Or wait the 17 years the patent runs before they can rip it off.

I believe more than 17 years have passed since 1977*.
And back then it cost a whopping 7 bucks (apparently).
So it's not the patent.

Again, it doesn't matter HOW it became a monopoly.
What matters is it IS a monopoly.

Which is why a few cents worth of adrenaline cost 600 bucks.
But I'm sure Medi-Cal doesn't mind...

At least Canadians will get a good laugh out of all this mess ;)

*Yeah... I know... it's been re-patented apparently. For a daft reason like the "cap" or whatever...

Rounded corners? Just kidding...

---------

And even though Franklin was a bit of workaholic-weirdo I'm kinda hoping he never foresaw (and would frown upon) the likes of Edison hoarding said patents like a madman.

OK so when I started ripping on the EpiPen crew I was thinking to myself "those things can't have a Bill of Materials of more than 5 bucks".

Wellwaddayaknow :)

"...told NBC News that the base components for each EpiPen, including the plastic cap, tube, and needle, might cost between $2 to $4 to purchase."

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/industry-insiders-estimate-epipen-costs-no-more-30-n642091

Let me put that into context for ya:
If the EpiPen was an iPhone, said iPhone would cost around...

$24,750

Who said Apple products are overpriced? ;)

The Washington Post reports that Mylan to pay $465 million, and there is now debate as to whether the EpiPen is a branded product. The understanding is that before Mylan took it over it was classified by the CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] as a non-innovator drug. So it could be that Mylan owe a lot of rebates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/07/mylan-to-pay-465-million-epipen-settlement/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_wb-mylan-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

You have to wonder about other medicines and drugs as well.

---

Another price hike on medicine. Bernie Sanders wants to know why this cancer drug costs nearly $200,000 a year

The lawmakers were spurred on by an article in the Street, which described how the drug's price had skyrocketed, particularly over the past two years. Iclusig was initially priced at $9,580 a month in 2012, when it was approved for patients with the rare leukemia. It was pulled from the market for safety concerns, but regulators eventually allowed the drug to be sold again in 2013 — this time approved with a much narrower label, only for patients who met specific criteria. Through subsequent price hikes, the drug has ended up at $16,561 a month or nearly $199,000 a year — though the drug is less safe than it once appeared to be and is now useful only for a much smaller group of patients.

And Hospital bills, Despite being shamed for overcharging patients, hospitals raised their prices, again

---

Another price hike on medicine. Bernie Sanders wants to know why this cancer drug costs nearly $200,000 a year

The lawmakers were spurred on by an article in the Street, which described how the drug's price had skyrocketed, particularly over the past two years. Iclusig was initially priced at $9,580 a month in 2012, when it was approved for patients with the rare leukemia. It was pulled from the market for safety concerns, but regulators eventually allowed the drug to be sold again in 2013 — this time approved with a much narrower label, only for patients who met specific criteria. Through subsequent price hikes, the drug has ended up at $16,561 a month or nearly $199,000 a year — though the drug is less safe than it once appeared to be and is now useful only for a much smaller group of patients.

The Drug Companies are FOR PROFIT businesses... They charge what the market will bear.

The drug companies have to at least recover their investment in developing the drug... or it won't get made.

Smaller number of patients needing it = larger pricetag on the drug. Simple economics.

And Hospital bills, Despite being shamed for overcharging patients, hospitals raised their prices, again

They were NOT 'shamed'...
They are, for the most part, FOR PROFIT businesses...
They charge what the market will bear...

In that article, one of the hospital companies did suffer a very minor hiccup on its stock price from the 'shaming' study's publication... for less than one week.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

C'mon guys... don't be shy!

It's OK to admit that The Clinton Foundation is really One Big Fakelaki Foundation on Steroids.

I know half of you have to hold your nose and vote for the lady but we can still be grown-ups right?

Is it too hard to say, "I know a vote for Hillary is an admission I'm living in a Banana Republic but there's no way I'm voting for Trump!"

I think most people would sympathize... I know I would.

Maybe.

:)

- - - - - -

Personally I took the coward's way out and didn't even bother ringing the Embassy to look into how (or even IF ) I can vote. We all have to do whatever helps us sleep better at nights. I can live with not voting... but I can't live with leaving you guys stranded with either of these two crazy bozos.

And don't even get me started on the "sniper fire" remark...

Too bad you had to limit YOURSELF to a two party choice.
Must be some kinda brainwashing goin' on.

Sorry but I still don't understand why anyone would vote for a political party that they don't mostly agree with.
Would it not be better to vote for what you believe in?
Giving up and "holding my nose" while voting seems like a terrible waste of a vote.
That voter that does not vote for what they believe in subverts the process of voting to a popularity contest promoted by mass media.

Simple fact of the electoral system is that it will take 270 electoral votes to put a candidate in office. Any of those electors may cast a ballot for whom ever they wish to at the electoral college on that date,(dec9?).
If after vote the magic 270 number is not met by any one candidate the vote goes to the house who will pick whomever they want.
The republican controlled house is not likely to vote for either Clinton or Trump but would most likely vote for two of their own: former 2 term republican Govenor Gary Johnson and former 2 term republican Govenor William Weld.

If after vote the magic 270 number is not met by any one candidate the vote goes to the house who will pick whomever they want.

Nope. They must pick from the three top votes in the electoral college.

---

If after vote the magic 270 number is not met by any one candidate the vote goes to the house who will pick whomever they want.

Nope. They must pick from the three top votes in the electoral college.

I ment that they can still choose to vote for someone (of the 3) that they were not slated to vote for.

[quote]Sorry but I still don't understand why anyone would vote for a political party that they don't mostly agree with.
Would it not be better to vote for what you believe in?
Giving up and "holding my nose" while voting seems like a terrible waste of a vote.
That voter that does not vote for what they believe in subverts the process of voting to a popularity contest promoted by mass media.

Simple fact of the electoral system is that it will take 270 electoral votes to put a candidate in office. Any of those electors may cast a ballot for whom ever they wish to at the electoral college on that date,(dec9?).
If after vote the magic 270 number is not met by any one candidate the vote goes to the house who will pick whomever they want.
The republican controlled house is not likely to vote for either Clinton or Trump but would most likely vote for two of their own: former 2 term republican Govenor Gary Johnson and former 2 term republican Govenor William Weld.

Negative.

Your 'refutal' is only a clarification.
I did NOT say anything to deserve the response "Negative!"

As per our Constitution:

President: The House MUST choose among the Top Three Electoral Vote receivers. Probibly Clinton, Trump and Johnson.

With each State having only ONE Vote!

Vice President (a separately elected official): Must choose between the Top Two Electoral Vote receivers.

If after vote the magic 270 number is not met by any one candidate the vote goes to the house who will pick whomever they want.

Nope. They must pick from the three top votes in the electoral college.

I ment that they can still choose to vote for someone (of the 3) that they were not slated to vote for.

No one in the House is bound to vote for anyone*. They are only allowed to pick from one of the top three from the electoral college vote, the only actual vote for president and vice president. All the rest of us vote for a slate to represent us in the electoral college.

Electors in some states are bound by state law to vote their pledge, however Federal law does not require this. Several electors have broken their pledge however none have been prosecuted and it is not clear if state law could apply to their Federal duty. In 2005 Ohio's vote was challenged in Congress, but the challenge was not upheld.

In theory if some earth shattering news came out between the general election and the electoral college vote we might wake up to a surprise when the president of the Senate opens the votes. This is as the founders intended.

*except by pitchforks, hot tar and feathers - a party caucus.

---

You have gone sideways.
Again:
I was talking about the electoral college when I said "they".

Perhaps it is not important that I am unable to be heard.
It is not possible to go on endlessly while the basic misunderstanding persists.
It's OK. I realize that I'm much better at communicating in person than typing sentences that can be purposefully and selectivly torn apart into unintended meanings.

Pretty sure I'm done here.

...It's OK. I realize that I'm much better at communicating in person than typing sentences that can be purposefully and selectivly torn apart into unintended meanings.

We all are.

OTOH we all go off on tangents so just because someone replied or quoted your post doesn't mean it's personal. I'm definitely guilty anyway.

But to answer your post... I didn't know Johnson had a "realistic" chance at becoming POTUS. So thanx for that. Would I choose him over Clinton? Easy.

Unfortunately he has one fatal flaw: I'm guessing somewhere along the line he said to himself, "I'm going to practice everything I preach and believe in, but I'm not touching "the establishment" with a ten foot pole. I'll let someone else fight that fight".

Through process of elimination that leaves me with Stein. And that's who I'd vote for I guess. That's if I was actually living in the States and could put my money where my mouth is.

I'd still prefer the Bernie option...

And if Johnson was exactly who he is only had the energy to oppose Citizens United & the various trade deals... I might even have chosen Johnson over Bernie. But that option doesn't exist. Not even in theory.

Hello Alex,

Even though Johnson does have a "what if" kind of slim chance at POTUS, it is Not realistic to assume it is actually going to happen.

Two problems with taking on "the establishment' directly are:
1. Not having ballot access. Much of the financial resources and time energy in the early season are devoted to simply getting on the ballot in all 50+ states.
Some states require 25,000 or more valid signatures on petitions usually requiring paying people to collect, organize, and present twice as many submitted as are required.
2. The "media" is NOT interested in covering stories that involve positive ideas, trustworthy and honest people, or a change to the "establishment" system unless they can somehow present it as a negative.

The cure for these problems would come IF Johnson, (or any "third" party) can get 5% of the vote they will get a huge financial windfall [^edit: Federal Election Funding] that is now afforded to the Democrates and Republicans. Many states will also automatically give future ballot access to certain percentage levels of votes for presidential candidates. (many states have a variety of different criteria).

Johnson is polling currently at 20% in his home state and double digits in 5 others. If people voted against the two party system instead of against the "worse of evils" then things could begin to change for "third" party involvement in politics. It will be interesting to see how the media is forced to react to the threat to their money stream from Dem's and Rep's.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
JJ