|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Public health groups on Thursday warned that “absurd” patent and data protection clauses pushed by U.S. lawmakers during the final negotiations of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Maui, Hawaii could hike prices for life-saving drugs and stifle innovation.
Doctors Without Border (MSF) and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association are most concerned with measures such as the extension of intellectual property rights on drug patents and increased damages for the infringement of patents. They also worry that TPP will enshrine test data exclusivity for a new class of drugs, known as biologics, used in treatments against diseases such as cancer, and for which often no other remedies exist.
Judit Rius Sanjuan, a policy adviser at MSF, said a lengthy exclusivity window promoted by TPP would rob millions of people from affordable vaccines and other therapies against diseases that often affect the world’s poorest and eldest populations.
“Everyone will have to wait eight years to have access to biologics just to protect pharmaceutical companies,” she said. “That’s just unacceptable.”
Data exclusivity blocks companies from launching products based on previously generated data, forcing competitors to duplicate test results and setting back the development of drugs for many years, health experts say. The TPP’s data exclusivity provision, and other measures discussed by negotiators, violates existing trade agreements that safeguard the fair use of intellectual rights, according to MSF.
“The TPP is a precedent-setting blueprint for future trade deals that will deny countries their right to balance business interests with the public health needs of people — a right that is ingrained in international trade rules,” Rius Sanjuan said in a statement last week.
The United States accounts for more than half of all drugs currently being developed in TPP countries, according to a statement from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has aggressively pushed for a 12-year data protection timeframe and other restrictions within TPP to “promote the development and launch of new drugs.”
Manon Rass, director of the advocacy group Union for Affordable Cancer Treatment, said she feared the TPP agreement would increase prices for cancer drugs in the 11 partner countries and elsewhere, as the provisions risk becoming international standards.
Source
|
On July 31 2015 03:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A Shell Oil icebreaker vessel has retreated after a showdown with environmental activists dangling by ropes from the tallest bridge in Portland, Oregon.
Environmental activists on St. Johns Bridge and kayakers on the water below had been blocking the icebreaker from heading to the Arctic for a drill operation.
The icebreaker Fennica arrived in Portland for repairs last week. The vessel was damaged earlier this month in the Aleutian Islands when it struck an underwater obstruction, tearing a gash in its hull.
It started its journey to the Arctic early Thursday before stalling in the face of 13 dangling activists linked by ropes. It then turned around and inched its way back to Vigor Industrial's dry dock, delighting those gathered on shore in the city known for environmentalism.
"I think it's inspirational," Portland resident Lisa Szot told The Oregonian. "It's a really beautiful protest."
The U.S. Coast Guard warned the danglers they were breaking the law, but it did not take action. Petty Officer 1st Class George Degener said the agency did not tell those aboard the icebreaker to turn around.
"I don't know what led the master and the pilot on board to come to that decision," he said.
The icebreaker is a key part of Shell's exploration and spill-response plan off Alaska's northwest coast. It protects Shell's fleet from ice and carries equipment that can stop gushing oil.
Environmentalists hope to delay the ship long enough for winter weather to prevent Shell from drilling until 2016. By that time, they hope President Barack Obama’s administration has a change of heart on the issue. Source
Just got back from the event... was awesome to meet so many great people. Am now completely exhausted lol.
|
On July 31 2015 09:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Public health groups on Thursday warned that “absurd” patent and data protection clauses pushed by U.S. lawmakers during the final negotiations of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Maui, Hawaii could hike prices for life-saving drugs and stifle innovation.
Doctors Without Border (MSF) and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association are most concerned with measures such as the extension of intellectual property rights on drug patents and increased damages for the infringement of patents. They also worry that TPP will enshrine test data exclusivity for a new class of drugs, known as biologics, used in treatments against diseases such as cancer, and for which often no other remedies exist.
Judit Rius Sanjuan, a policy adviser at MSF, said a lengthy exclusivity window promoted by TPP would rob millions of people from affordable vaccines and other therapies against diseases that often affect the world’s poorest and eldest populations.
“Everyone will have to wait eight years to have access to biologics just to protect pharmaceutical companies,” she said. “That’s just unacceptable.”
Data exclusivity blocks companies from launching products based on previously generated data, forcing competitors to duplicate test results and setting back the development of drugs for many years, health experts say. The TPP’s data exclusivity provision, and other measures discussed by negotiators, violates existing trade agreements that safeguard the fair use of intellectual rights, according to MSF.
“The TPP is a precedent-setting blueprint for future trade deals that will deny countries their right to balance business interests with the public health needs of people — a right that is ingrained in international trade rules,” Rius Sanjuan said in a statement last week.
The United States accounts for more than half of all drugs currently being developed in TPP countries, according to a statement from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has aggressively pushed for a 12-year data protection timeframe and other restrictions within TPP to “promote the development and launch of new drugs.”
Manon Rass, director of the advocacy group Union for Affordable Cancer Treatment, said she feared the TPP agreement would increase prices for cancer drugs in the 11 partner countries and elsewhere, as the provisions risk becoming international standards. Source
lol sucks america doesn't have to subsidize drug costs for the rest of the world now
|
You mean doesn't have to subsidize totally ridiculous roi of the pharma-giants? Yeah, there is much frontloaded cost in that industry, but the average roi in that induestry is still what I would call fraud.
|
On July 31 2015 23:00 Velr wrote: You mean doesn't have to subsidize totally ridiculous roi of the pharma-giants? Yeah, there is much frontloaded cost in that industry, but the average roi in that induestry is still what I would call fraud. And all the smaller developers of treatments were put out of business, leading to a strangle hold on the market. And of course, the healthcare system carries those cost to increased premiums. We get the drugs first, but at the highest price.
|
People die, Capital grows. Everything working as intended.
|
On August 01 2015 01:18 Paljas wrote: People die, Capital grows. Everything working as intended. Capital is wasted, people die. And vacuous political rhetoric continues.
|
Advocates and inmates working to overhaul the criminal justice system will have to wait at least a little longer for congressional action.
The Republican leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, said he won't hold a public event on sentencing reform proposals until after the August recess, as language is still being drafted by a bipartisan working group. And in the U.S. House, lawmakers and their aides will spend at least the next five weeks making adjustments to a sweeping bill sponsored by 40 Democrats and Republicans, sources told NPR Friday.
Expectations for movement on justice reform had been high, in part because of political support from libertarian-leaning Republicans, liberal Democrats and interest groups ranging from Koch Industries to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Earlier this week, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the GOP leadership team, suggested that a hearing and markup on proposals could be imminent.
"This seems to be another area where there's a lot of common ground, where a lot needs to be done, and I'm reassured by the bipartisan support we've seen, an optimism that we can get something important done," Cornyn said Tuesday.
But multiple sources from Capitol Hill, the executive branch and the advocacy community said concrete language on sentencing and criminal justice overhauls is still being hotly debated behind closed doors in both the Senate and the House. The Obama administration, including Deputy U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates, has been pressing to relax mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes.
Yates discussed the idea last week at a bipartisan reform summit, telling the audience: "At its core, one of the basic problems with the mandatory minimum system is that it's based almost exclusively on one factor — drug quantity. And so we have a hard time distinguishing the cartel leader who needs to be in prison for a long time from the low-level mope who doesn't."
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, went even farther at that event. "I consider ending mandatory minimums a moral calling," Leahy said, citing data that minorities are disproportionately subjected to those tough penalties.
Source
|
We mimicked the US in France by adding mandatory minimum sentences with desastrous effect (like going in prison for driving without a licence). Back then the US was leading the world into stupidity. Now nobody question mandatory minimum in France and the US want to go back on it ? Seems like now the US has decided to lead the world into reason. Rejoice.
|
On August 01 2015 04:57 WhiteDog wrote: We mimicked the US in France by adding mandatory minimum sentences with desastrous effect (like going in prison for driving without a licence). Back then the US was leading the world into stupidity. Now nobody question mandatory minimum in France and the US want to go back on it ? Seems like now the US has decided to lead the world into reason. Rejoice.
Except simultaneously there is a push for "Kate's Law" which would force illegal immigrants to stay in America to serve a mandatory minimum on the tax payer's dime ($20-$50K/yr).
|
Probably because you don't have enough people in prison already, or the prison lobby needs new prisoners now that you reduce mandatory minimums.
|
On August 01 2015 05:23 Simberto wrote: Probably because you don't have enough people in prison already, or the prison lobby needs new prisoners now that you reduce mandatory minimums.
Exactly. I just don't understand why it sounds like a good idea to conservatives?
|
On August 01 2015 04:57 WhiteDog wrote: We mimicked the US in France by adding mandatory minimum sentences with desastrous effect (like going in prison for driving without a licence). Back then the US was leading the world into stupidity. Now nobody question mandatory minimum in France and the US want to go back on it ? Seems like now the US has decided to lead the world into reason. Rejoice.
Not our fault that you guys copied us zzz
|
United States19573 Posts
On August 01 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 05:23 Simberto wrote: Probably because you don't have enough people in prison already, or the prison lobby needs new prisoners now that you reduce mandatory minimums. Exactly. I just don't understand why it sounds like a good idea to conservatives?
Probably because border security is so weak as to make deportation an exercise in futility in many of these cases. Not that I agree with the idea, but that is likely the rationale.
Also I agree that its ridiculous the cost to imprison people. What we really need is crappier prisons.
|
How much more do you democrats need to see before you throw Hillary overboard?
|
I'm not against mandatory minimums, but they need to make sense and they should truly be a minimum and not a number that is higher than what a reasonable judge would sentence a person to. For the most part, judges should be sentencing people for longer than the minimum and the minimum should only be there to safeguard against corrupt judges and ensure that justice is always served.
I personally don't trust judges to always act in the public's interest. I don't want to see a judge preside over the case for his best friend or big campaign donor and then give that person 3 months of probation when they should be getting 20 years in jail.
As for Kate's Law, it only takes effect if the person has already been deported once and then comes back into this country illegally. Obviously, deporting that person didn't work, so the government should try something else. I think 5 years is rough and doesn't give enough room for a judge's discretion. I'd look at a minimum of 3 months with the judge having discretion to give up to 20 years. I think that spending 3 months in jail would be a message well sent and any more than that is unnecessary.
|
On August 01 2015 06:06 xDaunt wrote: How much more do you democrats need to see before you throw Hillary overboard?
I'm not sure anyone here has Hillary as a first choice? As bad as she is she's still a better choice than the Republican options though.
|
Only candidate that might get me voting Dem is O'Malley... better on environment and Middle East than Sanders. Also an even longer shot of getting the nomination lol.
|
On August 01 2015 11:11 screamingpalm wrote: Only candidate that might get me voting Dem is O'Malley... better on environment and Middle East than Sanders. Also an even longer shot of getting the nomination lol.
Yeah, he's got some nice rhetoric but I am thoroughly unimpressed with his history. Not to mention with Sanders beating the leading republican candidate by ~20 points (and the other republicans by a smaller margin) it's hard enough to deal with the "He doesn't have a chance" crowd.
O'Malley is barely a blip and isn't even getting put in head to heads when Biden (who isn't running) is and is outperforming him in general.
|
|
|
|
|