006 – The Debate

The Biggest Losers – Was It A Trifecta?

The United States of America, in particular the Constitution, was the biggest loser in the First Presidential Debate of 2016. The runner-ups were the media followed closely by the two candidates.

The position that the candidates hold on “Stop and Frisk” is outrageous. Trump endorsing it and Hillary stating that it should be used only when necessary. I take that to mean only on “super predators”. This type of oppressive force was one of the major reasons that the citizens of Boston back in the 1770’s protested against the standing army that the British had deployed on the streets of that fine American city.

Illegal search was also a driving force of the anti-federalist during many of the 13 State’s Constitutional Ratification Conventions. Illegal search was a major point in their heated discussions of those conventions. Their insistence to clarify a citizen’s rights against the State even convinced the federalist to expound upon it. The ratification of the Constitution would ensue partially due to the promise of a “Bill of Rights” type amendments that were to address illegal search and seizure.  *

The second assault against the constitution is the fact that both candidate support the concept that if a citizens name appears on a government generated secretive list it would be acceptable to strip that citizen of their Constitutional rights. To use a secretive list, that who knows the criteria that will land you on it, as a reason to deny your 2nd Amendment **  right is scary. Am I on the “No Fly” list for writing this blog? I will not know until I attempt to book my next flight.

My point is that “list” should not be to used to strip the constitutional rights of citizens. List are arbitrarily created by agenda driven bureaucrats. Governmental lists are most often used in an immoral and unjust manner.  They have been proven to be wrong and harmful to many innocent citizens. Is there another Joe McCarty type lurking in the shadows of the NSA or the TSA? Why let habeas corpus get in the way of another failed governmental security ploy.

The United States of America does not have a glowing history of it’s usage of governmental list.  I’m sure the Japanese-American community might have a relevant argument against “lists”.  Maybe take a look at the “red” screenwriters in Hollywood during the 1950’s. A vote for either of these demagogues will ensure a future of limited rights for the compliant and restricted rights, if any, for the critics.

In the wake of Monday nights assaults on the 4th and 2nd amendment one would think that the “cracker jack” investigative reporters of mainstream media would have been incensed. No, it is most frightening that the compliant media either missed it or choose not to address the tyrannical stance of the candidates.

The news from the debate should have included a review of the Presidential Oath of Office. The oath requires their pledge to defend the Constitution, that includes the Bill of Rights. So, how can a candidate get away with statements that defy and undermine the Constitution? I assume the media “marketeers” believe a spat and statements made by an ex-reality TV host and an ex-beauty contestant is more relevant than defending the Constitution. Maybe I should correct my assumption to include that it may motivate more viewers to tune in to the next episode.

When did mainstream media become just another reality TV show? I guess the Presidential Race Show does have a winning formula. In the battle for power it is the villains that make good reality TV. In this show we have two of them running for President.

No, again I must correct myself.  The BIGGEST losers were the Citizens of the United States. We deserve better and we have to demand it. We need better candidates and a better media that stops being a mouth piece for the Washington status quo.

*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

**A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


005 Moving On – EpiPen

Enough with the elector process. I’m moving on.

EpiPen “With a Little Help From My Friends”

EpiPen has recently attracted attention due to the fact that the price for a pack of two has increased about 600% in less than 10 years. Mylan, owners of EpiPen, has responded by pointing out that many of their customers pay nothing for the drug because of insurance coverage. Really, if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound argument.

Most of the “corporate” mainstream news media point the finger at greedy corporations who are not regulated enough. Instead of reporting the history of how the price of the EpiPen has risen the media searches for convenient scapegoats or villain to rally its troops against. Incomplete reporting is irresponsible and distorts reality. Sloppy reporting shields the real culprits, crony capitalism and the bureaucrats, at the expense of the innocent. In this case the free markets, true capitalism and the consumer.

Monopolies exist when competition is eliminated.  With no competitors a firm can raise their prices without a competing companies entering the market to give consumers what they want at a lower price. As it turns out, Mylan has friends that help to keep competitors out of the market. Their friends are the FDA, the U.S. patent system and the regulated insurance industry. The common denominator in the fore mentioned trio is the State.

“With Help From My Friends” Mylan has been able to steadily increase the price of EpiPens without significant market repercussions. Why? Because the alternatives are few and far between. The EpiPen is a device that easily and safely injects epinephrine to quickly open up airways for people undergoing severe anaphylaxis because of an extreme allergy. It has saved the lives of countless people who are allergic to bee stings, certain foods, or other drugs because it can be administered on the spot by somebody without any medical training.

Epinephrine cost is cheap. A dose of epinephrine is just a few cents. The barrier that has allowed the EpiPen’s to increase their price is its delivery system. The auto-injecting device is owned by Mylan. So, in order to compete with Mylan a new injector system device has to be designed, tested and approved. This process, coupled with the FDA red tape, has proven to be too expensive, time consuming and difficult for EpiPen competitors.

Examples of attempts to enter the “EpiPen” market:                                                                     “A French pharmaceutical company offered an electronic device that actually talks people through the steps of administering the drug, but it was recalled because of concerns about it delivering the required dose. Just this year, Teva Pharmaceutical’s attempt at bringing a generic epinephrine injector to market in the US was blocked by the FDA. Adrenaclick and Twinject were unable to get insurance companies on board and so discontinued their injectors in 2012.

Adrenaclick has since come back, but it is still not covered by many insurance plans, and the FDA has made it illegal for pharmacies to substitute Adrenaclick as a generic alternative to EpiPen. Another company tried to sidestep the whole auto-injector patent barrier by offering prefilled syringes, but the FDA has stalled them, too.” 1

As Mylan’s “friends” took care of the competition Mylan increased the price of EpiPens. To “add salt to the wound” local, state and federal laws have made it mandatory to have EpiPens present on the premises of many public and private locals. Some venues actually require more that one EpiPen. The businesses and locations include schools, restaurants and cafeterias.

So, government intervention has not only created the environment for price gouging to occur they have produced and expanded the market for a “friend’s” product. Monopolies exist due to the fact that there is no competition or the competition has been eliminated. This situation exemplifies how government regulations, patents, licenses and other imposed restriction create monopolies. Is this fair to the consumer or do regulation protect the profits of the chosen?

Free markets and capitalism is not to blame government regulations are. Companies must be allowed to compete on even ground in a free market. Eliminating the regulation imposed by the FDA, the U.S. patent system and the insurance industry will ensure a cheap and affective solution for severe allergic reaction.

If intellectual property rights, copyrights and patents, are removed the consumer benefits. Intellectual property rights ensure unjust pricing and profit while eliminating competition by creating monopolies. Laws are made to protect individuals not to guarantee profits.


1 Jonathan Newman “The Lack of EpiPen Competitors is the FDA’s Fault” Mises Institute