|
On October 14 2012 05:31 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:27 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:25 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:21 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:17 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:15 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:13 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way. And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out! There's a reason why health care is considered a federal responsibility in many countries. That is like saying a countries department of transportation is responsible for building cars. Businesses are restrained by many different types of laws that have been developed through the times for anti-monopoly, anti-profiteering against human rights, and so forth. Just look at IG Farben and Standard Oil. You can't be serious. So, the fact that there are anti-monopoly laws is enough basis for you to remove the patent system and along with it any incentive for private companies to invent medicine? When did I ever say that, I've already said that they are circumventing the patent laws and lobbying to criminalize generic medicine as well as bar the government from bargaining prices even in extreme situations. That's above the rights of any private organization. In a time of crisis in some countries for example, say a certain outbreak, the government is barred by law to bargain or control prices on vaccines or cures, which is just outrageous. So, just so I get this right, I defend the patent system which leads you to reply to that by telling me how bad Big Pharma is who is lobbying?
Do you understand the patent system, at all? Criminalizing generics is the exact same thing as saying "even after my patent expires I'm still the only one allowed to make them under my branding system".
|
|
|
So not really, but I am very curious if you can dig up any cases that prove what you are implying, a blanketing ban on generic medicines in ACTA signing countries. Along with the so called "death" of WTO and WIPO that that wikipedia article claims as well.
|
Yeah, within 20 years, if you're not very wealthy and don't qualify for federal/state/national assistance, you'll pretty much be unable to afford medications for even more treatable conditions.
|
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
|
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
|
On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how.
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
|
On October 14 2012 05:37 Catch]22 wrote:So not really, but I am very curious if you can dig up any cases that prove what you are implying, a blanketing ban on generic medicines in ACTA signing countries. Along with the so called "death" of WTO and WIPO that that wikipedia article claims as well.
So it's fine to continuously encroach on said territory with increased intensity as long as it's an ongoing process with an aim which is to achieve the end goal of a blanket ban? You can't be serious.
|
On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
|
On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest.
Are you serious?
Do you even realize how much time and money it takes to invent, test and approve a new drug?
Most new medicines take up to 20 years to go through the trial process - which is expensive.
In this case, this obviously doesn't apply completely as they're just using an already approved drug and I am not trying to defend them for this, but saying that medicine should be free is naive.
Of course, this is what health insurance is for.
|
On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people.
Except those cases are rare and far between, compared to the amount of medicine that we got via the profit motive. War and capitalism are some of the greatest driver of technology, medicine or otherwise.
|
On October 14 2012 05:33 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:30 sirkyan wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I can't but agree with zalz. It's terrible that people suffer with or without drugs. Especially WITHOUT when there are drugs to ease their pain/discomfort, but this is the rules the people and nations have come to live by. Take it or leave it. What if this kind of behaviour is the reason the medicine even exists in the first place? I don't think the decision to force them to lower (or keep) their price low should be made hastily. What if this kind of behaviour is the motivation for the people in control? Compensation should meet accomplishment. I don't like seeing or hearing about people suffering either, just for clarification. Let's just hope they put the money to good use (which they probably won't, but lets give them the benefit of doubt). It's a system of priorities alright? This isn't hard, if your profiteering system is not only barring certain people from living, but also eliminates alternatives and the ability for humanitarian associations to provide said services by criminalizing generics among other actions, then there is something wrong about your priorities.
There's no doubt in my mind profiteering is their number one priority in this matter but it's still their decision and priorities are subjective, who are you to tell them theirs are wrong? They choose money over well being over random people. Perhaps that makes them terrible, greedy or simply business oriented, I don't know, but saying their priorities are wrong because they doesn't match yours is not OK.
By 'them' i mean the ones who are in charge of this decision, I obviously have no hard feelings toward the actual scientists or other people working under them.
|
On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
|
On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now.
Mythical? Hardly. Sure, things are more complicated but our knowledge and equipment has improved drastically as well. I don't buy the argument that if people aren't allowed rape consumers for huge sums of money then we would have no growth of society. This is a perfect example of why people are starting to once again grown angry at the market system and capitalism in general.
|
On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
|
On October 14 2012 05:47 sirkyan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:33 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:30 sirkyan wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I can't but agree with zalz. It's terrible that people suffer with or without drugs. Especially WITHOUT when there are drugs to ease their pain/discomfort, but this is the rules the people and nations have come to live by. Take it or leave it. What if this kind of behaviour is the reason the medicine even exists in the first place? I don't think the decision to force them to lower (or keep) their price low should be made hastily. What if this kind of behaviour is the motivation for the people in control? Compensation should meet accomplishment. I don't like seeing or hearing about people suffering either, just for clarification. Let's just hope they put the money to good use (which they probably won't, but lets give them the benefit of doubt). It's a system of priorities alright? This isn't hard, if your profiteering system is not only barring certain people from living, but also eliminates alternatives and the ability for humanitarian associations to provide said services by criminalizing generics among other actions, then there is something wrong about your priorities. There's no doubt in my mind profiteering is their number one priority in this matter but it's still their decision and priorities are subjective, who are you to tell them theirs are wrong? They choose money over well being over random people. Perhaps that makes them terrible, greedy or simply business oriented, I don't know, but saying their priorities are wrong because they doesn't match yours is not OK. By 'them' i mean the ones who are in charge of this decision, I obviously have no hard feelings toward the actual scientists or other people working under them.
Defending an unethical framework to profiteer is morally wrong, it doesn't matter what economical structure you operate under.
|
On October 14 2012 05:44 Lorizean wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. Are you serious? Do you even realize how much time and money it takes to invent, test and approve a new drug? Most new medicines take up to 20 years to go through the trial process - which is expensive. In this case, this obviously doesn't apply completely as they're just using an already approved drug and I am not trying to defend them for this, but saying that medicine should be free is naive. Of course, this is what health insurance is for.
Free? Nothing is free. I do believe funding, research, production, and distribution should be a job of the State or state sponsored entities.
|
On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days.
It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
|
On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example.
Reminds me of the good old times that BoxeR talked about when "eSports" was just a bunch of kids on PC bangs, with no money and all that.
|
When your government doesn't subsidize pharma's they grow and become a big lobbying power that can price like a monopoly. In Britain and Canada they have regulations as to the price of pills. Most pills in Canada are 40-50 dollars (for major ones) knocked down in price.
In the U.S., a 30-day supply of Diovan (valsartan), a medication used to treat high blood pressure, cost $73. In Canada, the cost was $40.
In the U.S., a 30-day supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), a medication used to help lower cholesterol, cost $86. In Canada, the cost was $51.
In the U.S., a 30-day supply of Flomax (tamsulosin), a medication used to treat an enlarged prostate (BPH), cost $110. In Canada, the cost was $38.
Multiple Reasons for Cost Differences
The reason that prescription medications are cheaper in Canada is complex and there are several factors that contribute to the lower costs.
http://drugs.about.com/od/faqsaboutyourdrugs/f/Canada_cheap.htm
But remember guys, Canada healthcare costs more and sucks!!!!! Keep it private! Grrrrrrrrr!!! :D lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
