Why You Should Happily Die For Big Pharma w/ Megan McArdle
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- In this Chapo Trap House clip, Megan McArdle thinks thousands dying of preventable diseases every year is actually for the greater good.
Buy our book: www.chapotrapho...
Full podcasts: / chapo-trap-house
Support the show: / chapotraphouse
Subscribe on UA-cam: / chapotraphouse
Like us on Facebook: / chapotraphouse
Follow us on Twitter: @ChapoTrapHouse
chapotraphouse...
GFX by Wagner Koop
#chapotraphouse #chapo
"The 2020 presidential race looks increasingly like it will be the Medicare-for-all election, as an increasing number of Democratic primary candidates - including front-runners such as Sens. Kamala D. Harris, D-Calif., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., - sign on to the slogan. The policy ought to be an easy sell, given that Medicare polls so well and American insurers so badly.
Except no, it’s not going to be easy at all - at least not when vague talk about Medicare-for-all turns to the specifics of a system that could rationalize the myriad insanities of the fragmented U.S. health-care system and get a handle on its exorbitant costs. That would inevitably mean bulldozing most private insurance to build something simpler and more straightforward. Unfortunately, people are actually pretty attached to their own little corner of the country’s collective disaster."*
Read more here: www.starherald...
I’m sick of this false inverse relationship between cost and innovation that big pharma and their bootlickers keep peddling, despite the fact that the biggest breakthroughs in medical research came as a result of government grants/investment, all they do is buy the patents and arbitrarily jack the prices. Thank you for calling this out.
They only want to research things people have to take every day. That's why we have antibiotic resistance- because you only take them for about a week usually they aren't looking into making new ones- because there's less money in it!!! 😐
Not to mention the subsidies from them, of which the produced of oxys only put 8% of total funding into r&d.
Welcome to the club
And that time release technology is 65 plus years old . The machine that makes pills is literally 10 grand . Supplement pill prices should be the price for most if not all hard pills.
nationalize pharma companies. The scientists don't care who they are working for. Just pay them fuckloads of money they deserve.
If you offered a mere, idk, $150k/yr to try and save millions of lives, I guarantee you would get plenty of the most talented and hard-working people that exist. Most top scientists (and I know a lot) care most about getting to do what they want to do (both in work and life), then they care about getting the glory for doing something awesome, and only care about money third. One reason they are often paid a lot more in the private sector is to make up for have to deal with the endless stupidities of a for-profit corporation.
Offering more money might attract a few more good people, but then you're already starting to get people who are more interested in their own success, and could therefore be a liability as well as an asset. I'm saying we don't need those people.
She once wrote an article for Time Magazine about how terrible unemployment is but it's super easy to get a job if you are unemployed.
Isn't insulin rationing a relatively common plot device in post-apocalyptic fiction?
If it happens often it's not fiction is it
Sean H. What’s the difference?
The future is now.
It was in Colony (alien occupations etting). Don't know if that counts.
Glad it's a joke to you. I've been living with type one diabetes for 20 years, I'm 34 now.
Megan McArdle: "How dare you think 'Yer money or yer life!" is unfair! Don't you know that Pharmaceutical Companies should have every right to extort you for everything you have?!?!?"
"Think of your mugger's feelings! You monster!"
Please I'm dying!
Meg:Say you had a farm...
Guys, if I can't charge $150 for every single pen of insulin that is created, a pharma breakthrough that was discovered in 1978, how will pharmaceutical industries EVER have the funds to be able to research new medications? It is now 2019, I still have to make up for my loses on the research of Insulin and my god, we haven't even perfected the manufacturing of insulin 50 years later. $150 for every pen, sorry guys.
It's amazing the guvurmint not only lets corporations do shit like that, but actively enables them. Fucked up
Oh the annoying rationales. But I can make out certain whispered words emanating from their brains..."Wall Street...Investor dividends...CEO compensations...govt deregulation/lobbying...govt cooperation...glad I went to that lesson on talking to these losers..." America and soon my Canada will look like banana and oil republics but with better propaganda and high tech.
@@dopaminey9946
Implying that technology was ever the domain of the West after the rise of the Asian Tigers. After the 1970s, tech moved to Asia.
It's such a fundamental fucking point that even at a reasonable price, *they make a profit on this in other countries* and in fact they *stayed in business selling it for a reasonable price in the US for decades until they suddenly realized they were free to gouge.*
The research that lead to the development of insulin was paid for with public funding in Canada, was not paid for by a drug company
Christman predicts the possibility of a pandemic within next few years at 21 minutes in lol
i mean it doesn't matter how much you pontificate, the fact that some rich guy gets a cut of the profit from selling drugs means it is fundamentally flawed. every cent that goes into the pocket of some millionaire is an inefficiency, capitalism is inefficient by definition. nationalize the manufacturing, nationalize the distribution, nationalize the research.
The worst thing is - much of the research is already "nationalized" to a great extent. In two ways - 1) pharmaceutical companies have obliterated their R&D budgets and are relying increasingly on university research (which in many countries is either fully or partially publicly funded). 2) Many of the drugs on the market, currently, developed by pharmaceutical companies, were funded by government grants. They are literally using tax-money to develop products so that they can now expropriate the very same people that funded their products. It is a fucking disgusting practice.
@@ronasvbbk
In some cases they aren't even taking on the risk of pivotal trials any more, which speaks to the lack of value-add that pharmaceutical companies actually perform in the supply chain. Phase 1, 2 and 3 trials used to be the purview of Big Pharma: they would, after spending the millions developing the novel chemical entity, would then spend more money to do the science to prove that it works and is safe. Now they don't even bother, leaving Phase 1 and 2 to universities and governments. Sometimes even leaving human trials to governments, and then expropriating the results from the taxpayer to put it on the market.
Another way to bypass the huge cost and financial risk of human trials is to let smaller pharmaceutical companies do it. These smaller entities are often university spinoffs and they take government grants to do the trials and do the science to prove safety and efficacy to the regulator. If the spinoff succeeds, it is quickly bought up by the bigger company like Merck or Pfizer or Sanofi. The research team is laid off with a good severance deal so as to keep them quiet, and the manufacturing and marketing thenceforth takes place under the auspices of the bigger company. In this way big pharma exposes itself to effectively zero risk while reaping the profit.
I do think that having a healthy and in particular, _competitive_ pharmaceutical industry in one's own country is a strategic benefit - as long as everyone in that market takes risk, they should be able to earn profit. But this relatively new (less than 10 years old) practice of effectively externalising all financial risk and leveraging capital to expropriate research gains from governments and smaller entities, while financially lucrative, is worthless from a healthcare perspective. In that sense, if they don't want to risk anything, then nationalisation should be the appropriate action.
But I do think that we have to think further than statism, because the slowing pace of pharmaceutical innovation is present in both public and private spheres. It is clear that the industry is becoming sclerotic, that basic research is not being done, and a culture of risk aversity has permeated all stages. This despite the fact that we have largely automated the process of finding chemicals to hit drug targets and achieved advances in computing allowing us to really understand and manipulate even protein and gene targets extremely selectively.
A comprehensive reform of the pharmaceutical industry, I think, does not actually start at pharmaceutical companies. I mean, sure, we should nationalise _the supply chain_ and there would be massive gains in efficiency from that. But more deeply we do need to start thinking about research from the university level. Right now it is hellish to get grants for pharmaceutical research, who parcels out the grants does so in a largely arbitrary manner, and there is no planning or strategy to match up grants with health policy goals or alarming trends.
The most alarming trend that comes to mind is the post-antibiotic crisis. This is a crisis arguably more devastating than climate change. It threatens to throw us a hundred years back to the time of amputations. No country that I know of has _any_ research or industrial strategy to make new antibiotics. And I don't mean that in the sense of "new" as in a steric hindrance addition to a cephalosporin and calling it a day. I mean "new" as in new mechanisms of action, or even sidestepping antibiotics entirely and going Soviet style with bacteriophages. We need a 10 year plan to commercialise a new antibiotic with a novel mechanism of action. And as a backup, to spin up a bacteriophage program and develop lysins and phage cocktails that will destroy multi-drug-resistant strains.
This strategy can and should entirely bypass big pharma. If They will not take the risk - and they haven't for more than 20 years - they should not play the game. A few billion dollars into universities to generate a novel antibiotic within 4 years and conduct trials within 8 years would yield immense benefits.
@@MonMalthias Great write-up! Agree with everything and also thanks for all the information. I had no idea about some of the stuff you wrote (it all makes sense though, as a means of, in your own words, externalizing the risk.), though I study a subject within that area of work.
@@ronasvbbk
www.biopharmatrend.com/post/30-pharma-rd-outsourcing-is-on-the-rise/ . CROs are increasingly the innovators in the pharmaceutical industry. They take university spinoffs (or are university spinoffs themselves) and do the basic science to bring a drug from candidate to animal trials to human trials. At the end, if they succeed, more often than not, their product gets snapped up by the giants.
This is an increasing trend and the rise of globalisation within pharmaceutical research has both enabled projects to be executed where before they were not possible, but also helped hide the scleroses within the industry.
home.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/za/pdf/2016/11/Pharmaceutical-Risks-2016.pdf (See the dot point "Outsourcing risk with increasing reliance on third parties for key business functions such as clinical trials, manufacturing, sales and R&D" . That is a single point amongst dozens but arguably all other adverse trends originate from this problem.
Now compare the industry audit of KPMG from 2016 to 2018: home.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/za/pdf/2017/12/Pharmaceutical%202018.pdf . The same trends still follow - and this is an industry that sees businesses start up, expand, rot, die, or get consolidated or spun off, dozens of times a year across the world. On the outside it looks like standard capitalist creative destruction. But actually it reflects a devastating trend: investors are demanding insane profits, causing unstable boom and bust cycles, over-reliance on flagship products, risk aversity in research and development, and massive inflation of marketing and export sales budgets in order to cannibalise markets all over the world. Everyone wants to be number 2, if you are talking about a completely new drug for a disease or whatever. No-one wants to take the risk and be number 1.
We _already_ suffer from a moribund pharmaceutical industry. It is now a question of how, not if, the industry in its current form will survive. Mergers and acquisitions string out companies with immense quantities of debt that must be paid off to the bankers. This in turn demands higher drug prices and sales to compensate for debt. Risk is put on hold or kicked down the road by firing researchers or by cutting back research budgets. Marketing can stem the haemorrhaging over time, but the highly regulated nature of pharmaceutical marketing (outside the US) limits its impact. So now even the giants are turning back to governments for their next big thing.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847363/
The solution is to cut out the bankers, erase the debts, and follow one of two paths:
- Breakup and fragmentation: the giants are to be broken up into entities that no longer transcend borders and simply operate independantly from one another within nation states. This throws us 20 years back in international co-operation, but stops international market cannibalisation driving huge debt burdens and massive rates of acquisitions and mergers that are inhibiting innovation.
- Nationalisation: the supply chain is already well developed, extremely vertically integrated, and produces drugs cheaply. And I do mean cheaply. Once you cut out profit margins, insulin is actually costed at around 5-6 dollars a vial (depending on the modifications to it). Removal of profit also does not necessarily mean removal of research: remember, public institutions are already doing much of the legwork for the pharmaceutical giants. However, the rise of national interest will result in a lot of sectoral duplication as countries start to produce what they deem to be strategically necessary within their own countries. So instead of one massive insulin factory in Ireland or one massive hormone factory in Spain, now you have dozens of smaller factories producing less efficiently, but spread across the world. However, it should also be noted that the corpus of pharmaceutical knowledge is extremely unevenly distributed, with "the West" having the majority of brainpower and "the East" having significantly less (outside of India). Sectoral nationalisation is going to produce as many problems as it does solutions - but is fundamentally more resilient and cheaper in the end.
what are your thoughts on the social security tax that you pay year after year. You will statistically die at 65 due to the subsidies our government provides to the corn meat and dairy industry. They want you dead at 65 so you don't burden America by collecting social security. That is why your kitchen is most likely full of meat dairy and different high fructose corn syrup chemical stews.
This whole article was a mind boggling display of mental gymnastics
Bringing home the gold in the cognitive dissonance division. lol
right libertarians are an oxymoron, they say they hate tyranny, but they have no issue with corporations controlling everything in society.
Right wing libertarianism is mental gymnastics in itself
That's all of Megan's articles in a nutshell.
A better analogy would be on your lamb farm you then go out and put a gun to peoples heads and say "Buy my lambs or else and oh by the way I'm charging 10x what lambs should cost. But don't worry because 15% of what you pay will go towards genetically engineering a new breed of lambs."
A new breed that I will ALSO sell at an obscene markup.
@@TheArkTheArkTheArk And also isn't that much different from the lambs from before
One of the first third generation antibiotics was developed recently in Ireland... by a state funded university.
Pretty sure there was a study that showed how most drugs were produced with research made with public funding.
Link?
There are a bunch of surveys like this, but there's plenty enough wiggle room in terms of definitions (what constitutes innovation?) and datasets (which time periods, markets, countries, therapeutic areas to include) as to make drawing any strong conclusions from any single study kind of pointless. Industry-sponsored ones, for example, might put the cut-off for a drug being 'new' much higher upstream in the R&D pipeline (in the extreme case even at the stage pharmaceutical formulations), while government-funded ones would (more accurately imho) judge innovation by who discovered the specific drug molecule and/or its mechansim of action (which is in almost all cases a publicly funded university).
28:23 is extremely important and i'm bookmarking that next time anyone irl shills for capitalism
I LOVE the idea that Americans are willingly paying extra to fund R&D on drugs that American drug companies then sell to Europe for cheap.
Thanks, Amerikanskies!
Of course, in the real world, these companies get their R&D money from public funds and charities...
@Quest Tzecai Same thing with the military, don't have to worry about protecting your own country when America's doing it for you. The American Empire is the first empire in history in which the full citizens of the empire get less benefit from it's existence then the citizens of many of it's vassal states.
@@tomstokoe5660 you've swallowed the bullcrap! Well done 👍✅
The thing I get stuck on WRT the trade-offs Megan talks about is that those trade-offs are always for other people to make. "Lowering the price of insulin would save lives, but it would also mean that I can't buy a third Goddamn wing for my McMansion, so sorry poor people."
But people are willing to go broke for the insulin that buys that wing, and every transaction is voluntary, so *by definition* the world needed that third wing on her house more than it needs cheaper insulin.
You can't argue with a definition.
(In case you didn't know, this is an actual serious argument made by people like Megan)
@@ChannelMathYeah, I encounter the "capitalism is entirely voluntary" argument a lot. It's always wild when they say that "pay your left arm for insulin or die" is a voluntary choice, but "pay your taxes or go to jail" is awful coercion.
How sad is your life to literally argue in favor of letting people die because they can't afford insuline? There isn't any amount of money or other stuff you could give me to make me do that. It's not possible.
I would do it for 1 million. Not full time though. One article and I'm out.
@@moraigna66 You still have to live with yourself after that. You may convince people of the case and cause them to vote against their interest. Doing it for a sports team is meaningless in the real world, but this is pretty dangerous.
"There's a high cost to making drugs affordable to Americans"
Mate, I get mine for free. Half of them I'm not even using.
I love the fact that she's talking about doing something to help people now, shouldn't be done because of the harm down the line.
I'm pretty sure the opposite argument is made not to make any genuine attempt to end the fossil fuel industry.
As a proud American, I will happily die of any and all preventable diseases if it means rich people can buy even more pointless yatchs.
McArdle has Hashimoto's thyroiditis. Maybe we when her thyroid gives out we can analysis the trade off of keeping her alive vs. having to read her dribble.
Let's be fair. She's looking out for all the people in the mortuary business who might lose their jobs. It's a thing.
Does she think that government money just vanishes into the ether?
_"Does she think.."_
No. She obeys.
The way she said 'otherwise the money is just getting soaked up by the government' just really stuck out to me@@Elrond_Hubbard_1
So this is what caused Matt’s stroke
Matt was on fire in this
WIll was. Matt was a stuttering wreck.
@@lutherblissett9070 Will was too to be fair but Matt always puts into really good rants what I'm thinking
@@lutherblissett9070 this is probably the most frustrated and angry Will I've seen.
@@airex12 He just repeated the same thing (boiler plate Marxism) three times. Terrible delivery too.
My dude always goes hard
I swear to god, I'd be shocked if McArdle wasn't a disciple of Moldbug. They both use that same pointlessly verbose. Wittgenstein-as-Sociopath "What you see with your own eyes isn't what's there" philosophizing, but say what you will about Moldbug, at least he ADMITS to being an authoritarian. At first I thought she was merely obnoxious. Reading more of her articles on WaPo, I realized she's a soulless ghoul. And that's not even getting into the sockpuppets...
I would die within a couple of days from not having insulin. When you go into ketoacidosis, the pain and the constant vomiting would make me seriously consider killing myself. Now I have to actually think about my plan if I can't get insulin.
It is so bizarre to me how many americans are just accepting that any of their fellow citizen actually have to consider this. Any powerful person opposing universal healthcare is a traitor to their people.
My list of people who deserve a good, solid slap in the face from every rational human being this side of moral decency grows every day. I’ve added Megan McArdle to the list.
First ep. Ive ever listened to... they lived up to the hype...
a sickening glimpse into the psycho-emotional vacuum that is McCurdle's tragic, inconsequential existence
its genocide without state violence
It’s genocidal violence, but it’s relatively clean, you don’t have to send the National Guard in with guns and get blood everywhere (bad optics).
You just price them out of drugs they need to live and get them addicted to painkillers to hoover up the rest of their money before they die.
It’s a very efficient system if you’re a sociopath and/or a fascist.
@Quest Tzecai Classicide?
If I had made better choices, I could have had a gig at the NYT as a slightly less mediocre opinion writer.
We all could!
You know that scene in Full Metal Jacket with the bars of soap?
That one guy is almost at the point of screaming,
"Cuba made a cancer cure! In a *cave* ! With a box of *scraps* !"
So dystopian.
I will only die for chapo. most likely for felix, if it ever comes to that. god i hope it comes to that
This is so important- nailed it.
Blessed Bernie ad before the video 🙏🙏🙏
This is pretty relevant right now
my mother is a psychiatric nurse practitioner and is taken out to luxurious dinners by pharmaceutical companies multiple times a month - think $50 steaks - so they can pitch new drugs to her and her colleagues. it's crazy how much money the people with the patents spend on shit that doesn't actually help anyone
she hardly ever prescribes those medications too, fwiw
Economics is not a doctrine by which people are supposed to make decisions. It is the study of decisions people make given certain constraints. Not usually individuals, but many people. But yes, there are some things that shouldn’t be left to “free market competition”, like healthcare for instance. And when conservatives say “free market” they think it’s synonymous with perfect competition. It rarely is.
I like to compare for-profit healthcare to a hypothetical for-profit fire department to my right wing lunatic in-laws when the topic comes up. It shuts them right the hell up, especially when you point out that while not everyone’s house burns down, everyone gets sick and dies eventually. Not only does a for-profit fire department make no sense, but you can quickly imagine the types of moral hazards that would introduce if left to “ the free market”.
@@itsd0nk And yet there are some out there for whom that wouldn’t even strike a chord because they believe fire departments and police should be privatized. It would be absurd to privatize either. And I would bet if we had public healthcare, privatizing that would seem equally as absurd.
But since we have lived with it for so long, that absurdity just doesn’t register with many people.
@@MichaelTorres-b2v it doesn’t change their minds, but it usually shuts the conversation down. They just move on to racist comments about the new neighbors and the border wall 🤦🏻♂️
@@itsd0nk True.
A cursory glance at any pharmaceutical company's investor relations page completely contradicts McArdle's fantasy financial ideas. This is pure propaganda from her.
Naming my child Chapo McArdle
> "...And it may be time to sell one of those cars..."
> time to sell one of those cars
> one of
You can have more then one car?
A lot of middle-class Americans have _at least_ one car in the suburbs and exurbs.
Remember when neo liberals used to say mergers keep prices down remember scale of production
Neo liberals like Meagan are cowardly liars
Roll tanks into wall street
@Z'Q big brain thoughts chief I like it
@Z'Q We will build a Guillotine. No hanging required.
i think about this discussion a lot
"New drugs"... Which most Americans still can't afford.
*Huge win the battle of IDEAS*
Let them eat cake and sell their summer homes.
No lie, whenever I hear Will actually get pissed like at 9:13 I get low-key Lenny-faced
well, she did it. Meghan mccardle gave Matt a stroke
1:01
Tom MYERS A COMEDIAN
So, if it wasn't for the US system, pharma wouldn't be able to fund the types of research needed to advance new, potentially life saving drugs. She acknowledges that this is unfair, but has absolutely ZERO solutions to correct this imbalance, other than advocating the continued status quo in the US. The US population has to suffer, because, well......REASONS. You owe $5,000 in medical bills? Just be thankful that you're contributing to a NEW AGE of drugs that will save the world. What's that? That means you can't pay your rent and will become homeless? *PLUGS EARS* LALALALALALALA.
She’s also wrong tho, private medicine does absolutely nothing for progress
The world is fucked anyway.
Tax payer funded research develops new drugs
Some of you will die, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take.
She hates socialism but is apparently fine with americans subsidizing drug research for the world
Gawd, I love the way you guys put things. No wonder you're gaining popularity.
Megan mccartle? More like, megan mcFARTle
Owned!
Prof Richard Wolff teaches at the New School; what is Felix really saying?! lol
I've actually been to Scores in Omaha and it seriously sucks how it's always packed with those damn physicians, they make it rain in there and make my hand full of change look pitiful
"It may cause Matt to have a stroke" what did Will mean by this
This was the new time release stroke that was invented by the profits big pharma made from overcharging Americans for insulin
This Mcardle reading series was a time delay explosive or something
"May cause Matt to have a stroke"
Whoops
The 🐐
I absolutely adore the Chapo fanbase. I love how young and full of life they are. I love how rebellious they are. They say "fuck you to the Democrat establishment".
The sense of anti establishment socialism in chapo is phenomenal.
Chapo will continue to grow in content, but more importantly the fanbase will continue to grow. Hopefully, Chapo will help the Democrats become real socialist instead of knock off poor man's marxism
Alot of this episode reminds me of an arstechnica article I read. Good stuff. Beware the flesh eating bacteria.
The antibiotic resistant bacteria is honestly terrifying. Nature fighting back against man's exploitation
Have you ever heard of flesh eating bacteria? it's horrifying.
Capitalism is strangely making bacteria stronger. The antibiotics industry is about profit less than it is about fighting disease.
I think maybe I'm rooting for the bacteria.
Climate change and anti-biotic resistant bacteria. God himself is disgusted at how we treat the planet and each other. He sends his great plagues to make us suffer for our sins.
Gotta speak their language 🤠
@@Elrond_Hubbard_1 I would be too tbh, but it won't be the people responsible who suffer, it'll be mostly the 3rd world
@@52flyingbicycles Yeah but evangelicals love that shit. They DREAM and PRAY for the apocalypse, as fucked as it sounds.
"Who counts the money underneath the bars?
Who rides the wrecking-ball into our guitars?"
McArdle plays the mamba
Look at Wyatt Koch go
Don't you remember?
We built this podcast,
We built this podcast and called it Chapo
Love these clips! Great graphics, great content. Nice job, Chris!
XDR bacteria keep me up at night.
No money to prevent the extensively drug resistant bacteria, Tuberculosis, Leprosy, and fungi apocalypse.
i couldn't even finish listening to this. Just fucking infuriating to the highest degree imaginable.
Oups I guess research grants and subsidies from the taxpayer don’t help pharmaceutical companies..
When Megan is talking about the whole Sheep Farm thing, she is basically talking about the very basic concept of Opportunity Cost. That's a real thing, and government policy writers should always include that in their analysis, but she is doing some sleight of hand with it here. Yes it is true that if the returns to a business are negative, or zero, or just less than the next thing, then Yes, generally people won't do it. But the question is, does that really describe the market for most drugs and medical devices? The returns aren't high enough?
There are a large number of reasons for why research is so expensive, and why the development process is risky and we could handle them in many different ways. For example, I think a lot of the FDAs funding comes from the application fees the drug companies have to pay that enter them into clinical trials and all that. Maybe we could just have Federal funds go to that kind of exploration, similar to how GPS, wireless communication, transistors all came from military research in the 50s and 60s.
Also, we could standardize the channels for distribution of drugs (as you guys mentioned) which can get drugs needed by medical prescription, and then that can eliminate the marketing budget of these companies. I believe that would take a huge chunk out of the prices (at least for drugs that apply to more common conditions like insulin, etc.)
That's like saying you should spend $250,000 on a Ford Edge to give them the incentive to make better cars.
That could be used for anything but it's always a bad argument
i wonder what she would say about what we're going through now....... hmmmmm
Wow someone actually used the word "addicting" properly.
I high key selected this video because the thumbnail “you should die you diabetic peasants” because I’m diabetic
How about: your mail carrier is also your phamacist?
It is interesting that he notes there are actually people who want to help other people instead of making a ton of money off of them, ironically at the expense of their health!
I guess I'm lucky to be in driving distance to Vancouver for my insulin.
The madman warned us of covid 🤷♂️
This aged well
So all those 10k walk , runs for cancer, donate for the cure ( name your disease) paid for not s thing , bull shit......
24:45 I heard them say the "David Egg theory". That doesn't sound right. Does anyone know what that's about?
David Icke, conspiracy theorist who believes we're ruled by humanoid "Lizard People" in homsapien-sapiens-passing skin suits.
its real great that the US system produces lots of new drugs for consumers who can't afford those either
9:11
im ashamed to say the most infuriating thing I heard in this whole video is someone refer to tortillas as "soft taco shells".
we can just take the research scientists, and push them somewhere else!
Wish you guys would make videos of your vlogs
@8:05 F*ckin gold!
She looks like Suzy from curb but cuntier
She really is just one of the worst, most willfully bad people alive.
28:19 Isn't this just economic performativity?
The household comparison isn't even a good comparison.
Wouldn't you want to cut back on things, like, oh I dunno, a vacation to the UK, if you need to get a car to go to your fucking job?
Doesn't the free market allow for a competitor to produce insulin and analogs, deliver them to market at a lower price, and profit from market share? Imagine a world where all the virtuous poli-sci majors studied biochemistry instead and then founded the "Cheap Generous Insulin Corporation." It's weird that it doesn't exist yet.
If Phama were plowing all of their earnings into research, we may not have a problem. But those "huge profits" she mentions are not used for research. That's why they're called "profits"!
(is she dumb, or actually part of a very subtle propaganda campaign of capitalist realism? After all, she technically said the profits "encourage" research, which is not as obviously wrong, but it's a strange way of speaking)
Richard Wolffs New school?
IMMEDIATE
NOT QUITE AS IMMEDIATE, BUT STILL PRETTY QUICK.
Use Chapo Trap Ho
So health care is an essential good as are prescription drugs, and researching prescription drugs requires a high initial investment with people you have very specialized skills...SHEEP FARM YEAH!!!!11!!!1!.
Yoh the cancer thing isn't true, well but it is true to some extent..but not all saving
I love this podcast but I am so terrified to listen to this because with every discussion of Diabetes, even on the left, there is the faulty fake science that blames fat people for getting Diabetes. I have two diabetic parents and was insulin resistant by age 3. That is the bodies epigenetic and genetic response to having thrifty genes. There is an 80% chance I will develop diabetes by age 40 as a result of my genetics. The hatred and blaming of fat people, especially fat women in this culture, is causing a cortisol spike that leads to more diabetes. Please, stop hating us. Stop telling us we are disgusting lazy overeating and ugly. We are not. STOP BLAMING PEOPLE FOR THEIR DIABETES. This stigma is so high many fat people will just not go to the doctor and die early rather than be shamed and mocked or die as a result of stomach amputation. Fat people kill themselves every day from the trauma of living within a culture that hates them and wants them to die.
That literally never once comes up, and I don't think I've ever heard any fat jokes ever, except Matt making fun of himself
I really hate when some commentator starts talking about economics because no matter if they are Crowder, Contrapoints, Shapiro or Chapos, they never have any fucking clue what they are talking about, It is obvious they half read some economics textbook by Mankiw or Bernanke, and they they stopped and think they get what the science is about and that in 200 years no one has thought about altruism or the assumptions economics makes.
stopped listening when you decided to rate a piece of writing by how many romantic partners the writer had in the past. that's a sure sign of desperation. look, if you want to be newspaper writers instead of podcasters, you can be. you just need to go back to college and finish your degrees.
zEropoint68
They didn’t say that but okay
what kind of ears do you have that makes you hear things people didn't say
Is this supposed to be some kind of woke thing
@@thebible4484 galaxy brain type woke
😂 whut? The point about newspaper writers makes no sense.
Remember when neo liberals used to say mergers keep prices down remember scale of production
Neo liberals like Meagan are cowardly liars
It's kind of funny how that argument unintentionally promotes central planning, if you follow it to its ultimate conclusion.