|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:35 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:34 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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? Individuals are rarely capable of affecting legislation in the same manner and often it's illegal to support legal change in monetary means.
There is a word for this in my world. Corruption. Accepting compensation for legislating preferably for a single party whos interests do not coincide with that of the general public is simply being corrupt.
|
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. Too much drugs are being made with only profit in mind and not human health at all. There are many examples where pharma is researching for profit and not curing, and that isn't beneficial to a society at all.
|
On October 14 2012 06:36 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:35 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:34 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
If an individual is barred by law to attempt the same thing yet a corporate entity is not, that exclusivity itself is a problem.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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. 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.
I am aware of this, but this does not change the metaphorical comparison I am drawing with regards to behavior. It only reinforces the fact that the problem lies with the system intended to regulate this kind of behavior and practice.
|
On October 14 2012 06:37 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:35 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:34 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. There is a word for this in my world. Corruption. Accepting compensation for legislating preferably for a single party whos interests do not coincide with that of the general public is simply being corrupt.
It's ongoing in many countries, they are legalizing the illegitimate. And it does apply in the scope of the discussion regarding pharmaceutical companies.
|
On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized.
And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:41 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:37 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:35 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:34 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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. There is a word for this in my world. Corruption. Accepting compensation for legislating preferably for a single party whos interests do not coincide with that of the general public is simply being corrupt. It's ongoing in many countries, they are legalizing the illegitimate. And it does apply in the scope of the discussion regarding pharmaceutical companies.
Absolutely, and I find it disturbing in the extreme.
On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Yeah indeed, I cannot see any government being able let alone willing to venture into a high investment R&D sector. But yeah it would be the only solution to put a stop to this for 99%. As long as it remains a private enterprise profit will remain the deciding factor and since profit equals survivability in that sector means it justifiably remains so.
|
On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from?
Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
|
On October 14 2012 06:40 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:32 farvacola wrote:On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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. 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. I am aware of this, but this does not change the metaphorical comparison I am drawing with regards to behavior. It only reinforces the fact that the problem lies with the system intended to regulate this kind of behavior and practice.
I'm curious what you think is the actual problem in this case. I'm skeptical and still think the main article this whole discussion is based on is rather uninformed and biased and doesnt really cohere with the active IP legislation (ACTA effects post-ratification not withstanding).
|
On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
Non private manufacturing entities are not exactly well known for being particularly efficient (with some very rare exceptions). Thats what removing the profit incentive does.
|
On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities.
You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
|
On October 14 2012 06:34 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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. 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.
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was called "MS drug to be sold x20 higher after rebrand". I didn't realize the argument was limited to IP law.
EDIT: Besides, we don't need an IP lawyer here to tell us its legal. That is as apparent as whether or not it is moral or not.
|
On October 14 2012 06:37 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:24 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:20 ImAbstracT 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:
[quote]
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 06:25 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:16 Jago wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
But it has never happened yet. I asked for a specific example in which a government went "You can't price your shit at 120 dollars a bottle" for essential life saving pills and their stock crashed, there business tanked. I have no issue right now going to my store and buying the same products everyone else can but why are mine 40 and Americans 80? Because my government practices ethics over profit in fundemental cases.
The demand for medical treatment will never go away, investing in medical treatments will never go away becasue people will always pay. The debate is on whether pharma compnaies should make more than the GDP of some countries by over pricing required products or be held at a more reasonable multi billion dollar range?
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/25-shocking-facts-that-prove-that-the-entire-u-s-health-care-industry-has-become-one-giant-money-making-scam
This is regarding health care, but pharma is similar in every way.
+ Show Spoiler +#1 The chairman of Aetna, the third largest health insurance company in the United States, brought in a staggering $68.7 million during 2010. Ron Williams exercised stock options that were worth approximately $50.3 million and he raked in an additional $18.4 million in wages and other forms of compensation. The funny thing is that he left the company and didn't even work the whole year.
#2 The top executives at the five largest for-profit health insurance companies in the United States combined to receive nearly $200 million in total compensation in 2009.
#3 One study found that approximately 41 percent of working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.
#4 Over the last decade, the number of Americans without health insurance has risen from about 38 million to about 52 million.
#5 According to one survey, approximately 1 out of every 4 Californians under the age of 65 has absolutely no health insurance.
#6 According to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills are a major factor in more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States. Of those bankruptcies that were caused by medical bills, approximately 75 percent of them involved individuals that actually did have health insurance.
#7 Profits at U.S. health insurance companies increased by 56 percent during 2009.
#8 According to a report by Health Care for America Now, America's five biggest for-profit health insurance companies ended 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion.
#9 Health insurance rate increases are getting out of control. According to the Los Angeles Times, Blue Shield of California plans to raise rates an average of 30% to 35%, and some individual policy holders could see their health insurance premiums rise by a whopping 59 percent this year alone.
#10 According to an article on the Mother Jones website, health insurance premiums for small employers in the U.S. increased 180% between 1999 and 2009.
#11 Why are c-sections on the rise? It is because a vaginal delivery costs approximately $5,992 on average, while a c-section costs approximately $8,558 on average.
#12 Since 2003, health insurance companies have shelled out more than $42 million in state-level campaign contributions.
#13 Between 2000 and 2006, wages in the United States increased by 3.8%, but health care premiums increased by 87%.
#14 There were more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies that made over a billion dollars in profits in 2008.
#15 Each year, tens of billions of dollars is spent on pharmaceutical marketing in the United States alone.
#16 Nearly half of all Americans now use prescription drugs on a regular basis according to a CDC report that was just released. According to the report, approximately one-third of all Americans use two or more pharmaceutical drugs, and more than ten percent of all Americans use five or more prescription drugs on a regular basis.
#17 According to the CDC, approximately three quarters of a million people a year are rushed to emergency rooms in the United States because of adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs.
#18 The Food and Drug Administration reported 1,742 prescription drug recalls in 2009, which was a gigantic increase from 426 drug recalls in 2008.
#19 Lawyers are certainly doing their part to contribute to soaring health care costs. According to one recent study, the medical liability system in the United States added approximately $55.6 billion to the cost of health care in 2008.
#20 According to one doctor interviewed by Fox News, "a gunshot wound to the head, chest or abdomen" will cost $13,000 at his hospital the moment the victim comes in the door, and then there will be significant additional charges depending on how bad the wound is.
#21 In America today, if you have an illness that requires intensive care for an extended period of time, it is ridiculously really easy to rack up medical bills that total over 1 million dollars.
#22 It is estimated that hospitals overcharge Americans by about 10 billion dollars every single year.
#23 One trained medical billing advocate says that over 90 percent of the medical bills that she has audited contain "gross overcharges".
#24 It is not uncommon for insurance companies to get hospitals to knock their bills down by up to 95 percent, but if you are uninsured or you don't know how the system works then you are out of luck.
#25 According to one recent report, Americans spend approximately twice as much as residents of other developed countries on health care.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:34 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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. I'm sorry, I thought this thread was called "MS drug to be sold x20 higher after rebrand". I didn't realize the argument was limited to IP law. EDIT: Besides, we don't need an IP lawyer here to tell us its legal. That is as apparent as whether or not it is moral or not.
It does not have to be. But one cannot have a discussion on the moral/ethical merits of the case at the same time as venturing into the reasons as to why the scenario can exist in the first place. If you would, you would automatically enter into a discussion about the morality of law itself. As such it is important to note which discussion one is having.
|
On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are.
I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:34 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:29 Nyovne wrote:On October 14 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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. I'm sorry, I thought this thread was called "MS drug to be sold x20 higher after rebrand". I didn't realize the argument was limited to IP law. EDIT: Besides, we don't need an IP lawyer here to tell us its legal. That is as apparent as whether or not it is moral or not.
If you would actually take the effort to read my carefully phrased posts I would not have to repeat myself but it seems the need does arise. That it is legal is obvious, but the majority of people do not know and subsequently fail to understand how such a scenario can exist and come to be. As such it is important to explain the system behind the occurance so people are informed and can have a proper discussion about the relevant aspects of the case.
As I explicitly stated three times now, twice in response to one of your posts, the moral and legal discussions are seperate topics and should be treated as such.
Responding to a legal argument with a moral one is irrelevant and absolutely useless. They remain seperate things. If you have a problem with the morality of the legal argument look no further then the political and legislation system behind that and criticize that. But again, that is a different discussion alltogether.
|
On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from.
Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
|
On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote:
You might find it unethical, but it's good business and it's completely legal.
The effectiveness of this drug means that it suddenly becomes that much more valuable to the consumer. Demand for this has shifted right significantly of course, and they are charging a price that their statisticians and whatnot see as a price consumers will be willing to pay. They made the drug, so they can charge whatever they want for it. If it's "overpriced", it will fail because consumers will refuse to pay for it. But this kind of drug is very price inelastic because there are many people in great need of it, so they can afford to make crazy increases in price and still expect many people to buy it. Hate the system, but that's just how it works.
Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool.
|
On October 14 2012 06:50 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:48 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:44 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:42 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 06:41 Jago wrote:On October 14 2012 06:38 Myrtroll wrote:
This is why medicine shouldn't be privatized. And who would the goverment buy the drugs and medical equipment from? Non private manufacturing entities exist, you may recognize them as infrastructural entities, not for profit entities, and nationalized entities. You are then just replacing malice by incompetence. Personally, I prefer malice. I live in Canada too, and I know how wasteful some of the public sector stuff are. I was simply answering a question, also it's assumed that private companies and individuals can be wasteful with their resources in what ever capacity possible, yet non private organizations are scrutinized by the public interest. That immunity to public scrutiny for private organizations is where the malice comes from. Private organization, by the virtue of needing profit, is generally not as wasteful. They cannot afford to be incompetent, or they will fold.
If you apply the same assumption for non private organizations to be competent (ie. have the public interest affect and motivate them), you would also remove the malice from private organizations. That was my point.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:51 PVJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:45 Aerisky wrote:
You might find it unethical, but it's good business and it's completely legal.
The effectiveness of this drug means that it suddenly becomes that much more valuable to the consumer. Demand for this has shifted right significantly of course, and they are charging a price that their statisticians and whatnot see as a price consumers will be willing to pay. They made the drug, so they can charge whatever they want for it. If it's "overpriced", it will fail because consumers will refuse to pay for it. But this kind of drug is very price inelastic because there are many people in great need of it, so they can afford to make crazy increases in price and still expect many people to buy it. Hate the system, but that's just how it works. Don't talk about it like it's a consumer good. The people who are buying meds like that, don't really have a choice on what they would or would not like to buy. And right out cash in from this dependence is not cool.
There's a market for it, how is it not a consumer good? That it is crude and absolutely "not cool" as you put it should be beyond obvious to anyone with even the faintest moral compass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
