Just checked, and the series costs $390 retail. So there is something to be considered as regards the inability of the poor to pay for it.
But I *do* have a few questions before we jump straight to a "big government" solution.
First: Can we do what you want with voluntary charity? Obviously that'll take a little longer because we'll have to fund-raise, but to me the moral differential between forcible extraction and voluntary donation is worth a little bit of lattitude.
Second, Are you intending to make it "mandatory", and if so, on what moral authority? I understand that unless *everyone* takes it, it won't accomplish the erradication you're talking about, but how do you intend to enforce it? What about when the hindu (or whoever) world refuses?
Now, to grind a tangentially related axe :) Big pharma is a *creation* of the government. It is pointless to worry about "my government in bed with bigPharma", because they are now and always were different arms of the same beast. The "oversight" and all the other government controls do not harm bigPharma, they enforce the monopoly of it. Look at the FDA crusades against "supplements" and the claims made of healthy eating, such as the C+D issued to bloody *cheerios* and you'll soon see what I mean. LOok at the draconian politicized, hugely expensive process of drug approval from the perspective of economics, and those things change in your mind from "protecting the public" to "enforcing barriers to entry", and you realize that the FDA is not "restraining" bigpharma, but is in fact breaking the legs of "littlepharma", at vast cost in lives and treasure.
So as far as that goes, just accept that Pfizer (or whoever) is going to make a few billion taxpayor dollars from your plan and decide whether that's worth the price to you.
no subject
But I *do* have a few questions before we jump straight to a "big government" solution.
First: Can we do what you want with voluntary charity? Obviously that'll take a little longer because we'll have to fund-raise, but to me the moral differential between forcible extraction and voluntary donation is worth a little bit of lattitude.
Second, Are you intending to make it "mandatory", and if so, on what moral authority? I understand that unless *everyone* takes it, it won't accomplish the erradication you're talking about, but how do you intend to enforce it? What about when the hindu (or whoever) world refuses?
Now, to grind a tangentially related axe :) Big pharma is a *creation* of the government. It is pointless to worry about "my government in bed with bigPharma", because they are now and always were different arms of the same beast. The "oversight" and all the other government controls do not harm bigPharma, they enforce the monopoly of it. Look at the FDA crusades against "supplements" and the claims made of healthy eating, such as the C+D issued to bloody *cheerios* and you'll soon see what I mean. LOok at the draconian politicized, hugely expensive process of drug approval from the perspective of economics, and those things change in your mind from "protecting the public" to "enforcing barriers to entry", and you realize that the FDA is not "restraining" bigpharma, but is in fact breaking the legs of "littlepharma", at vast cost in lives and treasure.
So as far as that goes, just accept that Pfizer (or whoever) is going to make a few billion taxpayor dollars from your plan and decide whether that's worth the price to you.