It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. That's not what the site is for. Worse, it destroys what it is for (curiosity), so we ban accounts that do it. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended, we'd be grateful. There's more explanation here:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

>The only way to get them to stop being utter vacuous wastes of oxygen is, in the long term, regulation.

Anything specific?

I mean it depends on the context, right? I just mean that generally speaking, when there is nothing forcing people to be decent, it is clearly not simply enough for "wow this is morally reprehensible" to be a deterrent.

For profiteering off generic medication, I think some sort of subsidized natural monopoly producing and selling generics would work. Clearly, there isn't enough profit in the generics to make money off them without acting in a malicious anti-competitive manner, so incentivizing it otherwise must be necessary in a market system.

Alternatively, have a purely nationalized "company" that's funded by taxpayers and "sells" generics at cost. I think the value to society of cheap, readily available generics make this worth it even if it's not something that could survive in the market.

I work in biotech/pharma, and not all of us are greedy sacks of shit as some people seem to think. I'm not an exec and cant speak to their ethics broadly, but like any industry where people make big bucks you have greedy asshole-y people here too. But coming back to regulation, the FDA's primary mandate is the safety of the populace, its not to create economic incentives or disincentives. The FDA has been slowly increasing the standard required for compliance, which in turn raises the operational cost to ensure safety/efficacy/reliability/etc (obviously a very good thing IMO) but that in turn has also increased both the incidence and the cost of failure. When one product that sucked up a cool 10-50M of capital fails, the company has to recoup the cost elsewhere. Of course nobody wants to take a haircut themselves, so they just bump up the prices. I think a lot of this has to do with the ways companies in general pretty much have to absorb market risk to give a false sense of stability to their workforce. Maybe if our corporate system were structured where it was OK to fail, people might be less inclined to mask the failure on the balance sheet to please Wall Street.

>Alternatively, have a purely nationalized "company" that's funded by taxpayers and "sells" generics at cost. I think the value to society of cheap, readily available generics make this worth it even if it's not something that could survive in the market.

Well, maybe.. I'll keep an open mind but when has the government done anything cheaply or efficiently? They will have to sub-contract at-least some parts of it out just like they do with weapons or infrastructure or other projects. Government contractors are going to milk the system with their '$100 screwdriver' invoices.

> This is the classic centrist liberalism argument

Is this the step 1 of the identity politics game ? Paint someone as X Y Z and be done ? In what world being civilised is constrained to "classic centrist liberals" ?

All politics is identity politics. Putting "identity" in front of it is a weasel word to deflect, as you've just done.

My point still stands. Remaining civilized at all costs in the face of incivility is as insane as trying to calmly debate someone as they are in the process of murdering you.