Free Markets and Flu - A Deadly Combo

[JohnT]

... and I said that, where?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And he might say that regulation is difficult in international settings where the law of the jungle still prevails.

And I suppose that US anti-trust laws are there without any justification whatsoever. None at all. They're just big meanie gobments intruding on good honest folk trying to get by, right?

He does say that just one law, rule, tax, or regulation that possibly impacts commerce does not a "free market" make. Ergo, laws against murder violate "free market" principles and if you live in a society with laws against killing, you don't live in a "free market" economy.

It's why I always use quotation marks whenever I mention "free markets" around OB, as he loves nothing more than bandying semantics to the point of uselessness.

[notyoueither]

Oh. Carry on, then.

[JohnT]

Btw, I support anti-trust laws and wish they'd be used more... especially in regards to cable and media companies.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by JohnT


... But I repeat DinoDoc: What the hell are you talking about?

Secondly, do you always have to use insults in your arguments?

Personal insults: I don't mind them if they come along with a point and if they are somewhat funny. Yeah, somewhat

And what am I talking about? I'll make it simpler: a Corporations' dream is to control both offer and demand, which has nothing to with Free Market, I agree.

Now back to the oil crisis: I never said it was caused by the Free Market; it was caused by bypassing its principles. Producing just like the demand is bad for selling prices; thus cartels reduce production by 10% and prices rise by 50% (the numbers are purely speculated, this is just an example).

[JohnT]

Well, they do nothing but detract from your arguments and how you're viewed by the community. Such things might not matter to you, but you'll find that you and your points would be better received and better-debated if you leave them out.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by JohnT


He does say that just one law, rule, tax, or regulation that possibly impacts commerce does not a "free market" make. Ergo, laws against murder violate "free market" principles and if you live in a society with laws against killing, you don't live in a "free market" economy.

It's why I always use quotation marks whenever I mention "free markets" around OB, as he loves nothing more than bandying semantics to the point of uselessness.

C'mon, JohnT. I use "free market" in its libertarian meaning, which means all regulations are not economic but political.
What a libertarian postulates is that the only crimes are those using physical violence, or those that are a direct violation of property (fraud). Besides this, everything is allowed.

[DinoDoc]

FakeBoris is still clear as mud to me. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how someone can get around the dissonance caused by relating OPEC to a free market without having thier head explode.

[Imran Siddiqui]

DD: I'm not sure that he doesn't know that OPEC was a government run cartel and no private corporations were involved .

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mordoch -

The program she and her hubby began is still in effect, "Vaccines for Children".

The problem is that this program is definately being run by the government, specificly the CDC, and is therefore included in the under 10% figure. Given that's clearly only a portion of the purchases, its safe to say that any argument that the "Vaccines for Children" program is responsible for the state of the Flu manufacturing companies is utterly bogus. Additionally, there definately appears to be no compulsion on manufacturers to sell to the "Vaccines for Children program" as "Manufacturers of Tetanus Diphtheria (Td, DT) vaccines have refused to bid on CDC contracts since 1998, making these vaccines unavailable for purchase through the VFC program."
http://www.cdc.gov/programs/immun9.htm This means that if it was unprofitable to sell their vaccines to the government, they would refuse to do so and just sell to private companies.

According the guidelines that appear to have been in place for years, only children 6 to 23 months are ordinarily eligible for flu vaccines under the program unless they come from "high risk" households. I'll repeat again, if the market was as bad as you were claiming, "Flu Mist" would have avoided entering the market. The program may have more of an effect with regards to other vaccine products, but it definately does not look like it can be blamed for the flu vaccine shortage.

[JohnT]

C'mon, JohnT. I use "free market" in its libertarian meaning, which means all regulations are not economic but political.

See? Bandying semantics.

[DinoDoc]

Why in God's name are you people still on the Times article? Quoting the Times is about as worthwhile as quoting the World Socialist website.

[Mr. Harley]

Impressive - I leave for 16 hours and the discussion really gets going!

JohnT, please give me the courtesy of reading my posts. I specifically ORDERED the damn vaccine, and delayed having her get it because giving the vaccine to a six month old is relatively new policy (the RECOMMENDED part by the CDC) and it is rough on their bodies. We both (me and my wife) thought it was safer to wait, took reasonable steps to make sure she would have the vaccine, and then got blind-sided.

Nobody at the pediatrics group had the courtesy to tell us - that our requesting it specifically makes no difference, we only give them on a first come-first served basis. As I stated, that is an entirely seperate issue (the lack of customer-oriented policies in the medical field - that's for a different thread) that I am going to take up with the office manager. If I am not satisfied, I will take my business elsewhere. And I am willing to prepay, as I stated, unlike some consumers who want the business to absorb capital costs. I just want the opportunity to prepay! Think aboout it. The fact I'm writing this, from a business standpoint, is ridiculous.

There are some interesting things brought up on the posts here. Berzerker, I have to give Mordoch the citation award. The Washington Times is biased by their own admission, and is the primary source you quote. Mordoch goes with the CDC, which has already had to make changes to its web sites under the Bush administation. It definitely is not a liberal group, and tries very hard to be unbiased. Plus, the Washington Times is presenting a seriously over-simplied causation argument, without looking at the complexities, to support agenda driven reporting.

You, nor any of the other rampant free-market types, have addressed the issue I brought up about mature markets. Today's Wall Street seldom rewards a company whose growth does not exceed the national growth rate. That is why I made my comments about mature industries, and capital. Investment bankers definitely expect a return well above interest rates. This will typically not happen in a mature industry. It can't.

Please note, that when a new vaccine was produced (the nasal one) outside the mature industry, even at a higher price, it was produced. It met various needs, showing that the free markets can work. But growth will only occur with truly new products, in a market that can afford to pay for them (which is one reason we don't have a malaria vaccine - it's both technically exceedingly tough, and the markets for it are going to produce minimal profit). The vaccine market is mature, with limited growth potential.

Oncle Boris, though I may disagree with many of his posts and totally disagree with his style of argument, made a very succinct point about cartels, though this is more of a case of consolidation. The consolidation that has occured in the vaccine industry is a result of what naturally occurs in mature free markets. Add in the factors about low return, and you get a small number of vaccine manufacterers. Drug companies expect a much higher mark-up than available for the typical vaccine. You cannot get it from what is essentially a generic product - most vaccines have no patent protection.

You end up with a defacto cartel-like situation. Stopping imports for legitimate and also exagerated health reasons (government intervention) supported by the vaccine manufacterers. Due to consolidation, a limited ability to sue over contract issues - putting one of the two vaccine companies out of business is like cutting off your nose to spite... Can anybody find me the number of vaccine companies in 1992 (prior to Hillary) and in 1985 (prior to the tort reform). Also a similar snapshot for the entire drug industry. I've just spent half and hour and had no luck.

The whole Autism issue makes another point. So far the science is inconclusive. People forget that the science of communicable diseases is not, and is you look at the pre-vaccine days, the number of children suffering life-long consequences (deafness, brain damage, being crippled, ad naseum) from these childhood diseases is more direct, and provable.

However, people have forgotten that. People scared by the Autism link have been withholding their children from the vaccination network. As long as the numbers are small, they can piggyback on the herd immunity (technical term - enough people are immunized that the non-immunized gain the same benefit, to slightly oversimplify). Unfortunately, the numbers are becoming sufficiently high that we are in danger of losing that herd immunity.

Issues like that are one of the reasons public health types supported Hillary Clinton's program. No matter how misguided you may feel it was economically, from a public health standpoint it was sound policy. Before you run on about how the poor could always get free vaccines, read some local coverage from various states. Over the last couple of years states have been cutting the free vaccine programs, due to budgetary constraints. Hillary Clinton as a prophetic voice. Please don't choke too hard . Just for the record, I don't like her either, but I couldn't resist.

The class action commentary applies primarily to this very narrow case (though if you go to Mississippi I'll bet you can find an exception ) - thimerosal as a preservative and the inconclusive links to autism. That affects only one company, remember in 1986 the industry received liability protection and the consoldation still continued, even prior to either the Clintons or the thimerosal suit (look back at the mature markets part of this post). The problem is similar to the one with lead paint. Austria and France banned it for indoor use in 1909 - the same did not occur in the US until 1978! For whatever reason, US companies have a historical tendency to practice reactive versus proactive safety. It's an ongoing debate, and unfortunaly leads to the kinds of class-action lawsuits we are talking about.

Injecting mecury complexes (metallic mercury is hard to metabolize, which makes it biologically less reactive) into children, whom we are finding out already are getting a fair degree of exposure due to coal-burning and fish consumption appears foolish. Especially as each exposure is cumulative. Add in the huge increase in the number of vaccines each child receives over the last half century, and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out MAYBE this is not such a good idea. The manufacterer was complacent about it, and now they are getting their butts sued.

If you wait until you have proof of a problem, instead of indications, you are going to have individuals who are part of the "statistics" that make up that proof. Their families are going to be less than happy. Look at asbestos, lead, and the Ford Explorer. This doesn't mean that I like class action suits, all they usually produce are exorbitant fees and the inclusion of people with no actual harm, to the detriment of those who are genuinely hurt. Unfortunately sometimes class action suits end up being the only venue available for the little guy.

My wife and I looked at the numbers, read journal aritcles, and have chosen to stretch out our little girl's vaccines. We make two visits two weeks apart and have each group of vaccines split in two. It's a compromise between the inconclusive research and possible dangers posed by either some of the vaccines or the large number now given, and the definite danger these diseases pose. We are fortunate in having the time resources to do this, many parents do not.

edited - to correct transposed names - it was Berserker, not Imran, whose citations are blatantly biased.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see your point but it's not like the government decided to step in after the fact, it's there all along...

Jeez, I was saying it was ironic, I wasn't making a 'point'!

Imran, I have to give Mordoch the citation award. The Washington Times is biased by their own admission, and is the primary source you quote.

I haven't quoted ANY sources. Perhaps you are thinking of Berzerker?

[Mr. Harley]

Imran, I sit corrected. I apologize, and am editing the post. I periodically transpose names (I did it with Sikander and Ned in another thread). That's why I learned to use "dear", "sweetheart", and "honey", women have NO sense of humor about things like that the morning afterwards.