competition law. Some corporations in the 70s actually tried to reduce drug prices by setting a maximum that could be charged for the drug. The Supreme Court struck it down as an illegal price-fixing arrangement due to the presence of medical insurance, which essentially made the price maximum a price minimum (because you’ll always charge insurance companies the most). That principle was later expanded around the turn of the century, and is the reason why we won’t have reduced drug prices absent a change in law. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizeGuy Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 (edited) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-vaccine-czar-says-the-first-vaccine-should-be-submitted-for-emergency-authorization-around-thanksgiving-2020-10-08 Is it reasonable to think the vaccine efficacy should be higher for COVID compared to the flu vaccine since we're targeting one specific strain where as the flu vaccine targets multiple strains and is a bit more of a guessing game? In the article posted above, Moncef Slaoui believes the vaccines may be between 80%-90% efficacy. That'd be incredible, honestly. Edited October 9, 2020 by WizeGuy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 22 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: The frustration isn’t necessarily with people in here, even the people with the more conservative views seem fairly reasonable (wear masks, take things seriously, etc), but rather with other people, be it public figures, people in our communities, etc. And if a side effect of that is that all of the anti-mask FF people are scared off from posting because they'd get shamed and made fun of forever - totally legitimate fear by the way - then good. We won't miss their contributions. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 22 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: The frustration isn’t necessarily with people in here, even the people with the more conservative views seem fairly reasonable (wear masks, take things seriously, etc), but rather with other people, be it public figures, people in our communities, etc. *Raises Hand The hard part for me is, those downplaying this and then saying that the flu is more deadly aren't exactly the poster children for those who ever took the flu seriously to begin with either. I'll be honest, I really struggle with the logic consistency on some of these mandates as opposed to others, the protocols that have happened by Governors to make mandates, etc. because it's a slippery slope (even though it could very well be the right decision(s)) from a separation of powers point of view, I still abide by these things and I don't want to be the reason that there's a spread in my school, church, football team, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 You see what happens to this thread when we stop posting pictures of goats and Patrick Bateman? Y'all get all heated at each other. We need to bring back the jokes and other things that are fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winitall Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: And if a side effect of that is that all of the anti-mask FF people are scared off from posting because they'd get shamed and made fun of forever - totally legitimate fear by the way - then good. We won't miss their contributions. TBH I think this all a part of @ET80’s master plan to avoid reading anti-mask posts on here and I am here for it. Makes sure that the News section posts related to COVID stick to sports while linking to this thread, where the anti-mask people probably aren’t going to stick around. It’s kinda brilliant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 Just now, winitall said: It’s kinda brilliant. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywindO2 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 5 hours ago, mission27 said: You see what happens to this thread when we stop posting pictures of goats and Patrick Bateman? Y'all get all heated at each other. We need to bring back the jokes and other things that are fun. Check your binders, sir! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mega Ron Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 Sheeeet, it's back up again. It feels as though things are about to go to **** again over here in England. Things still fine and dandy over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fl0nkerton Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 16 minutes ago, Mega Ron said: Sheeeet, it's back up again. It feels as though things are about to go to **** again over here in England. Things still fine and dandy over there? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts