What Congress Should Do About the Mylan Epipen Price Gouge

Recently, it became known that a pair of life-saving Epipens from Mylan Labs now cost more than $600. Pricing them well out of reach for most of the 50 million families who depend on this drug to counter anaphylaxis (allergic reaction) and potential death; primarily in children.  While Mylan tried to squirm around this price gouge, the public outcry was totally justified, especially when its revealed   that each pen only uses a dollar's worth of epinephrine, and the delivery pen
 itself, only costs a few more dollars to make.  But, since Mylan is the only provider of the Epipen in the U.S., Mylan can charge whatever they want.  Even though the pens, themselves, have been off-patent for years, potential competitors have a costly and difficult time getting them approved through our Food and Drug Administrations.

Interestingly, Canadians have multiple choices; and they are only paying $225.42 in U.S. dollars for a 0.3 mg adult Epipen that they import from the United Kingdom.  So, why can't Congress mandate the importation of Epipens from the United Kingdom at the same price the Canadians are paying for them?  I realize that importing foreign-made drugs is a violation of our laws. It is also required that the Food and Drug Administration be able to inspect manufacturing facilities to insure efficacy and purity.  But, sometimes, it may be necessary to send a message to the drug manufacturers that price gouging won't be tolerated.  I hardly think that an Epipen device, sold both in the United Kingdom and Canada, would be too unsafe a product to sell in the U.S..

References:

EpiPens cost just several dollars to make. Customers pay more than $600 for them: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/epipens-cost-just-several-dollars-to-make-customers-pay-more-than-600-dollars-for-them.html

Canada Drugs: 0.3 Epipens: https://www.canadadrugs.com/products/epipen/0-3mg

Scottish Independence and the Survival of the European Union

Most Americans don't seem to understand why Scotland's independence from the United Kingdom (UK) is such a big deal. It is and, it will have a far reaching impact on the survival of the European Union (EU).

Arguably, beyond the pure advantages of having an economic cooperative between European countries, the glue that really holds the European Union together is the preponderance of like-minded liberal politics; with the only conservative and economic elephant in the room being Germany.  For the political stability of the EU, Germany's economic influence and conservative politics has always been countered by the economic power and political influence of  a predominately liberal United Kingdom.  This is where the small country of Scotland comes in.

Scotland is very politically liberal; and, is primarily responsible for maintaining liberalism in the U.K.  If it cedes from the United Kingdom, their dominant liberal voting will be gone and conservatism is sure to seep into the UK's political landscape and, suddenly, the EU could find itself with its two dominant partners, England and Germany, being conservative; meaning that the policy making within the European Union could also turn decidedly conservative.  This will not sit well the remainder of the EU countries who seek to maintain a liberal agenda.  Thus, Scotland's departure could force others to leave in order to protect their own internal need for a European Union that is steeped in liberal politics.

References:

Scots independence battle reaches fever pitch on streets and screens: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/14/us-scotland-independence-idUSKBN0H60MG20140914

If the Scots Gain Independence, Expect a More Conservative U.K.: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/if-the-scots-gain-independence-expect-a-more-conservative-u-k/

Our Future Under Green Power

Most people don't know it but, Texas is one of the "greenest" states in the Union. That's because, long ago, a then-Governor, George W. Bush, signed legislation that would move Texas into the realm of Wind Power as its energy requirements grew. But, what a lot people also don't know, it was Texas' dependence on Wind Power and a serious lack of wind on a stormy February day in 2008 that caused massive power outages across that state (Click to See Wall Street Journal Story: "No Breeze: The Day the Wind Died in Texas").

Now, that very windy and then windless day in Texas might just be an omen for the United Kingdom with its push toward green power. According to this article, "Britain facing blackouts for first time since 1970s", the future demands for electrical energy are not being met due to the United Kingdom's push toward wind and solar.

A while back I wrote the blog entry, "Can You Stick It Where The Sun Don't Shine?", where I talked about the fact that wind and solar is too dependent on nature being cooperative. For that reason, wind and solar power must be excessively overbuilt with an extremely expensive upgrade of our national grid system in order to overcome the whims of nature and in order to provide constant energy. This is especially true at dusk when the wind dies down and the sun doesn't shine.

The real folly in all the green power mumbo-jumbo is that we will need to keep a lot of conventional fossil fuel energy production facilities in either partial or complete standby operation to overcome those non-productive days and hours of green power. This can also be true during very windy conditions. That's because wind turbines must be idle during high winds to keep from flying apart. That, in itself, will be very expensive because staff and stockpiles of fuel will have to be maintained on top of the very high cost of wind and solar equipment that will also have to be maintained.

Wind and solar are fine choices as a supplemental power source; but only on a limited basis and where their high costs make sense. But, by no means, should this or any other country become totally dependent on such systems. If we did,we might have serious power problems in the future. Problems that the United Kingdom may see sooner than later.

When Green Is The Color Of Oil

In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown's government can certainly be said to be "green" leaning. Just like Obama, Brown plans big spending on green projects as a means to economic recovery.

So, why are these two, Obama and Brown, so interested in the not-so-green participation in drilling for oil?

Just recently, the U.S. Export-Import Bank (a separate agency of the United States Government that reports directly to Obama) issued a $10 billion line of credit to the Brazilian national oil company, Petrobas, to facilitate both expanded and new off-shore drilling operations in Brazil (Click to See Full Story).

In the case of the "slithering" Brown, his government negotiated the release of the Pan Am/Lockerbie bomber so that the United Kingdom could get a piece of any new oil production in Libya (Click to See Full: "Secret documents uncover UK's interest in Libyan oil Story").

I guess oil is a "green thing" when it can be extracted by some other country and not done at home. That kind of thinking is often called NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard; but, it hardly does anything for the overall improvement of the world's environment.

Both these hypocrites talk the "green" talk but really understand that oil will be needed by us all for a very long time. They both want to make sure their countries have plenty of oil in the future because both these fools know that oil is absolutely essential to the national security of both their nations.

Does anyone think that wheeling and dealing for foreign oil production sounds like Obama is serious about getting America off imported oil?

As I have said before in this blog" 10 years from now we will be even more dependent on foreign oil than we are today. Our production is going down while our demand is rising and will continue to rise. Wind and solar are never going to counteract that reality. The only thing wind or solar will do is eat into our own natural gas and coal production and won't save a drop of imported oil.

Lastly, I find Brazil's need to drill for oil the most interesting of the above deals. Three years ago, as oil prices kept rising, Brazil was being held up as the shining example of a country that was able to get off their dependency on oil. That's because they had diverted the majority of their sugar production into the production of ethanol. Now, there is an impending shortage of sugar and the world's economic situation has forced oil to come down in price. In effect, sugar prices are going through the roof and Brazil is stuck with a very expensive option for their country's auto fuel source. Where's all the left-wing news headlines on that one?

(Click Here To See a 'Typical' News Story on Brazil's Ethanol Success from 2006: "Brazil hopes to build on its ethanol success" )

Is A Real-Life Soylent Green Society Just Around The Corner?

As I've said before, to be radical green and to fight the fight against global warming is to literally hate humanity.

Those green-eyed followers of Al Gore just hate all people; except, of course, themselves. That's because all "other" people do the most horrible of horrible things. They breath and expel carbon dioxide. They breed both poultry and cattle and -- Yikes! -- they eat them. Even more horrifying, those poultry and cattle are disgusting destroyers of the earth's land and our environment with their grazing, their smell, and their need for food. Then, too, people drive those carbon spewing and ugly things called automobiles and trucks. They destroy all of nature with their homes, their workplaces, and their roads. And, worse yet, they keep having babies! And they have the gall to call themselves civilized?

I think the best example of this hatred of humanity by the green ECO-nuts comes from the United Kingdom. Currently, the UK has about 60 million people and, horror of horrors, they will grow to 71 million people by the year 2030. Damn babies!

One of the small-minded "green" people who works for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Jonathon Porritt, has now gone on record as saying that the U.K. must cut its population in half. This would not only save the planet but it would establish a U.K. population level that could sustain itself, food-wise, for many decades to come (See Full Story). Mr. Porritt also includes the United States in his assessment. I guess we keep having babies, too. We're sorry!

I don't know how Mr. Porritt thinks the population would be cut in half. If you simply force widespread sterilization, it would take quite a while for the population to recede and halve itself. That's because the death rate in most industrialized countries is about 2% per year. Anyway, if you did do that, you wind up with an aging population that would be all tied up in taking care of an even older, elderly population. Nursing homes, Polident and Depends would be the number one industries. So, that can't be the answer.

I personally think Mr. Porritt is talking about something else. I think he's thinking about euthanizing the elderly population along with some form of birth limitations. This would fit the insanity of all the ECO-nuts who are wildly running around, pulling out their hair, throwing rocks at coal-fired power plants, and trying to save the planet from humanity, itself.

My guess is that Mr. Porritt is an avid fan of the movie Soylent Green where the elderly are assisted in their own suicide so the remainder of the population can live and eat off food that is made from their dehydrated remains. That movie gave new meaning to the expression: "Is anyone up for Chinese?"

If that be the case, I would urge him to start the process off by pulling his Bentley or Rolls (I'm sure he has one) into the garage; close the door; leave the engine running while sipping some Earl Grey; and, then, end singing an emotional version of "God Save the Queen". How serene! That would still leave 29,999,999 people left to go. But, it would be a start!

Wouldn't you just love to sample a little Porritt meat with broccoli, rice, and muenster cheese; wrapped in a delicate puff pastry? Like Anthony Hopkins in the Silence of the Lambs, you could even say: "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti!" Mmmm!

Image by Vanessa Pike-Russell's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. Some rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).