General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "New Tax-Funded Cancer Drug Costs $475k Thanks To Big Pharma" video.

This was tax funded. Again, we do not have a free market system in healthcare. We need to push for that which will has these prices drop because of competition.
4
Social Security, medicare and medicaid are unconstitutional and are losing money. Polices: Locally ran and funded Roads: Constitutional, even at that 3/4 of them are locally ran and funded Libraries: Locally ran and funded You are pushing for federal programs by looking at locally ran and funded programs. There is a desire to have government, but we need to keep it as local as possible. The more local a system is the more control the people have over it. With a free market the people have more control over how their money is spent. That is a major driving force in it. However there is a desire to have money spent by government and having government as an arbiter in some ways. But keeping it local people can see if government is working for them and spending money they way they want. Thus it follows a free market idea of people spending money the way they seem fit. "I ask you seriously: Do you have any sense of morality or humanity at all? " I do. I want a system that works for the people. Too much government is just as bad as no government. Right now the left is pushing for too much government. The federal government has too much power and is corrupt. That is because it is more difficult to control a government of that size where a local government you have more control over. You can see first hand if government is working for you at the local level. At the federal level you can't. Also, you can only vote in a few members of congress. You can vote in all of your city representatives. There is a desire to have government, but you have to be able to control it. I want government programs. I support a public option in healthcare much like I support public education. K-12 education is ran at the state and local level. 84% of funding for K-12 education is state and local, only 8% is federal (the rest is private). However, we have to control government so it remains the servants and not the masters. I find it ironic how the left complains how corrupt the federal government is, how bad Trump and current republicans and corporate dems are, but than want that same government to run our healthcare system.
3
This was tax funded. This is the result of socialism. In a free market the price will drop.
2
Paul, there is a demand as diseases are evolving. In the competitive market there is a desire to rise up and do well by creating new medicine. Or do you not support the theory of evolution?
2
Ben Shapiro is not wrong. If healthcare is a right the government will force doctors to work. In the US you have a right to a trial in front of a jury of your peers. If someone is called to jury duty and refuses they go to jail. If you are drafted in the military and refuse you go to jail. So tell me how Ben Shapiro is wrong?
2
"Ok, you're just an unreasonable person. " Your opinion. "First, people with food insecurity aren't just "refusing to work", the same as how a person with medical issues isn't just someone who "doesn't care about their health." " In many cases they are. Not saying we should not try to help them. However, no one has a right to someone's food and/or services. Also, food is a poor comparison. We have an obesity problem in this country and we produce too much food in this country. Healthcare is much more complex. "There may be some people like that, but you want to toss out millions of innocent people who just need some community support in order to prevent a handful of free riders and that seems to be counter productive in the long run" Again, I am all for helping people, I feel the help should come from the local community. There is a desire to have government assistance, but there is also a desire to keep government under control to ensure it remains the servants and not the masters. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. I support welfare programs if they are localized like police, fire departments, libraries, and schools are. With that people can see if their money is being spent well and if government is actually working for them. "Good luck in your glorious future where ever increasing numbers of people die homeless in the streets, starve to death, and die from curable or preventable disease." For the most part that is not happening. it does, but it is rare. We are a developed nation mainly because we have been a capitalist society for decades. Our problems stem from the federal government. Also, your fear mongering ideas are not going to work on me. I do not bring up fear mongering points on your ideas. I feel with a medicare for all system we will be fine overall as a nation, just not the best we can be. "How about thinking like a person as a part of society?" I do, which is why I want stronger local communities and not a system where we just let the federal government run the show.
2
Sprax, I agree we have crony capitalism. That is the result of big government.
2
Geeky_Tranny, it does. Look at LASIK eye surgery. Look at the evolution of the computer and cell phones. Those were done through the free market. Now look at college tuition. The federal government subsidized it with the loan program. It is more expensive now.
1
thefourshowflip, college is more expensive because of the federal loan program. That increased demand without increasing supply. We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, etc. So colleges raised tuition. In my university we are increasing enrollment. We do not have enough TAs and professors and dorms. One of our new dorms was at 137% capacity recently. We are pushing for new offices but cant' get them. Some offices are over crowded. I agree, universities spend a lot on things like chefs, but that is a drop in the bucket overall. "With regards to cellphones and computers being a product of the free market...sure, but it really depends on where you draw the line. Keep going back to the start of the century and things like transistors and semi conductors were of so little interest that only pure scientific passion drove the research in university laboratories.." We see that today, what is your point? ".bell labs could well have had the transistor (thanks to the genius claude Shannon) but they didn't even give a shit enough to patent it because they didn't see the potential...that's the problem with the free market--if there is no perceived demand" That is not true. The free market sees demand. A rival company will always be creative to find a competitive edge. Again, the great things we have were because of the free market, not government. "The free market is not a solution to all problems no matter how many times that is asserted. " As a whole it is. For research the issue is that the government does fund a lot of it. So what private companies do is allow academics throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Private companies takes what sticks and improves on it. I work in research in academics. Most of what we do is almost pointless. However, in the big picture we are throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks. A creative private business will take what works and expand on it. In the end the free market produces the best where government doesn't.
1
"Yes but without the freedom to see what sticks to the wall, the free market has nothing to advance upon" They have that freedom. Researcher publish their work in journals. "why they should invest in research into the properties of the electron" Nanotechnology has potential. Also, I support government funded research. " My point was simply that free markets ON THEIR OWN do not represent a complete solution to economic issues" I agree. However, if we are going to have government we have to control it. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. The more local it is the more you can see if you tax dollars are being spent well. There is a desire to have money spent by government, but we have to see if we are getting our money's worth. "I too do academic research (physics) and we rely almost entirely on grant funding" Same with me. I work in physical chemistry.
1
Dan, for many leftists who never worked in the industry it is that simple. I work in research to develop methods in determining structure and dynamics of biological materials. A lot of research done in my field does not go anywhere. Same goes with drug development. But we do not know until we try. And with all of those projects that do not go anywhere we end up producing many that do which is why the US excels in research and innovation in healthcare.
1
RandomGuy7092, do you have an actual rebuttal to what I said?
1
Petar, pharma is a monopoly because of the government. Despite inelastic demand with competition a rival company will sell a better product at a cheaper price. A company is there to make money. If it does not sell anything or their customers die than you have no profit. I have read econ books, I suggest you read them as well.
1
Peter, I agree that patents do hinder competition. However, in the drug market you have a constantly evolving situation as disease evolve. The issue with healthcare is that disease evolve which creates the demand for new drugs. Having drug companies compete will lead to different forms of the same drugs which can bypass patent laws. On government negotiating prices, that is not always a good idea. The US leads the world in research and innovation in healthcare. A reason why is because we spend a lot to develop many drugs that do not even reach the market. Healthcare is a complex situation and the research involved in complex. There is a reason why we have not found a cure for AIDS and the common cold. That sticker price for that drug not only pays for the development of that drug, but the many other drugs similar to it that failed to reach the market. Now you may say those failed drugs were a waste, but again the US leads the world in research and innovation of drugs for a reason. As a whole, asking the government to regulate the situation will make it worse. There is a lot to this. Just don't go off of what some leftist opinion guy who has never worked in the industry says.
1
Peter, the government negotiating prices is price setting which creates inefficiencies in the market. Universities do a lot of research, but so does the private sector. Research in science in general is vague and complex. There are many components. Again, we do not have a cure for AIDS despite all the research being done. To think we can just stimulate supply with government funded research is ignorance. The complexity of healthcare is a large barrier. Also, in academics you have grad students doing research who are in the process of learning and are not top researchers.
1
The internet is the way it is because of the free market. Sure government may have created it, but the free market made it what it is today. Remember, the federal government struggled to build a website. "Stfu and read something of scholastic value" Like what? Communist Manifesto?
1
Peter, I do not care what other countries do. I do not trust the federal government "negotiating" prices as that leads to corruption. Also, do you really think the federal government is better than the consumer at negotiating prices?
1
Petar, there isn't any empirical evidence. Also, I agree, we do not have a competitive market in healthcare which is why I want a free market system.
1
YoitsSteveO, read this book, other countries do not have better outcomes. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
1
The free market works. LASIK is not tied to insurance and thus not tied to the government. It has become better and cheaper over the years. The internet is essentially free from the government and in around 20 years we were given Google, Youtube, Amazon, etc. Areas of the country that follow a more free market system do well. Leftist praise Seattle and the state of Washington for being left leaning. However, they have low tax and low regulations. Sure, they passed a higher min. wage recently, however they have a strong economy because of their low taxes and regulations. Because of that they have major companies that pay well such as Amazon and Boeing. What are your examples of the free market not working? Also, this is not to say there is not a desire to have government and regulations. However, when government oversteps its bounds it becomes a problem.
1
Anil, while the government may have developed the internet, the free market made it what it is today. Just like how the government had the postal service, but the free market system creating things like tracking numbers and shipping on Sundays. Sure, the government may create something, but the free market makes it better. With GPS, the free market created Google maps.
1
"But no one's charging $475,000 to use Google Maps. Also, if it were up to the free market, we would not have Netflix because of the throttling that was going on by the ISPs prior to net neutrality." Actually the free market created Netflix. If it were up to the government we will still have Blockbuster. But competition brought up Netflix. And of course no one is charging that much for Google Maps because the free market allows us to have alternatives. "The bottom line is, sure, the private sector may do some things better (many things, actually), but this is not one of those things. This is a clear example of where the government steps in and regulates shit." The government is highly involved in healthcare, that is the problem. Us as consumers have very little, if any say in what insurance we have and who we buy our drugs from.
1
Mckenzie .Latham, the free market can fund research as well and does. Federal government spending, while high, still accounts for only around 20% of our GDP.
1
RandomGuy7092, the free market created Netflix. It was founded by a corporation in the 1990s, before the internet took off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix
1
Vineeth, that is not true.
1
Jessman, what do you based that off of? Also, monopolies come from the government. Government regulations make if harder for smaller competitors to compete and do well. "Your free market doesn't exist in the real world, and it never will," It has in the past and has done well.
1
"the markets are like a game of monopoly, someone eventually with achieve complete control over certain parts of the economy unless something stops them." What stops the government?
1
RandomGuy7092, when there is a will there is a way. Netflix found a way to market their product. That is the free market. Also, what does Comcast have to do with anything?
1
Social Liberal Page, if you want to use Somalia as an example I can look at N. Korea as an example of a government with a lot of regulations. It goes both ways.
1
" LASIK surgery has to be performed by a trained professional or the person doing it can be put in jail" In the free market people pursue those who are trained. Do you take your care to the dentist to fix your AC? Do you allow a car mechanic to work on your teeth? And no, others have not explained the internet. The free market made it what it is today.
1
Spencerwalker21, you would have been the type of person in the 60s that would have said that putting a man on the moon is impossible. The federal government spends around $1 trillion on healthcare. We do not have a free market system. Why do you want to add more government when it is clearly the problem?
1
Anil, it is the government's fault. Because of the payroll tax businesses pay people with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage. Because healthcare insurance is a form of payment now it has become healthcare. People do not have a choice in healthcare because of the government. Monopolies exist only because of government, especially in today's market.
1
"Example/where? Just being a private company/non governmental entity doesn't make you "free market" " LASIK is independent of insurance and government. Over time it has become cheaper and better. "Yes but you're not paying attention to what i said mate... the reason all of those private sector (not free market) companies can fund that research is becasue the government according to you guys ensures they have monopoly/no competition." Not true at all. It is the profit motive that allows them to fund that research. What makes it so expensive is that government kills competition. "Under your non governmental system of the free market the idea is that prices are lower cause competing companies drives the prices low...however, as stated by both you and myself, the majority of funding for drug research comes from private companies who only have those funds cause a. they have monopoly b. patents protected by the government and c. government intervention" Again, not true. In a competitive market businesses have to use their resources the best they can. That limits waste. A company can't overcharge in their products or they will not get customers. Thus, in order to offer a low price they have to stretch their resources. "every business has a limit of what they can lower the price of a product to and still make a profit," True, but you can't charge too much either. A competitor will find a way to make the product cheaper. "oh and by the way net neutrality is on the chopping block thanks to trumps newest pick for the FCC," Good "now if net neutrality can be guaranteed by the free market please tell me how cause it seems like the service providers will soon call the shots and dictate whatever price/speed they want..." In a competitive market you will have more than one service provider. People point to Comcast in this comment section when there are other providers.
1
Anil, I do not get my internet through Comcast. There are more than one provider.
1
"Okay, great! So you support single-payer, which would decouple health insurance from employment and actually give people choice in what doctor they go to since there would be minimal or even no network restrictions." Not really. I support a public option if the states do it. I want the federal government out of healthcare completely. With a public option I do want the people using it to pick up most of the tab. You can possibly subsidize it with taxes, but I want people who use it to pick up the tab. That is what it is, an option. An the option can only cover critical care. But I do not support single payer. If a state wants to establish it than fine, but I do not support it. What will decouple health insurance from employment is abolishing the payroll tax. That way businesses will pay with a higher wage as opposed to paying with healthcare insurance. The reason why businesses pay with healthcare insurance as it is a tax free way in paying people. With the payroll tax if a business paid a higher wage/salary it will pay a higher tax. "Do you think an ISP should be able to slow down service for different websites and create faster and slower lanes on the Internet, or should they all be treated equally?" I really don't care. I don't go to many sites to begin with. The ones that I do go to are well established. But if there is an internet provider doing that in the free market a competitor won't and people will migrate to those providers. So net neutrality is unnecessary to me.
1
A right is something the government can't take away without due process. You have the right to free speech, but the government does not give you your own TV show. Should an obese man who has no care about his health and needs major healthcare services be allowed to live? Should we waste resources on someone like that? According to you that answer is yes. According to me they have a right to life so the government cannot take it away, however the government does not guarantee them living if they mess up their life.
1
In the US rights are things the federal government cannot take away from you without due process. If you look at the bill of rights they were ways for the people to control the government.
1
" Ok so tell me do you think big pharma has the right to price gauge us out of a product our tax dollars paid for?" Sure. And us as consumers should be able to force companies to compete which will lower prices. However, due to government barriers we don't. " Does our government have the right to give welfare to rich ass corporations? " Not the federal government. Any form of welfare at the federal level is unconstitutional. "I noticed how you like to argue against the little guy " I don't. I support the little guy which is why I support limited government and giving more power to local governments. I don't like big corporations either, however a corporation can only offer me a job and/or a product. Government can actually force me to do things such as pay taxes to give to corporations.
1
Fredrik Lind, I am looking at the US. So again 1. The draft is a way the federal government can force people to serve in the military 2. Calling people for jury duty is a way to force people to serve someone on trial. If you refuse to do either you can go to jail unless you have a good reason. So ignore other countries and look at the US.
1
"By the same logic of inactivity, if a person is too poor to buy food should they be forced to starve to death?" You have no right to food. So to a degree the answer is yes. Someone has to provide the food to them. Should we just steal from others to give to those who refuse to work? "Gtimo, torture/execution (violation of 8th amendment)" Not really. It says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The key word is punishment. Intensive interrogation is not punishment. Whether or not it is moral is another argument. However, it is not punishment. Also, there is a good argument in them not being US citizens thus they are not offered the same rights. "the NSA, Patriot act " I agree are unconstitutional which I am against. "prove otherwise but you keep believing that fairy-tale. " It isn't a fairy tale. That is what rights are on paper. Same can be said with universal healthcare. Just because the government, on paper, covers everyone does not mean everyone will be covered. We see similar problems with education. An education policy "promises" certain things but fail to offer. "Oh and by the way, jury duty is a service to your fellow man" That is being done by force. Me working at my job is a service to my fellow man. " Personally when someone's fate and freedom is on the line I'd like at least to see if they're guilty or not. " Become a judge and a lawyer than. Not saying we should not have a jury system, but your argument is very weak. "so is serving in the military which is completely voluntary (the draft got kicked to curb decades ago) to sign up for..." You still have to sign up for selective service. The draft is still an option. Also, if you sign up for the military you have to serve your time or go to jail. "Again typical libertarian.right wing ideology... only be for yourself and only you matter." Really? Who is the one who wants to force others to do things? You want to force others to do jury duty as it is a "service to your fellow man" when you can very easily become a lawyer and work on becoming a judge.
1
"How does big pharma get to price gauge us when we subsidized them with our own tax dollars. Do you not see how fucking ridiculous your agruments are?" Why subsidize them in the first place? Also, they price gauge because of lack of competition in the healthcare market.
1
gradostax, they are not basic human rights. Someone has to provide them. If there is a hungry man sitting outside of a restaurant, are you going to force that restaurant to serve them food for free? What about 100 hungry people?
1
"funny how only you people ever mention "those who refuse to work" i believe my statement said the people too poor to pay for food..." Food is very cheap and is given away in many ways. If you can't afford food you have major problems. "but i realize you lot know if you just said, "i don't want to help anyone...period." that would make you out to be immoral cunts so you must lie and misrepresent the facts. " When have I ever said I do not want to help anyone? I help many people. I just don't want the federal government doing it. I want individuals and state and local governments doing it. "If you have a right to life, you have a right to live" That simply means the government cannot take it away from you without due process. Say you need a heart transplant. Without it you die. Do you take it from someone else killing them in the process? Or say you need a kidney, without it you die. Do you force someone else to give it up making their life harder? Where does this "right to life" contradict itself? "Yes so Guantanamo, where no one was charged, no rights and no constitution apply..." Those were not US citizens. "Lol intensive interrogation, in other words, "let's change the name of the action as a cop out"" Not a cop out, that is how laws are written. Study law, they are detailed for a reason. It used to be that you had to be "over 18" to buy land. People wrote 18 on the bottoms of their shoes saying there were "over 18" as opposed to over the age of 18 years. "and i thought you lot were supposed to be smart..." I am, I understand what punishment is and how it is different from interrogation. Smart people do that. "if i grabbed you off the street and simulated drowning you right now would you be feeding me that horse-shit about intensive interrogation not being a punishment? " Am I being punished? No. However, we do have kidnapping laws as well so you are breaking that. "and unusual punishments such as using humans as guinea pigs for untested death drugs that backfire and cause painful and agonizing deaths and constitute human experimentation without consent..." Again, is it punishment? Never mind the moral argument. I am not making that. I am asking if it is punishment? If not than it is not unconstitutional. "I find it funny that when it comes to fee speech, free speech only means the government can;t censor you, and yet you lot and many others like to say the "spit" of the law/constitution should matter...until it comes to things like the gitmo prisoners...apparently the spirit of law only should apply to Americans and not in general. " There is a strong argument on both sides on if whether the Constitution should apply only to US citizens or not. "Nothing but words, i can write something on toilet paper, doesn't mean jack. " What do your words mean? That is the point "I don't really care, my point is if you're going to be hypocrites then at least help people doing so..." How am I a hypocrite? "Because it is sabotaged, hindered and or blocked by other members of government, private citizens or companies etc..." Or maybe we just lack resources. "lol when you cut public education, sue public education, etc. etc you actively ensure that those promises go unfulfilled." Public education funding has been growing for years. "It's only done by force if you don't comply...why wouldn't you comply? " In the end it is done by force. Why don't you speed? Because the law says you can't. If you don't follow the law the government will force you to. You are doing something against your own free will. It doesn't matter if I comply or not, I am still forced to do it. "If i can find someone smarter, better and cheaper then you as your free market prescribes, you're obsolete/useless. " Very true, happens all the time. "LOl no yours is, you just said that if you want to affect the justice system then you should either be a lawyer or a judge...you forget the part the "citezen" plays in the judicial process...forgot or ignored...as i said you're obviously trying to find a way to say, "i only want to care about myself" without coming off as an asshole..." You can choose to be a judge and/or a lawyer. You can choose to give you opinion on a court case. You are force to do jury duty. "Actually no you don't, and anything can be an option, lol as long as you have a government body that can make up laws anything can be an option... " You are forced to sign up for selective service. "these are the kind of people who think things like being forced to save someone in need and or not being allowed to let someone die cause it might personally inconvenience them to be force and dictatorship..." It isn't so much about personal inconvenience, it is about how far you are willing to go? If someone needs a kidney are you going to force me to give up mine? That makes my life more difficult. How far are you willing to go with this?
1
Dayne, in order to have government be ran by the people you have to keep it as local as possible. That means limit the powers of the federal government and grant more powers to the states and local government. The more local government is the easier it is for you to see if it is working for you. " Never mind the fact that a single-payer system would decrease costs. " That is simply not true.
1
Mckenzie .Latham, all a business can do is offer you a job and/or a product. Government can force you to do things. That is what cronyism is. The private sector buys out the government to force others to do what the private sector wants. Without powers the government can't be bought and cronyism goes away.
1
Geeky_Tranny, who makes laws? Government. What makes you think government will just stop their cash flow of donors? This is why the founding fathers wanted limited government. If you limit government it can't be bought. You want to give government all of this power and expect them to behave. In a free market you do not have government influencing the market. As for the AoC, the Constitution was based off of it. There is a centralized component to our system. States have powers but are limited to the bounds of the Constitution. States could not develop their own military, deny freedom of speech, create tariffs with other states, etc. When you look at the design of the US the federal government was there to serve the states and the states made up the federal government. The states were there to serve the people and the people made up the states "also as for single payer systems decreasing cost literally most other single payer systems in the world pay less for their citizens" With lower quality. Also, the US leads the world in research and innovation in healthcare for a reason.
1
"Expect them to behave how? By not being able to interfere on anything? so now they have no say in decisions that could hep the united states economy and again if you haven noticed the government allows businesses to act freely with exceptions of regulations that provide safety. " You went to an extreme. There is a desire to have government. However, the people have to be able to control it to ensure it remains the servants and not the masters. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. The more local government is the easier it is to control. The was the great wisdom of the founding fathers when they established this country. That is why, with the exception of the draft and treason, both that deal with protection of the overall nation, the federal government had no control over the individual person. The only federal tax was a tax on the states, not individual. With a local government you can see first hand if it is working for you. "No your just allowing them to do what they would have had to bribe politicians to do. " In a free market companies can bribe politicians all they want. Politicians cannot do anything though. Think about it, you have a free market. Government does not influence the market. A company pays a politician a lot of money. Now what can that politician do? Nothing, because we have a free market to where the politicians cannot influence the market. It is like you going into a liquor store wanting to buy a car. You can't because they do not sell cars. "When making the constitution founders scrapped the articles of confederation as it was effectively useless. And your right the federal government serves the states, by doing what the states could not which it controlling commerce and tax revenue. The states alone failed economically in the articles of confederation due to the fact they lacked centralization for the economy. " Not true. They used the AoC as a blueprint in designing the Constitution. They wanted the states to be united so they gave the federal government powers and limited all governments equally with the Constitution. For example, states could not attack a foreign nation. However, states were given the power to run a public education program if they wanted. States have their own tax systems. Before 1913 individual income tax were unconstitutional at the federal level. The tax was a tax on the states. There was failure in the AoC because of lack of unity. The Constitution did that by giving powers to the federal government to serve the states. The federal government protected the states from foreign enemies and dealt with foreign trade. However, it did not create laws on businesses, education, and so one that influenced individual's lives. "Again false, either your ignorant of this or your lying because other countries (for instance Denmark) have higher quality healthcare under a single payer system. Also Causation =/= correlation" I like how you make the causation correlation argument. What makes you think those countries are better in healthcare quality? What do you base that off of? When you run through the numbers the reality is that nothing indicates that to be the case. Here is a great book for you to read on that https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
1
"And endorse political leaders (local, state, federal) and or contribute to their campaigns financially (local, state, federal)... o as in the case o Donald trump run for office (local, state, federal) " And again, if government has limited power than it does not matter. It has nothing to sale to those businesses. Also, endorsing a politicians is not illegal. Kyle does it all the time in endorsing Bernie Sanders. People contribute to politicians all the time besides using money. The volunteer their time as well. Do you want to ban that? Many people gave money to Bernie. TYT dedicate their entire program to him. Why is that OK but a business giving money to a politician, when there is no quid pro quo, bad? " Um no it's not: Cronyism: "the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications." " And who has authority? Government. "Not too mention you have not proved how more localized government would fix that...?" You have more control at the local level. I met both candidate for mayor in my city. I can personally walk into the local school and talk to administration. I can attend town hall meetings and state my case. I can vote for all of the representatives of my city. I can't do that for congress. Presidents and presidential candidates are almost off limits to the general public. The more local government is the more control you have over it. You just have to be active in the community. At this point I can assume you aren't. But the mayor of my city I met and I voted for because I saw how she built up downtown and improved it as a business owner and is still doing it as mayor. "which still wouldn't change with less "federal" government, in fact by localizing government to municipal and state levels, you will only guarantee that corporations turn their marketing, ads and big money towards them only..." And at the local level I have a stronger voice. The community can stop that. There are some cities that the community does not allow a McDonalds, like Montpelier, VT for example. And if a local community becomes too corrupt you can move and remain a US citizen. You want to centralize the problem to where the entire country goes down. Take what happened in Flint and their water. While that is bad, it was localized. Now if we had a centralized water system the entire country is screwed. But instead only Flint is harmed. Again, not great, but with your idea it would have been worse. "without actually making it illegal and or capping the amount of money an Individual and corporation can donate to a campaign or politician etc. you do not defeat cronyism or corporations buying out politicians/the law." Ok, how about capping how much members of the media can talk about politicians? Kyle can only release one video about Bernie every two weeks and it can't be longer than 10 minutes. Sound good? Same with TYT.
1
For the most part they don't. A reason why drug prices are so high is because that money not only pays for the R&D and production of that drug, but for other drugs as well that do not reach the market. Many drugs do not reach the market because of FDA regulations or because diseases evolve too fast and become resistant to them and so on. A reason why the US leads the world in research and innovation of healthcare is because we are willing to have failed projects. Those failed projects eventually lead us to a high quality product. But as a whole pharma companies do not have a large profit margin.
1
Bill, Bacon, the profit margins of those companies are razor thin. To think they are making huge profits is simply not true. If they are they will soon fail as a company as they need to be investing that money.
1
joaohumbg, that is not necessarily true. That is why insurance companies exist, to combat inelastic demand.
1