4 ms·
I think that, generally, in principle, we agree. Where we disagree is in practice. Doing nothing, or a little empty outrage is sweeping it under the rug, or "
by endswapper 10y ago
I think that, generally, in principle, we agree.
Where we disagree is in practice.
Doing nothing, or a little empty outrage is sweeping it under the rug, or "the approach thus far."
What I am talking about has a practical benefit beyond targeting the worst offenders, which again seems appropriate. Establishing a precedent for what is "too aggressive" frames the conversation going forward. Otherwise, your logic, "Obviously $300 is an acceptable price - so is $400? $500?," is valid. When human lives are at stake I don't think it is. So, establishing a precedent and thereby the beginning of a framework we move the conversation forward rather than just another lap on the rotary.
I also disagree that doing something is the same as doing nothing. I find that practically and logically false. Particularly, in the context of progress in a bureaucracy, it has been the modest incremental changes that have created the opening for larger reform.
- phil21 10y agoI think we generally agree in the outcome we want, just disagree on how to get there. I'm not proposing doing nothing. I'm stating making targeted efforts to go after this specific case is a silly waste of effort (at best - at worst it's placebo) is all. I would rather see that effort go towards actually reforming the system that allows monopolies to form when they don't make (open) market sense. Otherwise I do think we agree - the end result is Mylan can't charge $600 Epipen.
- endswapper 10y agoI acknowledge and respect your preference for larger reform. I think that would be great. In the meantime, why is it binary in your mind? Why is it larger reform or nothing? Because this does have a life and death impact, I don't think it is silly, or a waste. The efforts, at worst have potential to move the larger reform forward, and at best potentially save a life.