5 ms·
> There's no way that should be legal. I was quoted $60. Well, part of the problem is that the state now assumes that consumers are not qualified to take care
by microcolonel 8y ago
> There's no way that should be legal. I was quoted $60.
Well, part of the problem is that the state now assumes that consumers are not qualified to take care of themselves, and that the only people who are qualified are state-approved high-demand professionals. Oddly enough, opioid overdoses were not higher when you could just buy the stuff over the counter; but people have forgotten that people used to be responsible for their own well-being, and are convinced that they should not be trusted to defer to experts when they see fit.
- gbacon 8y agoSome things should simply be left to Our Betters.
- HarryHirsch 8y agoAfter the Alfie Evans circus I'm inclined to agree. You need to be properly trained to be able to recognize what is in the best interest of the patient and that that is the only thing that matters.
- ibeckermayer 8y agoIt’s bizarre that “capitalism” is frequently blamed for the moral atrocity that is the American medical industry when really it’s one of the most clear cut examples of a state-mandated cartel
- thelasthuman 8y agoI'd be a great business man to if people were legally required to purchase my product.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jahaja 8y agoThat is just absurd. We accept that kings will naturally strive to uphold their power, that feudal lords will protect their privileges, and so on. But somehow, some seemingly dogmatic people firmly believe that despite the entire incentive structure pointing in that direction, genuine agents of capitalism are not furthering their own interests through the means of state power.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- fucking_tragedy 8y agoCitizens United is one such example.
- nybble41 8y agoOf course they are. But that is not capitalism. You can't blame the free market for people "furthering their own interests through the means of state power" when the very existence of state power is antithetical to free markets. The "free" in "free market" refers specifically to the absence of legitimized and systematic aggression, of which state power is the foremost example.
- jahaja 8y agoThis is a completely and utterly ahistorical redefinition together with selective reasoning. The theological fantasy where capitalism is freed from its state component would not differ either with regards to these incentives, the state would just be replaced by "private-property lords" which you'd stamp as legitimate and welcome the voluntary toil of the propertyless masses.
- nybble41 8y agoIf you're going to use private and/or archaic definitions for common terms, please say so up front so we can avoid wasting our time. The term capitalism in common use today means a political and economic system which favors private ownership of the means of production, with strong implications of "laisse-faire" and "free market" policies. It is not a synonym for plutocracy, the vesting of political power in those possessing wealth. To the extent that owners of capital are effective in turning the power of the state to their own benefit, to intervene in the market on their behalf, what you have is a plutocracy, not capitalism.
- pjc50 8y agoI'm very suspicious of that factoid, given that limiting Paracetamol purchase size was very effective at reducing overdoses in the UK. Also, the US has seen a recent huge rise in opioid overdoses ...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]