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 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.
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.
The problem is that in countries like the US, where "free market" polices are often contradicted by government granted monopolies and subsidies for early developers, the amount you pay is significantly higher than what other people in other nations pay.
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.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
20 times higher than the original price.
That's new.[/QUOTE]
Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE] 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 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. [/QUOTE]
In this I agree, companies that sell software that directly supports pharma corporations deserve the same Government intervention and regulation but most software companies aren't raising their prices 20x to turn a profit (excluding Apple again T.T).
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?
- Terrell on Patents, 8th edition edited by J R Jones, London (Sweet & Maxwell) 1934. - E Wyndham Hulme, The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law, Law Quarterly Review, vol.46 (1896), pp.141-154.
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.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand)
imo they can rename it and sell it for a higher price but they should lose their patent that everyone can produce it(new product=old products patent doesn´t coount)
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.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Well certain countries are founded with specific principles which are written into their constitution that can not be overturned with out wide scale social action, so it's not so much a "those who follow it are also responsible" issue, it's an issue of where legal authority lies and whether the majority of the populous are in consensus.
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.
Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative.
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.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand)
I am part of a few that think capitalism and socialism can coincide, the idea of a free market is great but just like in real life "freedoms" are inhibited by certain things. When a company or companies form a monopoly on a product, which is healthcare since the demand WILL NEVER GO DOWN we need socialistic ideologies to allow the corporations to practice more ethical treatments and not raise prices by 20x.
Capitalism itself doesn't work because of human greed, when we can start pricing a persons life then we as humans have failed. Carl Sagan has a few nice pieces on this.
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.
Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative.
I always here this argument, where is the proof? It's like when people argue that "less military spending means China will attack or Russia". What basis is this argument coming from?
Many many first world nations pracitce regulation on pharma companies and I have yet to see them going "We can't make that extra billion, we're shutting the doors and moving into make up products!"
Is there any proof to your statement, has any company ever stopped making its product because France or Canada or Britain are regulating their pricing on the population?
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.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Well certain countries are founded with specific principles which are written into their constitution that can not be overturned with out wide scale social action, so it's not so much a "those who follow it are also responsible" issue, it's an issue of where legal authority lies and whether the majority of the populous are in consensus.
I would argue that a country founded on fighting suppression of rights on an ethical basis could see the irony in not doing the same because of a piece of paper.
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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
However said legislation is being actively affected by the companies themselves through the lobbying system, pharmaceutical companies pay out millions each year to lobby for these specific scenarios and laws so there is a direct legal connection.
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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
I completely agree with this statement, it's up to the government to legislate and regulate essential products. Human greed is the biggest issue with capitalism.
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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
Actually, in terms of US judicial precedent, corporations are more full fledged adults rather than children.
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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
Actually, in terms of US judicial precedent, corporations are more full fledged adults rather than children.
With rights well and above any human being and subject to government protection if they lose and all the rights to profit with in free market principles when they apply, yea we know it's just a metaphor.
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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules. In that case, blame the rules.
As I said, the moral discussion is another one and hardly deserves to be had in any case. It is immoral, as simple as that.
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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules.
What if they are actively changing the rules via a lobbying system for their sole interest with capital that the public do not have access to? Individuals are rarely capable of affecting legislation in the same manner and often it's illegal to support legal change in monetary means.
On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote: [quote] 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.
The discussion if this is immoral or not is a different discussion then the one regarding why this kind of scenario can come to be. Noone will disagree with you that these kinds of scenario's are undesireable and immoral. If they do, I'd wager they are slightly insane or for some reason innured to the well being of your fellow man.
Discussing or explaining how this kind of scenario comes to be provides insight for most people who are ignorant of the system and shows where to point the finger. The finger should be pointed at the legistators of the world, not the companies. Like I stated before, they're just children, who if they aren't stopped will gorge themselves and mishave on a consistent basis.
You seriously don't think the companies deserve any criticism for this? I think its fucked up that the environment exists for this to legally happen, but I think you're being silly to think that the people charging the high prices and reaping the mountains of cash from it are blameless.
Let me state that you're argueing with an IP lawyer regarding this case. I will defend the rules as long as they are in force and argue according to them. I cannot hold someone culpable for something they did playing by the rules.
What if they are actively changing the rules via a lobbying system for their sole interest with capital that the public do not have access to?
You are acting like lobbying is just a $10M price tag on changing a law any way you feel like.
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.
I disagree, it's with the mindless who follow it. They are asked to jump and say "how high?". If a country forbids ethics for profits allowing death for a profit margin they should not be in power. I guess a lot of us just are lucky not to live in Countries where this is possible.
Thing is you arent here to discuss patent legislation, you are here because you hate capitalism in general. (Or he, not sure where you stand)
I am part of a few that think capitalism and socialism can coincide, the idea of a free market is great but just like in real life "freedoms" are inhibited by certain things. When a company or companies form a monopoly on a product, which is healthcare since the demand WILL NEVER GO DOWN we need socialistic ideologies to allow the corporations to practice more ethical treatments and not raise prices by 20x.
Capitalism itself doesn't work because of human greed, when we can start pricing a persons life then we as humans have failed. Carl Sagan has a few nice pieces on this.
On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote: [quote] 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.
Sure, and if you suppress the profit-making to a point, capital will simply start flowing towards more profitable ventures than pharma, reducing R&D spending, reducing pharma jobs growth, etc etc. You don't get a positive without a negative.
I always here this argument, where is the proof? It's like when people argue that "less military spending means China will attack or Russia". What basis is this argument coming from?
Simple logic and understanding of capital flows. I am investor myself and I know many others. I want to invest in good businesses and good businesses means profiable businesses with solid growth prospects. Goverment meddling with the pricing power of an industry is a spectacular way to lose attention of investors, money these people have to invest will simply go towards ventures with higher probability for an outsized profit. Examples of this are everywhere.
202
EPT
