Liberal Forum

It literally costs $6 a bottle to make.  Capping it at $35 is still netting $29 or 82% a bottle.  Setting aside the Democrat/Republican **** for minute, I have to ask why 6 Senators didn't vote for it.  Is it lobbying by pharmaceutical companies?  Is Partisian showboating?  The official reason given was that it wasn't part of the federal budget.  Whats the unofficial reason?  There are way too many people having to pay hundreds of dollars for a bottle that only cost $6 to make.  Countless parents are trying to assist their Type I diabetic children.  

And before someone posts a link to GoodRx, Keep in mind that they offer a one time deal on it.  

our 'leaders' dont give a **** about the common man. Not sure why that isnt obvious to you yet.

ScottMon » 08 Aug 2022, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 10:49 am

It literally costs $6 a bottle to make.  Capping it at $35 is still netting $29 or 82% a bottle.  Setting aside the Democrat/Republican **** for minute, I have to ask why 6 Senators didn't vote for it.  Is it lobbying by pharmaceutical companies?  Is Partisian showboating?  The official reason given was that it wasn't part of the federal budget.  Whats the unofficial reason?  There are way too many people having to pay hundreds of dollars for a bottle that only cost $6 to make.  Countless parents are trying to assist their Type I diabetic children.  

And before someone posts a link to GoodRx, Keep in mind that they offer a one time deal on it.

But the first bottle cost $3 billion.

What if the pharmaceutical company says "screw you" and slashes production?

ConsRule » 08 Aug 2022, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 12:29 pm

But the first bottle cost $3 billion.

What if the pharmaceutical company says "screw you" and slashes production?

They will kill a lot of people and they don't want that kind of press.  BTW, Dr Banting and his team gave the patent away so there was zero development costs.
 

ScottMon » 08 Aug 2022, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 12:41 pm

They will kill a lot of people and they don't want that kind of press.  BTW, Dr Banting and his team gave the patent away so there was zero development costs.

Just because the gave away the patent, doesn't mean "there was zero development costs".  Absolutely NOTHING is free.  Everything has a cost that is being paid by someone.  Please tell us you are that **** stupid.
 

ConsRule » 08 Aug 2022, 12:50 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 12:50 pm

Just because the gave away the patent, doesn't mean "there was zero development costs".  Absolutely NOTHING is free.  Everything has a cost that is being paid by someone.  Please tell us you are that **** stupid.

So you were proven wrong and can't admit it.  Insulin is CHEAP to make.  The major cost is storage and shipping.  There is no reason why a generic insulin can't be made except for profiteering.  
 

ScottMon » 08 Aug 2022, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 10:49 am

It literally costs $6 a bottle to make.  Capping it at $35 is still netting $29 or 82% a bottle.  Setting aside the Democrat/Republican **** for minute, I have to ask why 6 Senators didn't vote for it.  Is it lobbying by pharmaceutical companies?  Is Partisian showboating?  The official reason given was that it wasn't part of the federal budget.  Whats the unofficial reason?  There are way too many people having to pay hundreds of dollars for a bottle that only cost $6 to make.  Countless parents are trying to assist their Type I diabetic children.  

And before someone posts a link to GoodRx, Keep in mind that they offer a one time deal on it.

I agree...Pharma products are far too expensive. Although there is liability involved, it's still too expensive.

Now I'll get partisan...Remember...Hillary was THE dem candidate...the rest were still vying for a spot.   

Notice where Hillary and Trump are on this graph.  It's clear that Trump was NOT a darling of Big Pharma and Hillary WAS!

"Setting aside the Democrat/Republican **** for minute", Scott says.  And the graph shows why Scott said that.



 
 

roadkill » 08 Aug 2022, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:10 pm

I agree...Pharma products are far too expensive. Although there is liability involved, it's still too expensive.

Now I'll get partisan...Remember...Hillary was THE dem candidate...the rest were still vying for a spot.   

Notice where Hillary and Trump are on this graph.  It's clear that Trump was NOT a darling of Big Pharma and Hillary WAS!

"Setting aside the Democrat/Republican **** for minute", Scott says.  And the graph shows why Scott said that.

Trying to find a link to verify your graph.
 

ScottMon » 08 Aug 2022, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:13 pm

Trying to find a link to verify your graph.

I posted it years ago too.  It's harder to find it now...and it will be even harder to find it on Google.

Try this search engine and you'll eventually find it...

https://search.brave.com/
 

Zymarikaphobia » 08 Aug 2022, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:15 pm

Type II diabetics lose weight you **** slobs!

BRING BACK MANDATORY MILITARY SERVICE........AND SEND THE MOST OBESE EFFEMINATELY RAISED LIBTARD  SNOWFLAKE LARD BUCKET RECRUITS TO FORT POLK LA, FT BENNING GA., FORT LEONARDWOOD MO, OR TWENTYNINE PALMS / CAMP PENDLETON ....and watch the Drill Instructors salivate when the Nintendo Baby Dough Boy SJWs start rolling in......  


 
 

ScottMon » 08 Aug 2022, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:00 pm

So you were proven wrong and can't admit it.  Insulin is CHEAP to make.  The major cost is storage and shipping.  There is no reason why a generic insulin can't be made except for profiteering.

First...you haven't proven a **** thing.

Second...I never said it wasn't cheap to manufacture.

Third...storage and shipping have absolutely nothing to do with the R&D necessary to develop a drug.
 

Neo » 08 Aug 2022, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 12:57 pm

Patently FALSE! Which you usually are!
 

ConsRule » 08 Aug 2022, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:31 pm

First...you haven't proven a **** thing.

Second...I never said it wasn't cheap to manufacture.

Third...storage and shipping have absolutely nothing to do with the R&D necessary to develop a drug.

Once they serve the proposed mandatory military service that would cure many of their ills...the VA PHARMACY has huge discounts for those who survived basic and went on to getting honorable discharges.....  

ConsRule » 08 Aug 2022, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:31 pm

First...you haven't proven a **** thing.

Second...I never said it wasn't cheap to manufacture.

Third...storage and shipping have absolutely nothing to do with the R&D necessary to develop a drug.

The drug was ALREADY developed in 1921.  Read a **** history book.
 

ScottMon » 08 Aug 2022, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:36 pm

The drug was ALREADY developed in 1921.  Read a **** history book.

And that doesn't have a damn thing to do with anything I posted. But you're too stupid to discuss those things and too big a baby to admit you don't understand my points.

Carry on...
 

nuckinfutz » 08 Aug 2022, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:33 pm

Patently FALSE! Which you usually are!

All true. A confused senior citizen that joined the DNC back when they stood for working class America rather than a coalition of perpetually aggrieved sexual and racial minorities could easily confuse fact with fiction. Starting to live up to your moniker   
 

ConsRule » 08 Aug 2022, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:44 pm

And that doesn't have a damn thing to do with anything I posted. But you're too stupid to discuss those things and too big a baby to admit you don't understand my points.

Carry on...

I understand you don't understand how research and development works.  The insulin patent developed in the 70s expired in the year 2014.  So there is no reason why a generic insulin can't be made except for profiteering.
 

Neo » 08 Aug 2022, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:45 pm

All true. A confused senior citizen that joined the DNC back when they stood for working class America rather than a coalition of perpetually aggrieved sexual and racial minorities could easily confuse fact with fiction. Starting to live up to your moniker 

I'm NOT CONFUSED ABOUT ANYTHING! GOT IT!        

 
 

ScottMon » 08 Aug 2022, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2022, 1:46 pm

I understand you don't understand how research and development works.  The insulin patent developed in the 70s expired in the year 2014.  So there is no reason why a generic insulin can't be made except for profiteering.

Where did I say a generic can't be made?  Try reading what I actually post...not what you think I post.

I understand R&D a hell of a lot better than you if you think anything...drug or otherwise...can have zero development cost.