Santorum Tells Sick Kid Market Should Set Drug Prices

[solanis]

if you have to bring a paper bag lunch to work to save money in one city, but you can eat out in another city and save the same amount, then the first city is more expensive. one would even go so far as to say it's not worth it to pay a premium to live in that more expensive city when you can't afford to take advantage of its offerings.

[Demosthenes11]

if you have to bring a paper bag lunch to work to save money in one city, but you can eat out in another city and save the same amount, then the first city is more expensive.

let me know where I said this. please

[solanis]

it was somewhere inbetween your inaccurate rendering of a NYC budget and your straw man argument that only paupers bring lunch to work after making it at home.

[Correction]

Ah, I was about to post about solanis's incomprehensible 'ITT' remark when he ninja edited it.

Still, why must this thread continue to be ping-pong about an irrelevant cost of living discussion? NYC is one of the most expensive places in the world to live, who cares how much you have to make to live one lifestyle over the other there?

[Howie Roary]

I can't help but think of Atlas Shrugged, and the government wanting to commandeer his steel production company simply because his product was so good, they felt entitled to it etc

Of course, there was a more extreme example of that one pirate-ish guy (I forget his name) who was sinking ships of supplies sent to 3rd world countries. The upshot of it is that people should be able to support themselves and live off of their own labour and the proceeds from it.

Should the companies work for free? No. Are they charging way too much? Yes. But I think there is definitely merit in attempting to view this situation with all the bleeding hearts set aside, and compare this to a different type of (non-life-saving) product.

It's never a popular opinion espoused, but look at the piracy of the supplies being shipped to 3rd world countries example, and again change the emotionally charged situation from starving and dying people to that of a forest of trees (hear me out). Oddly enough, forest fires are a good thing for a forest because the soil that results from all the ash is actually very rich and the trees that later grow from it have a very healthy environment, which can support itself. An overpopulated country isn't really being helped by prolonging the inevitable righting of the population pyramid (this is probably a horribly out-dated model, I apologize), but in short, eventually a population that can support itself should arise.

Bringing this back to overpriced life-saving drugs? well, for better or worse they have every right to keep doing what they're doing, and we have no entitlement to their intellectual property rights and its boons. It's not a pretty situation but once again the rich can afford the better medicine, nothing new. If you want it, then petition your government to have it funded/reimbursed w/e but even still that is done via taxes and then equal access to medicine for all etc. None of that means the drug companies owe us anything though

[Demosthenes11]

Ah, I was about to post about solanis's incomprehensible 'ITT' remark when he ninja edited it.

Still, why must this thread continue to be ping-pong about an irrelevant cost of living discussion? NYC is one of the most expensive places in the world to live, who cares how much you have to make to live one lifestyle over the other there?

I'm just tired of solanis blatantly stretching truths to fit his argument. A single person in NYC making 75k is not living paycheck to paycheck. Stop saying that. Stop saying anything close to that. It's the basis of all "whaaa taxes" arguments and it's flat out ridiculous, as someone who lives in a city with the highest minimum wage in the US

[solanis]

I said you could live comfortably but if you chose to live comfortably, you'd be pretty close to living paycheck to paycheck because you wouldn't be saving much of anything. your response was to propose an unrealistic budget for a NYC resident, and to make up a bunch of class warfare straw man arguments. you have no idea what you're talking about, so keep your mouth shut. if it's so impossible for you to actually read anything I write without looking for something to throw a bitch fit over, why don't you put me on ignore and save us both from your ridiculous desire to dickride me?

[Xno Kappa]

Solanis is kinda right. 75k annually ain't really shit in Manhattan lol. Take your ass to Bronx, Brooklyn, or Queens to live comfortably with that income. Hell, go live in Jersey like a huge ass percentage of the work-force in the city already does.

[Demosthenes11]

75k is nothing, I can't even get a place in the vatican - who cares if I can live 1m from that

[Xno Kappa]

Yeah, it's only 1m between the boroughs in NYC and Jersey. Should only take like five minutes to get to Manhattan from any given area. Bring your own sandwich too.

[Demosthenes11]

if manhatten rent is too expensive for 75k, and there is good public trans in NYC, why are you living in manhatten

[Demosthenes11]

If I lived in the expensive part of SF, I wouldn't be able to afford it. But I'm not fucking retarded and live toward the outskirts where rent is considerably cheaper. Oh no my commute is 30 minutes.

[Xno Kappa]

Clearly, everyone only making 75k in Manhattan are retarded for not banking "600-700" dollars a month lmao.

[Xno Kappa]

Not sure if trolling but hilarious nonetheless lol.

[Demosthenes11]

yes, you are, because you are living somewhere you can't afford.

[djzombie]

Some of your estimates for prices around this area are way off.

100 for utilities (high end)

I don't even live in the city, an hour north of NYC actually, and our electric bill is easily 150-200 a month in a very small place, and we don't leave shit on as you suggested. Right now the only things on in our house is one lamp and my computer(aside from appliances like the refrigerator).

And that's not even including heat or anything like that, our hot water tank, furnace and stove all run off of propane, around 600 every 2 months to fill them(3 months during warmer times). Thankfully its been a rather mild winter. Energy prices are just ludicrous in this neck of the woods, I'd imagine even more so in the city.

I would agree with you that living comfortably on 75k should be entirely possible, but your estimates on some of the things you listed are pretty off. Again, situational, if I had a choice - I definitely wouldn't be using propane for practically everything in the house, but we rent, so it is what it is.

[Penthesilea]

I'm paying approx. 500 a month in gas/electric/cable/internet split between 4 people. Granted this is a big house but it's still pretty insane. Doesn't include water either, not sure what that runs.

[Demosthenes11]

wow I forgot how much better california is than the rest of the nation. For a 1 bedroom apartment, between internet/tv/gas/elec/water/garbage, im paying about 200 per month, tops. That's with 50 mb net, HD programming, etc.

If you live in a house, your elec / heating bills go through the roof, though.

[solanis]

so you made your estimate of "100 high end" knowing it was bullshit

got it

[archibaldcrane]

I have two people living in a 3 bedroom house, and I don't think our monthly internet/tv/gas/elec/water/garbage is $200/mo total.

Lemme see.

For January:

Internet: $25
Satellite TV: $50 (2 rooms, 1 DVR, HD)
Gas: $52 (actually this was a 2-month bill. gas water heater, furnace (used occasionally), stove)
Electric/Water/Trash: $69

So yeah, just under $200 a month.