Liberty Mutual commercials...

px_eliezer_ · 2026-08-05T01:17:07+00:00

In the pilot episode of “Man Men”, ad executive Don Draper said that Lucky Strike cigarettes are better because they’re “toasted”. His buddies said, well ALL the brands are toasted. Draper responded: “No. Everybody else’s tobacco is poisonous. Lucky Strike’s… is toasted.” So consider Liberty Mutual. Their whole ad campaign is based on “Only pay for what you need” because it is “customizable”. But EVERY car insurance is customizable, as allowed or even required by each state’s insurance regulations. Nothing special there. As well of course are the chronically annoying ads with the Emu. Allstate, Progressive, Farmers have more interesting ads at this point, and don’t make the “customizable” claim.

px_eliezer_

InternetJeff Price controls were abandoned in 1974 after significant economic damage.

True but total free market doesn’t work either.

We desperately need new types of antibiotics, new meds for TB, and so forth, but big pharma is not too interested because typically these are used only for a relatively short time for each patient.

By contrast big pharma is happy to push tadalafil (Cialis) for example which is high-profit and which will be used for the long term.

takeahike

dave I don’t follow - who is the ‘she’ in this?

Just a theoretical client of the predatory lawyers they were attacking.

Somewhat-Reticent

px_eliezer_ Are cartels and long patents “total free market”?

robxr4ti

egeezer well like it or not, if you offend your customers you lose them as customers. Has nothing to do with “panties in a knot”. Companies make their choices and then live with the consequences of them.

robxr4ti

egeezer be careful what you wish for.

robxr4ti

px_eliezer_ do you have evidence there is no research into new antibiotics going on? After all, new meds would benefit “big pharma” too right?

egeezer

robxr4ti do you have evidence there is no research into new antibiotics going on?

The poster did not claim “no research into new antibiotics” but rather that the companies were not interested in antibiotics. That’s understandable since other areas promise higher revenue and profit margins.

But rather than asking to prove a negative, you can provide links to such research to dispute such a claim, assuming there is such research being conducted by the companies.

dave

robxr4ti

I cite the total lack of adverts on MS NOW for new antibiotics (“Ask your doctor if Mxyzptlk is right for you”) as evidence that none have been produced.

(Edited: typo. I hate this keyboard.)

egeezer

robxr4ti be careful what you wish for.

No wishing needed. No one is forcing pharma to do business in price controlled areas. If there was no profit to be had there, they would pull out, like insurance companies did in FL because they couldn’t make enough of a profit.

Allowing entities, private or public, to negotiate prices with their suppliers is free market economics. Accepting lower margins in negotiated areas, then charging higher prices in areas without negotiating ability is part of an overall strategy to assure higher overall profits.

A perusal of pharma companies’ stockholder annual reports can provide more detail on their profit margins in various markets.

InternetJeff

egeezer But rather than asking to prove a negative, you can provide links to such research to dispute such a claim, assuming there is such research being conducted by the companies.

I can. Here’s a couple…

https://www.medicaldaily.com/zaynich-cefepime-zidebactam-fda-approval-2026-drug-resistant-uti-superbug-475623

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/roche-moves-antibiotic-against-superbug-into-phase-3-testing-2025-05-26

egeezer

InternetJeff

See how easy that was? 😄
Here’s another on the Indian company’s Zaynich announcement.
https://www.etnownews.com/markets/indian-healthcare-in-focus-wockhardt-zaynich-launch-plan-revenue-potential-and-market-opportunity-explained-by-habil-khorakiwala-et-now-exclusive-article-154445831

Edit;
A perusal of that company makes me wonder if India will do to US pharma companies what Japan did to US automakers in the 1980s.

px_eliezer_

robxr4ti do you have evidence there is no research into new antibiotics going on? After all, new meds would benefit “big pharma” too right?

I did not say “no research” which would have been an absolute statement, but rather “not too interested” which is a relative statement.

Yes there are some new antibiotics, TB meds, and so forth, but these are a SMALL part of the whole picture.

robxr4ti do you have evidence…

There’s a lot out there but I know in advance that you’ll reject the sources. 🙁

Report warns of ‘brain drain’ from antibiotic research and development (2024)

The AMRIA report lays much of the blame for the problem on the broken market for new antibiotics and reduced public and private investment in the space. Because new antibiotics don’t produce a significant return on investment, many large pharmaceutical companies have abandoned antibiotic development, leaving the space to small- and mid-sized companies that often struggle to stay afloat.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/report-warns-brain-drain-antibiotic-research-and-development

Nonprofit drug maker produces TB antibiotic after private companies wouldn’t (2019)

If it were not for TB Alliance’s nonprofit mission, the drug might not exist because for-profit companies have focused their efforts elsewhere. “There has been an exodus from the antibiotic business,” said Allan Coukell, an antibiotic expert at The Pew Charitable Trusts.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/nonprofit-drug-maker-produces-tb-antibiotic-after-private-companies-wouldnt

robxr4ti

px_eliezer_ Once again a hostile attitude is exhibited because of a differing opinion. As you said, it’s relative and I’ll respectfully disagree with the insinuation that manufactures are deliberately not developing antibiotics. If there’s anything we know about “big pharma” it’s that if there’s money to be made, they’ll be there. I suspect any “brain drain” (if real) is a much more complex issue than the insinuation.

iahawkeye83

Which is why insurance is so damn expensive and the payouts are peanuts. They spends so much on marketing. They flood the TV with ads, and they hire celebrities to endorse their products. Look at Alex Trebek, the minute that he announced his pancreatic cancer diagnosis Colonial Penn pulled his ad and replaced him with “Johnathon”. That’s because pancreatic cancer has a five percent survival rate.

I have my auto insurance through Motor Club Insurance Company which writes exclusively for Triple A. Triple A does not flood the airwaves every two seconds like Liberty Mutual and Progressive.

I have Triple A because my grandmother and her husband had it. I’ve been a member since I got my license in 2003. Their insurance rates are competitive too, especially since you get member rates.

takeahike

iahawkeye83 especially since you get member rates.

You can’t get their insurance unless you are a member that is an additional charge, right, so there is no distinction between members getting one preferred rate level and nonmembers receiving a poorer one, correct? I had them (Automobile Club of Southern California) a long time ago when I first moved to California because at the time they were the only one who would take you without you having lived in the state for at least a year. There were better rates that I got after I was able to qualify for them, particularly 20th Century Insurance Co. (later 21st Century) who was what seemingly almost everyone out here had because they had the best rates around by far, but they were eventually bought out and are now owned by Farmers, so nothing like when they were independent. My parents had Triple A membership in New York forever for road service, but nowadays you can get road service protection on almost any insurance policy for a mere pittance compared the cost of a Triple A or similar membership which they to this day still try to sell me from a minimum of $54 all the way up to $119 per year. On my insurance it costs $5 per car per 6-month term, so $20 per year for two cars. Another thing I never liked about Triple A was it seems that even though you pay for it every time you use the road service they send you a letter with a veiled warning that you should be judicious about using the service that IMO is pretty petty. I remember that 60 years ago my parents would get those letters in New York and then about 15 years ago my girlfriend got one here in California, so it certainly looks like that is a pretty consistent pattern of theirs that won’t be changing anytime soon despite even now and only in recent years the competition of having the service made available by just regular insurance.

egeezer

robxr4ti If there’s anything we know about “big pharma” it’s that if there’s money to be made, they’ll be there.

And decisions on where to put R&D would be deliberate ones.

InternetJeff

egeezer And decisions on where to put R&D would be deliberate ones.

Golly, I hope they we’re not accidental decisions.

Gee whiz, I dislike drug ads, insurance ads, lawyer ads, personal hygiene product ads, etc. as much as the next guy. But far be it for a private business to decide how to run it’s business. eh?. That pesky First Amendment… those companies are operating weapons of mass communication! Will somebody DO something?! /s

Ya know, I remember hearing [actually, being told] that if I didn’t like the way a particular private business was being run [and too f’n bad BTW], I could start (or procure) my own and run it the way I wanted to.

dave

Yup, there’s absolutely no difference between a “social” networking web site and the production of life-saving drugs. The same laws should apply to both cases.

According to some people, anyway.

InternetJeff

dave

I thought this was about commercials. It started with auto insurance ads, and then moved to drug ads. I mean, I thought the First Amendment applied to business speech. Like, a business being able to determine its own marketing messaging. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a private business can’t have the right to business speech. Maybe the Framers did not envision or intend for the types of business communication that would exist in the future. After all, the predominant types of communications available when the First Amendment was drafted were quill pens and paper. A few might have had access to a printing press. No way that the Framers could have foreseen stuff like typewriters, copy machines, fax machines, radio, television, computers, the Internet! Those are weapons of mass communication, never envisioned by the Framers! Maybe we need limits on business speech. Maybe we need capacity limits on ads of a selected arbitrary nature. Maybe some business ads are just too dangerous for some people who won’t have the will to change the station or hit the mute button. Something has to be done.

dave The same laws should apply to both cases.

Of course not. The protections of the First Amendment vary with the message of the speaker. Everyone knows that. /s

broknsymetry

InternetJeff I thought the First Amendment applied to business speech. Like, a business being able to determine its own marketing messaging. But maybe I’m wrong.

Businesses are afforded some First Amendment protection from government censorship, but unlike an actual person they are not granted full protection. Business (Corporate) speech is very much regulated by the government through “Truth in Advertising” laws enforced by the FTC. Pharmaceutical advertising is regulated by the FDA. Lawyer ads are controlled by the various state bars. There are numerous other examples. The First Amendment guarantees that these entities can advertise but they are restricted in what they can say. However, I can not for the life of me understand what any of this has to do with a damned emu.

« Previous Page Next Page »