I wrote another revision

1 files changed, 24 insertions, 40 deletions

diff --git a/markley/21_script b/markley/21_script
index 268948b..8c0b5d9 100644
--- a/markley/21_script
+++ b/markley/21_script
@@ -5,12 +5,11 @@ Insulin.
 [Cite "The Evolution of Insulin Glargine..."?]
 
 Diabetes has been written about since the ancient Egyptians, with the
-first known description written in 1500 BC and named in 230 BC.
+first known description in 1500 BC and the name in 230 BC.
 It was known natively as "pissing evil" because it was characterized by
 frequent urination followed by death.
 And that's about all philosophers understood about the disease until the
 late 19th century.
-Insulin is the key to diabetes, medically, 
 
 [https://www.etymonline.com/word/diabetes]
 
@@ -82,12 +81,12 @@ Lantus or Toujeo (made by Sanofi) or Basaglar (started by Eli Lilly in
 2015), was patented in 2000, continuing the patent monopolies until
 2027.
 
-Reagan helped create the companies the companies that made these drugs,
+Reagan helped create the megacorporations that make these drugs,
 and his lasting influence on American politics keeps them there.
 Reagan was outright pro-monopoly, believing that the failures of America
 to compete internationally aren't because bloated industries are being
-blindsided by, for example, Japanese manufacturers, but rather those
-industries don't have enough concentrated power to respond.
+challenged by leaner startups but industries don't have enough
+concentrated power to respond.
 President Reagan's Justice Department asserted that, to prevent a
 merger, the court must be certain of its harmful effect.
 From 1980 to 1984, the number of annual mergers doubled.
@@ -100,7 +99,7 @@ billion dollar revenue year-to-year.
 
 [cite the fantastic openmarketsinstitute.org one]
 
-Patents, too: they are intended to reward creativity with a temporary
+Patents, too: they're intended to reward creativity with a temporary
 monopoly, but before the Reagan era, patents were seen as a potential
 danger: if a company gets too many or abuses what they have, they might
 get broken up or fined.
@@ -110,51 +109,36 @@ United States, of a "legitimate monopoly."
 
 [cite nber]
 
-Worse yet, the FDA regulations that make the industry safe makes
-redeveloping generic versions extremely costly, and when they do,
-corporations can just pay them off.
+[Section: The profit motive]
 
-[cite https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/learn/drug-prices-monopoly]
+Glargine has done some good for diabetics, as a marginal improvement on
+previous therapies, but it's probably not worth 375 dollars.
+That's what Sanofi, Lantus's manufacturer, lists ten milliliters of the
+drug for.
+This comes down to "only" 50 dollars or 1200 per year when copays are
+accounted for.
+But based on a conservative analysis of the market, they only need seven
+dollars to cover costs.
+"Competition" came in, and it too is a criminally expensive 165.
 
-[Section: The profit motive]
+[cite the price analysis and drugs.org]
 
-But glargine's a bittersweet victory.
-Glargine costs about seven dollars to manufacture ten
-milliliters, but Sanofi, Lantus's manufacturer, lists it for 375.
-Even for people with insurance, this can still cost 50 dollars in
-copay---for something that needs to be refilled 24 times a year.
-The FDA-approved early-launch alternative, Basaglar, is 165 for the same
-amount, but it's the *one* alternative, launched by another insulin
-giant, Eli Lilly.
-Affordable insulin relies on precarious manufacturer rebates and full
-employment, but even with these preconditions, 25% of patients report
-trying to "stretch" their insulin---probably because the average
-diabetic pays twenty thousand per year for medical care.
-
-But how did they get this position?
+Other than Reagan's relentless support, how did these companies get
+there?
 Last year, Sanofi spent four million dollars on lobbying.
 Eli Lilly spent seven million.
 PhRMA, the industry lobbying group that both are members of: 29 million.
 Government-granted patent monopolies drive up prices for everyone,
 to the exclusive benefit of ten massive multinationals.
-Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Merck, another pharma company trying to get in on
-the glargine action, spend 6 billion each on R&D, but who paid for it?
-The US government.
-Americans' government subsidizes the majority of basic research done by
-pharmaceutical companies, yet the pharmaceutical companies are still
-allowed to utterly exploit their subjects.
+Eli Lilly, Sanofi spend 6 billion each per year on R&D, but who pays for
+it?
+The American people
+Not only does the federal government subsidize the majority of basic
+research done by pharmaceutical companies, the pharmaceutical companies
+do their best to drain their victims' cash at every turn.
 
 [https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Journals&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&hitCount=6&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=2&docId=GALE%7CA101569966&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZICC-MOD1&prodId=CSIC&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA101569966&searchId=R2&userGroupName=gainstoftech&inPS=true%2Chttps%3A%2F%2Fgaleapps.gale.com%2Fapps%2Fauth]
 
-Everyone, on the right and on the left, agrees that the rapidly
-inflating drug prices are hurting Americans, but it's still happening.
-
-[Insert news headline of https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/politics/white-
-house-insulin-cap-medicare/index.html]
-[And https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/28/insulin-pricing-becomes-top-
-issue-for-democrats/]
-
-
 [Image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/
 Insulin_short-intermediate-long_acting.svg/2000px-Insulin_short-
 intermediate-long_acting.svg.png (graph of insulin stuff)]