If you don't want to go through your insurance company you can check out an app we built called RoadClub. You get points for safe driving behavior - and you can get the hard brake alerts. Is it a bit annoying? yes. You can't just drive agressively - you need to give space to slow down. I still struggle with it.
Drug companies produce drugs to make money. There is a huge investment. They maximize revenue by price discrimination to recover the cost of the good drug and all the drugs that didn't work. The US is a rich country. People in other countries can't pay as much for the drug. To maximize revenue the drug company sells the drug at a lower price to those people.
More generally, price controls lead to less supply. Drug price controls will result in fewer new drugs. Minimum wage laws result in no workers doing work that is worth less than minimum wage. Anti- price gouging laws result in less bottled water and fewer generators after a hurricane. The principle is universal despite promises of delightful state run grocery stores.
It can't possibly be a net positive. The first pill costs $1B and subsequent ones costs 50 cents. Yes, the U.S. pays more, but the result can only be some combination of 1) other countries also paying more and 2) fewer new drugs.
And 3) US consumers pay less for pharmaceuticals. Together this might be a net positive for US consumers (even if they get fewer new drugs out of the bargain).
Well that's the choice. Allow drug companies to price discriminate so that poorer people can also buy the drugs or don't allow it and get more new drugs. It's not clear that drug companies are even going to retain low prices in other countries if it means that the US consumers will pay less.
Which drugs that haven't been invented yet do you think we should forego?
Why are you so sure that isn't a net positive? Maybe we're spending too much money on inventing drugs that would be better spent on building houses or feeding the poor.
Made in the disturbed minds of Hamas: How foolishly attacking a superior military in the hopes that your similarly disturbed allies might join in. Miscalculation results in their destruction as well as that of your own territory.
What year do you think it is? The US is actively aggressive in multiple areas of the world. As a non US citizen I don’t think helping that effort at the expense of the rest of the world is good.
Yeah. That's all absurd. It's a big leap from that to the conclusion that the US military isn't a net good for the world. What post-modern world do you think you're living in in which militaries aren't needed for defense? And if they weren't around to defend you, you'd be better off? The veneer of civilization isn't as thick as you seem to think.
I mean that it's one thing to think it's bad to be defending the US. And it's another thing to think it's bad for the US to be defending the place you live.
I'd prefer we kicked out the usians and reformed back into people's defense forces.
I've spent some time in the military but didn't pursue it because they made a law where we could be ordered to participate in foreign missions, and at the time I knew people who had been to Afghanistan and helped out protecting US drug barons. They weren't feeling very good and got very little assistance with their psychiatric issues, like going to parties and drinking and crying a lot and sometimes tell stories about kids they'd murdered.
That sounds reasonable but is it realistic to believe that with military spending of 10% of your potential adversary (i.e., Russia) Sweden would be able to mount a credible defense on its own?
Partly because they're paying for drug innovation and defense for other countries.
reply