|
On October 14 2012 06:12 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. It's more potent in America. Americans accept "liberty" and "freedom" and pay out the ass for these things, they prefer to drop 6grand a year on healthcare and then another x amount on overpriced pharma products well the rest of the civilized world drops 2-3grand on taxes for these things and moves along with their day paying x/2 amount for pharma products. Uhm, the medical companies doesnt give two shits about whether government or private enterprises pay for their medicines, just as long as someone does.
Doesn't work that way. The government puts a price on the amount they can sell for instance in Canada there is medicine cap. Government says "You can either sell it to this point or not sell it at all". No pharma is going to lose 30million customers, thus they drop it to the 40 instead of 80 price Americans pay.
Works with Milk in Canada as well or rather "essential" (I used needed before) products. But for this, we also pay higher taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Personally I like the 40-50 dollar savings on my medical products over the 5-6 bucks on cigarettes.
|
10387 Posts
can't believe some ppl are actually defending this lol
|
On October 14 2012 06:14 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all. Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Ok, but you were saying we should go back to the good old days when somebody invented penicillin and it just leaked out in the public domain... That's what I was objecting to
|
On October 14 2012 06:14 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all. Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
Somebody always has to pay in the end.
|
On October 14 2012 06:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:10 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:06 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!! Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent. It was pushed through at his time, so...... By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago. If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all. 100 years is everything, unless you live longer than that. There are people out there that argues 1000 year traditions are somehow relevant, I am not one of those people. Please don't have children edit: the problem with you is that you don't know when you live edit: what do you mean, treat "history like gospel." I have no idea what that means.
I am very confused.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:12 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes. No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
|
On October 14 2012 03:10 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:08 thrawn2112 wrote:
I don't like how the general forum has been taken over by all the top news items on reddit Don't see the problem as long as it brings up good points to discuss. Reddit pretty much has every news article posted there so it's not strange that the things people want to talk about make it here also.
And this is nothing new, it's always been this way. Not sure why he's making this a big deal now.
|
On October 14 2012 06:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:14 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all. Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present. Ok, but you were saying we should go back to the good old days when somebody invented penicillin and it just leaked out in the public domain... That's what I was objecting to
No I wasn't, not at all, it's just a precedent that has been set that profiting organizations and different nation state bodies could act in unison against maximal profit principles for some other ulterior goal.
|
On October 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all. What about nothing? Surely it too has something to do with society.
Don't try to out sophist me son
On October 14 2012 06:16 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:11 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:10 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:06 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!! Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent. It was pushed through at his time, so...... By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago. If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all. 100 years is everything, unless you live longer than that. There are people out there that argues 1000 year traditions are somehow relevant, I am not one of those people. Please don't have children edit: the problem with you is that you don't know when you live edit: what do you mean, treat "history like gospel." I have no idea what that means. I am very confused.
correct!
|
On October 14 2012 06:16 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:14 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all. Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present. Somebody always has to pay in the end.
Not true, as I noted above. Regulations and caps are put on things everyday to insure required things aren't overpriced. Pharma companies respectively have a very simple monopoly on products as a whole and thus they can charge an outrageous amount because everyone wants to live.
So the government goes "We know you want to make this proift margin, but this one is more realistic and doesn't allow people to go without medical treatment". So "pay" would be on the pharma end.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion.
|
On October 14 2012 06:16 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:14 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all. Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present. Somebody always has to pay in the end.
And in functional healthcare systems it's the healthy public who does for people in need, I don't have problems with that.
|
On October 14 2012 06:18 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion.
Whoa. source?
|
On October 14 2012 06:16 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:12 JackDino wrote:On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes. No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money. And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
Not entirely true, software companies work in a non-needed industry when it comes to survival, supply/demand dictate their prices where if they overprice the demand drops (excluding Apple I suppose) but the demand for medical treatment will never go away so regulations are imposed to halt companies from over pricing their product.
|
On October 14 2012 06:16 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:12 JackDino wrote:On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes. No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money. And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit.
People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit.
The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die.
Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit.
If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
|
On October 14 2012 06:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:18 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. Absolutely not, patents have existed for 700 years or more. Get your facts straight before entering into a discussion. Whoa. source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
|
On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:
[quote]
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
This type of event is a symptom of an even larger systematic problem. My problem is not with society as a whole but those ones who master it.
|
On October 14 2012 06:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all. What about nothing? Surely it too has something to do with society. Don't try to out sophist me son
Like GlaxoSmithKline gobbling up pharmaceutical patents, I will not leave any absolute untouched!
|
On October 14 2012 06:10 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. If the company management does not do it's best towards increasing shareholder value (read: profit), said management will be replaced by people who will, simple as that.
Oh well then that just makes it okay then.
|
On October 14 2012 06:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:16 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:12 JackDino wrote:On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes. No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money. And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit. Not entirely true, software companies work in a non-needed industry when it comes to survival, supply/demand dictate their prices where if they overprice the demand drops (excluding Apple I suppose) but the demand for medical treatment will never go away so regulations are imposed to halt companies from over pricing their product.
These medical devices that are used to research and cure people, they run on software aswell you know. Just one of the many things which are essential to survival and require software these days.
On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:16 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:12 JackDino wrote:On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes. No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money. And why shouldn't they be? In essence they are the same as software devellopment companies. R&D industry, and as any other for profit company out to make well... profit. People who are defending the price hike seem to be doing so on the basis of it being legal, and that any industry's goal is to turn a profit. The difference here is that since the product saves people's lives, and there is no alternative drug, they can essentially charge any price they want. This means people will go bankrupt buying medicine to save their own lives, while others simply won't be able to afford it and will die. Pharm companies are willing to do this to people so they can make more money than they would otherwise. They are ruining people's lives, and quite literally killing them, to make a larger profit. If that isn't immoral, I don't know what is.
Ofcourse it's a bad thing, but it's just how it is and how it always has been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
