In Advertisements R Us by Melissa Rubin, she analyzes how advertisements appeal to its audience and how it reflects our society. Rubin describes a specific Coca-Cola ad from the 1950’s that contains a “Sprite Boy”, a large -Cola Coca vending machine, a variety of men, ranging from the working class to members of the army, and the occasional female. She states that this advertisement was very stereotypical of society during that decade and targeted the same demographic: white, working-class males- the same demographic that the Coca-Cola factories employed.
On top of that, bringing prescription drugs under Medicare, which would quadruple the cost of Health Care in Canada. However, it is an issue that cannot be overlooked, according to CBC News, almost 1 million Canadians give up on basic necessities like food and heat to afford prescription drugs. Rather than relying on taxes to fund prescription drugs under Medicare, a tax reform for businesses would be more effective. Lowering taxes and making it mandatory for companies that are in a certain
A doctor should always take into consideration what is best for their patients without being influenced by anyone. In Stephanie Saul’s article “Drug Makers Pay for Lunch as they Pitch” she discusses how pharmaceutical companies use free lunches as an incentive to influence Doctors to prescribe their brand drugs. Many see this situation of pharmaceutical companies purchasing meals for a Doctor’s entire office as not having any effect on the doctor’s decision to prescribe their brand. The reality is that these free lunches do influence a doctor to prescribe a certain brand drug when writing a patient’s prescription. A doctor should consider what is the best option for a patient something that is affordable and if the case is that a name brand drug is the best option it should not be influenced by the pharmaceutical company in any way.
The truth is the medical community holds the patient hostage for profits off of the remedies procured from people at no cost to them. Scientist play the game of supply and demand with a vengeance. When children are ill, mothers are dying there is no dollar amount that can be equated with the preservation of life. Scientist, researchers and pharmaceutical companies know this and they attach exuberant prices to the remedies, treatments and cures. When the science community found a way to control HIV/ AIDS, very few people were able to get treatment because it was very expensive.
Right now in the United States of America, there is a monopoly that exists that involves epinephrine auto-injectors. EpiPen is the United States only supplier of these auto-injectors because other brands have suffered setbacks and failures, patent protection laws, and because there are currently no generic versions of EpiPen in the United States (Johnson). This monopoly was not a problem until Mylan bought Meda AB in 2007 (Paton). “Since Mylan bought the rights to EpiPen in 2007, it has raised the price on 15 separate occasions, bringing the current list price to $608 for a two-pack up from about $50 a pen in 2007” (Mole). This has been a price increase of more than 500%, and this shows that Mylan has been using the monopoly to its advantage.
James R. Baker, MD and chief medical officer of Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE), writing an article for the STAT Magazine, discloses information regarding the pharmaceutical drug pricing controversy, in his case EpiPens, that affects many middle-classed Americans. By using the appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos, Baker presents a viewpoint that is antagonistic of the business practices pharmaceutical companies have been following for the last decade. One of the ways Baker acknowledges their argument is by appealing to the emotion of his audience with his introductory sentence that shows how parents are forced to make hard choices surrounding the health of their children. “All too often, parents of children with food allergies are forced to make hard choices. Many are splitting up twin packs of EpiPens, others are keeping them past their expiration dates, delaying filling the prescription,
In my opinion, I believe that “1917” was a mostly historically accurate movie of WW1 with its unusual military tactics, fashion attire, no man’s land, and the trenches. In the film, many of the military tactics that were used are unrealistic and far-fetched. An example of this was when the Allies went “over the top” of the trench and charged into no mans land. From the lessons, we know that when a charge occurs, there is artillery and machine gun support, but in the movie, there was no support when the charge happened.
It shouldn’t be but it is. The reality of this issue is that it requires policy change. Right now we are subject to the same marketplace influences of other commodities. The pro to this argument is that citizens of the richest nation in the world should not go without healthcare.
The United States no longer posses the ability to effectively drive down premium costs through the means of insuring healthy people. For example there is a town with ten houses, and, on average, one house a year burns down. If no one in the town pays for insurance they have a 10% chance of their house burning down each year. If everyone in the town pays insurance they spread the risk because no matter whose house burns down no one will have to pay anything as the insurance company will cover the cost of the house that burns down each year and make a slight profit. This is the same logic applied to the whole medical insurance market.
Every citizen in the United States has individual rights protected by the Constitution. This protection also includes businesses that have gone through the legal process to become a legal entity ; more commonly known as becoming a corporation. Many times these individual rights, protected by the Constitution, conflict with the common good and as history shows, the courts consistently side with the common good when faced with a case that pits these two against each other. Big Pharma are corporations exercising their individual rights to market, and sell their product to consumers. In the process, the common good is suffering.
A free market system only hurts the economy, which is why the U.S is a mixed market economy. A mixed market economy is beneficial to consumers due to the fact there is government regulatory oversight of goods, and there is competition for goods. This type of economy means that companies cannot become monopolies and control prices of certain goods. However, this is not the case for pharmaceutical industries because there is little to none government intervention occurring. The lack of government oversight means that pharmacies that only develop specialized medicines have complete control of the price due to the fact they are the only ones able to reproduce the product.
For a majority of enrollees with lower incomes, the federal subsidies make the premiums more affordable. For those even closer to the poverty line, they can receive additional subsidies that reduce the deductibles even more. But for many middle class families that earn an average income of $97,000 for a family of four, the health coverage premiums and deductibles have sky-rocketed (Luhby). This is causing a huge amount of Americans opting to stay uninsured, rather than spend thousands a year. According to a Kaiser study, 46% of uninsured adults tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive (Luhby, 2017).
Some health care advocates criticized the spending, calling the two-and-a-half million dollar budget over two years “completely indefensible.” But hospital advertising has always had a controversial history in the US. Up until 1980, the American Medical Association banned it. The AMA code of ethics from 1847 considered hospital advertising to be “derogatory to the dignity of the profession.”
There was a time, in our not too distant past that healthcare was not-for-profit. Then, during the presidency of Nixon, he opened the doors allowing for-profit systems to flourish, giving us the healthcare system we have now. It is clunky, expensive, cumbersome, and inefficient, with the goal of profits coming before any consideration of a healthy outcome for individuals. When people talk about letting the market decide prices, that's easy enough when it comes to things like
Introduction “The term ‘misleading advertisements, is an unlawful action taken by an advertiser, producer, dealer or manufacturer of a specific good or service to erroneously promote their product. Misleading advertising targets to convince customers into buying a product through the conveyance of deceiving or misleading articulations and statements. Misleading advertising is regarded as illegal in the United States and many other countries because the customer is given the indisputable and natural right to be aware and know of what product or service they are buying. As an outcome of this privilege, the consumer base is honored ‘truth in labeling’, which is an exact and reasonable conveyance of essential data to a forthcoming customer.”
