The EU also has regulations, but somehow it does not make insulin as expensive as in the US. Maybe the existence of a regulation is not the issue here.
Existence of specific bad US regulation and overregulation caused this.
Bad EU regulations and overregulation caused other problems. For example it is illegal for me to throw old socks full of holes into trash, I am supposed to take it to recycling centre on other side of the city.
Oh yeah, because in the absence of regulation, the insulin producer would sell it at negligible margins, sure!
As for the socks - my city has like ~5 locations where old textiles can be recycled, the closest one in slightly less than 1km from where I live. I see no problem with going there twice a year :)
With lack of regulations, the theory is, there will be many competing manufacturers of insulin, dropping the cost down. Probably not as simple as that, but that's the idea at least
Now, that's all just regulations. What are regulations but laws that restrict/govern the way to do commerce? Anti-slavery is part of that, just like every other concession we've had to pry from the hands of capitalists over the last 100 years, like no child labor, no locking workers into factories, PPE, etc...
You're free to call contract law and private property law "regulations", but recognize that these branches of law have very different properties, history, and functions than what we traditionally refer to by regulations. Traditionally, when people talk about regulations they are talking about legislation, i.e., rules and decrees created by a legislative body, voted into law by some parliamentary body or created by an executive agency to support decrees of a parliamentary or similar body with the power to declare law. You can think of this as legislation or declaratory law.
Contrast this with contract and property law. These laws were created primarily out of common law, a long evolutionary process arising out of series of decisions from a judiciary attempting to reconcile conflicts between the parties. This is judicial or conciliatory law.
Crucially, most if not all the advances and the rise of extreme productivity from capitalism that supports populations in excess of 8 billion as opposed to about 0.5 billion, have come from emphasis and pre-eminence on the latter kind of law and the smashing of the former kind of law, i.e., the destruction of the guild system of privileges, removing or minimizing protectionist laws, etc. And the former kind of law has either been nominal, merely codifying the advances caused by the latter law like in the case of child labor, or it has been reactionary and hampered the progress of the latter sort of law.
Yes, insulin producers would! It is illegal to compete, and insulin producers enjoy a legally backed monopoly. Yes, removing the regulations which support that monopoly will reduce prices. Any other option merely exists to support and uphold the special privileges that the current regulatory regjme grants to insulin producers.
I don’t know where they live, but I’m 100% that it’s not an EU regulation, because I could throw socks into landfill/generic bins legally in the EU countries where I lived. Even the new EPR schemes about this is not about what’s mandatory by users, but what’s mandatory by textile manufacturers.
I don't think there is a simple explanation, that's why I used the word "morass".
"From when insulin is produced by the drug manufacturer to when it goes to a pharmacy, profit is extracted at every step of the way. The insulin market is dominated by three large drug manufacturers—Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk—that, with little competition, have raised their list prices in lockstep. But there are other players besides the Big Three that are contributing to the problem. Pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, contract with insurance carriers and act on behalf of the insurer to negotiate the price of insulin with the drug manufacturers. In negotiating the price, PBMs place a drug higher or lower on their tier of preferred drugs and receive rebates based on a percentage of the list price. This kind of system incentivizes high list prices, which determine the amount of co-insurance patients pay. And if patients have a high deductible or are uninsured, they might pay the entire list price."
> Government capture by big players who promote heavy regulation in order to eliminate smaller competition?
This is a meaningless statement without specifics. It has absolutely nothing concrete in it that would actually inform someone about what drives insulin production. It's a wrong and overly simplifies.
Are you really saying the regulations regarding the actual production of insulin is what drives up costs? We've been manufacturing insulin for > 100 years now.
And can you find a single resource that agrees with your assessment?
When you say "big players", you mean the top 3 right? Would regulating monopolies in the pharmaceutical industry maybe be a good thing?
Why do other counties pay less if it costs so much to make? Why does regulation in the US make US consumers pay more but not Europe, for example?
Do you think PBM's have any part to play in this? What about over-zealous patents by the monopoly at the top?
Do you have any actual experience in this field or are you just parroting talking points?
I worked for a large company that did devices used in surgery. They regarded FDA regulation as a moat that kept out all but large, established competitors.
Note that I am not saying that they tried to push (or worse, capture) regulators to achieve that end. I'm just saying that they didn't mind.
Yeah but EU regulation makes other things expensive and inefficient (like the labour market, housing, building new companies because incumbents protect their interests trhough regulation).
The fact is that with insulin the regulation issues comes from the patchwork system of healthcare the US developped through political concesssionns and lobbying from private firms, which makes the developpment and the subsequent commercialization expensive relative to Europe where centralized national bodies negotiate with the pharma companies.
Regulation can be good or bad, in our era it is ineffective because politicians are boomers disconnected from the issues or in the EU a pseudo-technocratic (not really listening to technocrats recommendations) body far from reality
> EU regulation makes other things expensive and inefficient (like the labour market, housing,
Unlike the US, where federal minimal wage remained flat since 2009 or where Black Rock is buying all available housing to keep the prices as high as possible.
The real minimum wage is also stuck in many parts of Europe relative to 2008. For example in Spain the average salary didnt increase adusted to inflation.
The blackrock thing seems like a myth, but private entities are also buying housing en masse in Spain for exammple
The minimum wage doesnt mean much in general, many European countries either dont have it or recently instated it (Germany). What matters is the Median and quintile salaries in which, the US fares much better anyways
Many other countries have official minimum wages and a big % of people working black, unreported because the minimum wage is to high relative to the average (Spain, Greece, Italy)
Sure, but could a gun also cause a similar shape within the pocket?
My point is that you wouldn’t necessarily want an AI that is designed to detect weapons in this manner to ignore a gun shaped object in a pocket because it might be something that is not a gun. So did the AI actually fail in this case? In my mind, no.
Please note, I am not debating here whether these types of detection systems should or shouldn’t be in use here. Personally I am very much against it. No doubt the human element of this story deserves criticism, but the AI? Not in my opinion.
A lot of the trends identified in this article are ubiquitous across academia, and in fact much worse in humanities -- having 99 TT positions open in a year would make my friends in the English department swoon!
It's just that economics, as a field, is better at making charts and loudly complaining about things.
NOAA/NASA (USA), EUMETSAT (European organization), JMA (Japan), KMA (Korea), and CMA (China) all have a geostationary satellite (one or more actually). So, northern hemisphere countries, but the coverage is global thanks to the fact that you need to be, as you say, above the equator.
If the question is about satellite vs ground instrument: the geographic coverage from the satellite is much greater. Geostationary instruments over Europe cover the Atlantic Ocean, Europe, Africa, the Middle East.
If that was not the question, can you provide more detail?
Thanks, this is indeed the question. Thinking out loud: the coverage is probably somewhat conic therefore if you want to scan the ground or lower atmosphere an high altitude is optimal, while scanning the upper atmosphere could be done from the ground.
Perhaps earth's spherical shape gives an advantage to the satellites in both cases ?
Maybe, though a GEO satellite (or really any satellite) will always be much much farther from even the upper atmosphere than the ground will be, so satellites have a pretty dominant coverage advantage.
Look for your dataset here https://data.eumetsat.int/ (Note: you need registration but it is free).