The Best $10,000 I Ever Spent

Share
Embed
  • Loading...
  • Published on:  Friday, July 26, 2019
  • I'm not an economist...and I don't actually know how to define value, but I know that fewer people taking medicine while more money gets made is /not/ creating value because it means there's more pain and suffering in the world. I think we, more than anything, need to realize that the definition of value is something that isn't settled.

    Sorry if this isn't what you were expecting. Ultimately, the money we have to spend is the best money we spend...but if there aren't systems in place to drive down the costs of those needs, we will spend everything we have on them. Those sources of extreme value: health, education, and housing being the big ones, can't be treated as if every drop of value should be extracted because, if that happens, the person will be impoverished by that system.

    Check out Mariana Mazzucato's work wherever you can find it.
    https://marianamazzucato.com/

    ----
    Subscribe to our newsletter! http://nerdfighteria.com/newsletter/
    And join the community at http://nerdfighteria.com http://effyeahnerdfighters.com
    Help transcribe videos - http://nerdfighteria.info
    John's twitter - http://twitter.com/johngreen
    Hank's twitter - http://twitter.com/hankgreen
    Hank's tumblr - http://edwardspoonhands.tumblr.com
    Listen to The Anthropocene Reviewed at http://www.theanthropocenereviewed.org
    Listen to Dear Hank and John at http://www.dearhankandjohn.org
Loading...

Comment

  • EozTheNew
    EozTheNew  21 days ago

    I'm the first person to admit that there is a lot I don't know or understand about the economy. But what I do know is that when we make, and accept, an argument that states that some course of action is great for the economy, even though it actually hurts innocent people, that deeply conflicts with my sense of ethics. I cannot, and we as a society should not, be happy to have a stronger economy at the cost of our most vulnerable fellow humans. If something "adds value" by decreasing human wellbeing, it is fundamentally wrong and I cannot be in favour of it.

  • Les Tutos by Ghita

    And here i am wondering whetever my pharmD enrollement is a great choice no offense

  • pikamew
    pikamew  a months ago

    Even when you're not paying for the use of your own body, like you with your medications and my boyfriend with his insulin, I just get migraines and at a time when I could barely buy groceries my insurance company denied my prescription and I was so desperate to make the agony stop that I paid over $800 to get my meds. The reason they cost so much? Because sumatriptan (imitrex) alone doesn't work well for me so my Dr. Prescribed Treximet which was not available as a generic even though sumatriptan is. Treximet is just sumatriptan plus naproxen sodium (Aleve). Thankfully now I'm on generic sumatriptan and I take it alongside naproxen so instead of $125 with insurance or $800 without it's $15 with insurance and $130 without. Oh and these are for 9 pills, NINE pills, I have a migraine an average of 12 days/month so yeah I paid over $800 just to suffer for 3 days instead of 12

  • Brosef
    Brosef  a months ago

    Bernard Sanders.

  • GregTom2
    GregTom2  a months ago

    As a Canadian pharmacist, the thought that the money that I earn is some of the customers/citizens/patients' best spent money is really comforting.

  • Bobbydog66
    Bobbydog66  a months ago +1

    Hmm, the thumbnail didn't turn out so happy.

  • Joe Murphy
    Joe Murphy  a months ago

    What you're talking about is capitalism, plain and simple. Marx said it best when he wrote that capitalism (if we personify it for illustration) produces wealth for the sake of further producing more wealth, ad infinitum. It's not just corporate greed; it's the way the system itself is, as its life requires these sorts of practices (and yet, ironically, also destabilize it).

  • Minnie
    Minnie  a months ago

    I'm lucky my medicine is $4 at the Walmart pharmacy. But it makes me nervous having to rely on a man made pill every day to stay alive, knowing how greedy man can be. I hope you, me and everyone who needs to can always afford to take our meds.

  • M.W. Kaplan
    M.W. Kaplan  2 months ago

    yeah, as a person with multiple chronic illnesses and also a humanitarian i.... think how US capitalism (all i interact with) inflates healthcare prices to prey on the most vulnerable amoung us is SUPER messed up.

  • UltraHuman
    UltraHuman  2 months ago +2

    How about we stop putting prices on things that are priceless ☹️💓💔

  • IceNixie0102
    IceNixie0102  2 months ago

    1:52 "[Insulin give you] a healthier, longer life."
    Yes, and no. Healthier than being dead, yeah. Longer, sure. But not like "helps you live to 80 instead of 60". More like "helps you live AT ALL". Cuz without it you die in DAYS. It gives you life, period. My life costs $1028.65/month, and that's just for the insulin, not including the delivery method or the monitors so that I can dose accurately. Yay US healthcare - a contradiction in terms.

  • Beth Ann
    Beth Ann  2 months ago +1

    ...$1700 a month is more than my take-home income

  • Laurasauras
    Laurasauras  2 months ago

    This one tugged on my empathy something fierce. I'm so glad you have your health and so sorry it isn't a given.

  • Shannon Walls
    Shannon Walls  2 months ago

    There is starting to be some debate in Canada about adding a universal drug plan. I'm not sure what to think about it, but I will admit my experiences have influenced me to think it would be a helpful thing. When I went on the anti-depressant Trintellix, I had a family doctor that knew me & my life, and knew I could not afford it. She got me signed up with a program funded by the pharma company that covered 80% of the cost, and that made it possible to take it. What scares me is, what if there hadn't been some way to get it? By the time I was prescribed it, my clinical depression could realistically and meaningfully be described as a life-threatening disease. I don't have answers.

  • Chaos Z
    Chaos Z  2 months ago

    My best money ever spent was FL Studio because ImageLine is awesome

  • hoseja
    hoseja  2 months ago +1

    LMAO American healthcare.

  • EikippieJ
    EikippieJ  2 months ago +1

    Dutchie here and that medicine is covered by our health insurance system (meaning you get it for free), and otherwise it'd be a little over €17.- for 90 pills. WTF is America doing to its people?

  • arjunyg
    arjunyg  2 months ago

    There’s more to this than simply blaming capitalism. The current drug pricing model relies deeply on patents for monopolization, which is decidedly not free market economics. It’s unclear why a company that reinvests their profits better, rather than wasting them on executives, doesn’t outcompete the current drug companies, but maybe the answer lies heavily with the small number of players and the scarcity of medical discovery? Idk, things to think about...

  • NOATSFilms
    NOATSFilms  2 months ago

    You might want to ask your doctor about the hot fire you've been spitting.

    Excellent video!

    Sanders and/or Warren 2020!!!

  • Edward Cree
    Edward Cree  2 months ago

    Using one of the most regulated, intermediated, subsidised market sectors in existence as an indictment of "Econ 101" is just so bass-ackwards the mind boggles. The reason the over-the-counter price of drugs (and the rest of healthcare) is rising so high is (at least in part) because the vast majority are getting it through insurance that's either subsidised or mandated or both. Obamacare isn't "something necessary to enable people to survive $1700/month drug costs", it's the cause of $1700/month drug costs. (Well, along with Medicare and Medicaid and a bunch of social-engineering-attempt rules about what insurers can and can't do.)


    As for patented tweaks to about-to-become-generic drugs, a patent is a government-granted monopoly; blaming free markets for the glaring flaws of the patent system takes some chutzpah. Add to that the frankly hideous costs of getting a drug approved by the FDA, even just a generic version of an existing brand-name drug, and it's kinda amazing any generics at all make it through.


    Hank, I'd recommend you read some of the articles on Slate Star Codex about this; relevant ones come up if you search for 'slatestarcodex generics'.



    I have to make a non-substantive quibble also about your claim that the value to a given patient of their medication hasn't changed over 20 years. Today we have more opportunities available to us, we can spend our time better (and less of it working); thus a year of life/health is worth more to us now. Obviously that doesn't cover 10x price increases, but it's an important part of "the world keeps getting better" that we shouldn't forget about, let alone casually deny.



    Oh, and share buybacks? Don't knock 'em. When a company is overcapitalised — that is, the total amount of capital invested in them is considerably greater than their operating needs — they have two options: they can either expand their operations (which tends to mean value-destroying mergers and acquisitions between incompatible companies) or they can buy back some shares, thus releasing that capital to go off and find better opportunities elsewhere in the market. So while the incentive structures for C-level executives may somewhat overproduce them, without direct evidence there's no reason to accuse any given buyback of being anything other than rational and economically productive.


    tl;dr: the "Econ 101" system you decry here is doing its level best to route around the damage the government is created and at least get some medications to some people. And it's not the microeconomists who conflate value with exchange-value; that's the macros and the Keynesians and the econometricians who think that GDP is important rather than being a proxy measure to which Goodhart's Law applies in full.