I always thought of supply and demand as more defining a limit that the price approaches as the number of transactions and the size of the market approach infinity, barring structural obstacles or persistent information asymmetry to prevent it than as something that was supposed to happen immediately on any given transaction.
I hope you're aware that this particular argument only reinforced people in their existing positions, and has no chance whatsoever of convincing people that don't already agree with you.
If I had to guess, it's like when an expensive medical test gets more accessible and they have to update their model.
If the cost to get an MRI means everyone that gets one has a combination of symptoms and risk factors raising the pre-test probability, then it makes sense to treat MRI findings aggressively. If they become cheaper and start using them as screenings, they need to update their approach.
Similarly, if license plates are scanned when cops are already pulling someone over for moving violations (or the car is accumulating a ton of parking tickets, having been dumped), it might be ok if their status isn't updated that frequently, and it still might make sense for cops to approach the car with the idea that it might be stolen (something a drivers license check against registration can quickly clear up, which shouldn't matter too much if they were getting pulled over anyway).
If the system is being used to justify pulling people over in the first place, it needs different parameters.
Honestly I think the biggest advancements in ICE cars recently have been the development and maturation of hybrid cars. Imagine telling someone in 2006 that your minivan got 36 miles per gallon!
I really feel like the first step here should be to make deanonymization illegal. Obviously it wouldn't fix everything, but there's a bit of an implicit breach of contract if people are promised their data is anonymous, but then it's sold to someone else who breaks that, but as far as I can tell there's no law against what's pretty clearly a violation of the premise under which the data was allowed to be collected.
I think the other issue is that generics have such bad margins that it's hard to convince anyone to manufacturer them in the best of cases, so if anything happens to make a generic too hard to sell they'll just give up.
Combining that with PBMs being allowed to choose a preferred manufacturer for a generic or even preferring the (more expensive for the patient) brand, and refusing to offer the same coverage for a generic and you get less access to generics than there should be.
Honestly, PBMs should have to contribute at least the same amount of money to any version of a drug. If it's genuinely more expensive for them, the patient would still have to pay more. If it's not, it's none of their business.
I disagree, but I would also have a similar reaction if it turned out that toilet-paper supply chain issues left over from the pandemic were going to affect our ability to manage screwworms, and that particular overreaction was non-partisan.
Both! I think it would be unfortunate if a valuable deworming drug was difficult to access in an acute worm crisis because it had became unexpectedly politically salient from an crisis that did not involve worms.
You know what, I will accept that there's some decent arguments for why hunters would want access to ARs.
Do you think it makes sense that people that don't hunt would prefer for widely, easily accessible weapons to be largely less efficient at killing human beings? It feels like many gun owners and gun enthusiasts struggle to accept any compromise. And I won't say this is particular to them, I think most people have some pet regulatory peeve, but it sure makes it difficult to have conversations about it!