US blocks cheap drugs agreement

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Which tech would you rather research in Civ? One that was immediately given to every other player for free, or one you could keep and utilise?

elaborate...


(But anyway...that sounds like a decent argument...the I don't want to have discontent isn't such a good argument.)

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by GP


The adhominem has a real power to it. Especially if delivered from a sufficiently haughty demeanor. Oh...for the old days when I used to torture Stew.

Apology accepted.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Apology accepted.

There, there. (Where did Stefu put that patting on the head smilie? )

[Jaakko]

If Stew's Civ argument was worthy, big pharm companies wouldn't do price reductions on AIDS drugs voluntarily, but the opposite is shown by my second article link. Given this, I think it could be quite feasible to get an agreement on the drugs for the worst epidemics in poor countries.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes there could be an agreement, but the COMPANIES must be involved. Forcing them into an agreement that countries decide is foolish and unfair.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by GP


There, there. (Where did Stefu put that patting on the head smilie? )

I win, my comebacks were much more effective than yours. Perhaps senility is finally settling in, eh?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes there could be an agreement, but the COMPANIES must be involved. Forcing them into an agreement that countries decide is foolish and unfair.

I'm quite certain that they are involved. But still, "forcing them into an agreement" is not unfair per se. The issue was patent protection vs. emergency needs, and governments are usually empowered enough to make such decisions without approval from companies.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Jaakko


I win, my comebacks were much more effective than yours. Perhaps senility is finally settling in, eh?

Yeah...but you lose some points for squeeling and showing your tender underbelly.

[Sava]

ahh yes... its nice to know that with the dismissal of Trent Lott, the pharmaceutical companies got a new friend in a very high place in Bill Frist (puppet of the Pharmaceutical industry). There is no defending the dismissal of this cheap, generic drug program. Doing so would be like trying to justify the Holocaust. And this is not an exagerrated analogy. Millions of people around the world die each year of disease... disease which could be fighted with cheap generic drugs. And so f*cking what if a black market is created. Frankly, if the black market can provide cheaper pharmaceutical drugs, then that will only increase competition from drug companies to provide lower costs to consumers, or force the creation of generic drugs in the US. Sorry, but in both instances, consumers win. I give two sh!ts about some crying drug company CEO who will have to suffer only making 10 million a year instead of 50 million . The names I see taking the drug companies' sides are the pro-capitalism people here. So what gives, hypocrits? Against increased competition that would eventually help consumers? conservative hypocrisy, what a surprise

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes there could be an agreement, but the COMPANIES must be involved. Forcing them into an agreement that countries decide is foolish and unfair.

Unfair to whom? The millions dying of disease outside the US, or a few super-rich pharmaceutical executives and CEO's?

[axi]

If the drug companies won't sell their drugs cheap, or their licences, then socialise them and let's get over with it. Health is definitely a field where profiteering is immoral, so let's do away with it.

Letting people die because they made the drug first! These are one million times worse scoundrels than the RIAA. Two centuries ago, no man on earth would ever think of throwing away the very life of millions of people, by simply patenting a few drugs.

Don't these people know anything about the Hippocratic oath?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unfair to whom? The millions dying of disease outside the US, or a few super-rich pharmaceutical executives and CEO's?

So when the pharmaceutical industry dies because of your policies and you don't have anyone to create drugs for diseases in the future, will you be thankful that we saved some people in 2003 in exchange for no future cures for disease?

Of course you have no idea what you are talking about (as usual). Yes, there is increased competition by governmental FORCING of companies to sell their drugs cheap.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by GP


Yeah...but you lose some points for squeeling and showing your tender underbelly.

Nah, I just thought you'd gone off your rocker...

[TCO]

Originally posted by axi
If the drug companies won't sell their drugs cheap, or their licences, then socialise them and let's get over with it. Health is definitely a field where profiteering is immoral, so let's do away with it.

Letting people die because they made the drug first! These are one million times worse scoundrels than the RIAA. Two centuries ago, no man on earth would ever think of throwing away the very life of millions of people, by simply patenting a few drugs.

Don't these people know anything about the Hippocratic oath?

Well...you are a communist. So it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand about incentives. go live in the USSR. They did a great job in that system.

[axi]

To those who don't know what to socialise means, it's just this: the state takes immediate posession of the company, the proprietors lose any rights of management and property and the company is working as a public service, under the collective management of it's employees.

And no we don't care about any property rights. The right to life is greater than that.

For the time being, I say that all 3rd world countries should plainly ignore the pharmaceuticals and the USA and all their patents. What can they do, go to war about it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the drug companies won't sell their drugs cheap, or their licences, then socialise them and let's get over with it. Health is definitely a field where profiteering is immoral, so let's do away with it.

So that drugs will take 4 times as long to develop and will cost twice as much (which the government will take from you through taxes)? Sorry, don't think so.

Like GP (somewhat) stated, incentives are the reasons for most of the cures we have today. Because people saw they could get money from it!

[Sava]

I don't give a sh!t about the pharmaceutical industry dying. They're all a bunch of greedy f*cking bas3rds (my mom's a VP of a Chicago area clinical lab company so I've got wonderful insight of the industry). You presume that all world development would suffer if the greed-driven industry died. In fact, I bet there would be a renaissance in bio-medical development if the profit-driven restrictions on R&D were made irrelevant by public, socialized medicine.

and on top of that, millions will get the drugs they need to live! That's a tough one, let me think.

[Sava]

Wrong silly boys... socialized medicine = less average cost to the people... get your heads out of your asses and look at Western Europe and Canada. The US would probably have a more efficient system than the rest because I think that the United States has an inherent hard-working attitude that is part of our culture. Eliminate the greed and corruption, and overall costs would decrease across the board. Awww, but the rich conservatives don't want that... and the poor conservatives are too ignorant to admit they're wrong.

[TCO]

Save who let you out of the idiot box?. You were supposed to be holding hands with Faded Glory. If you get bored, help Mommie screw up a chemical company.

[axi]

At least with fighting disease and epidemics, they did a much better job than you did. Quite a few Soviet scientists sacrificed their lives researching the plague epidemics until the managed to beat it with vaccines and in 1928 the disease was extinct from the USSR (where that disease had been domestic). In the 30's, there was an outbreak of the plague in California, among the immigrant population but the authorities concealed the fact.

Btw, most epidemic diseases are fastly gaining ground worldwide. Cholera and typhus have reappeared in Europe after many many years. Not to mention hypatitis. This is IMO the best proof that pharmaceutical companies don't do their job well.

[David Floyd]

If the drug companies won't sell their drugs cheap, or their licences, then socialise them and let's get over with it. Health is definitely a field where profiteering is immoral, so let's do away with it.

Socialization, eh? Yeah, THAT'D be a popular idea in the US

[mactbone]

The more money Pharma companies make, the more money goes toward making new drugs. Sava, you have lost your grip on reality.

Anyways, I'm sure that there were disagreements on both sides on what should be done, this want' a strict charity case. Plus, the US is not in an emergency, meaning the Pharma companies have to agree to this or most people in the US aren't going to be happy abou the deal. If the gov't can essentially steal money from you and give it to another country that's not right. It's one thing to give foreign aid, it's another to take some of your patents and freely distribute them.

I'm also wondering at the facilities that these nations would have to manufacture these generic drugs.

[axi]

We're talking about countries like India, Brazil and South Africa, who are the most eager to produce these drugs.

If most Americans don't want to enforce morality to the pharmaceuticals, they they will have to be dissappointed too. As I said before: what are you going to do, go to war?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by axi
Cholera and typhus have reappeared in Europe after many many years. This is IMO the best proof that pharmaceutical companies don't do their job well.

That says more about the sanitation and hygiene of Europe than it does about pharmaceutical companies.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GP
Save who let you out of the idiot box?. You were supposed to be holding hands with Faded Glory. If you get bored, help Mommie screw up a chemical company.

ahhh insults in the face of your abhorrent sense of wrongness... seriously though, I didn't expect anything more.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MacTBone
The more money Pharma companies make, the more money goes toward making new drugs. Sava, you have lost your grip on reality.

Anyways, I'm sure that there were disagreements on both sides on what should be done, this want' a strict charity case. Plus, the US is not in an emergency, meaning the Pharma companies have to agree to this or most people in the US aren't going to be happy abou the deal. If the gov't can essentially steal money from you and give it to another country that's not right. It's one thing to give foreign aid, it's another to take some of your patents and freely distribute them.

I'm also wondering at the facilities that these nations would have to manufacture these generic drugs.

The more money they make, the more goes to profits. R&D in the pharmaceutical industry is grossly underfunded. The only drugs that get resources are the ones that would be the most profitable... (i.e. Viagra, Allegra, other allergy medications). The medications that get produced are marketed solely to the middle and upper classes. They are for non-life-threatening conditions and uses like preventative allergy and in the case of Viagra, impotence. You need to wake up. Health care should not be a business. You know why? Because only the most profitable consumers get taken care of. As you hypocritical conservatives like to proclaim, you support the right to life. But where is your support for the right to life if there aren't dollars behind it. You should at least be honest and say if it don't make dollars, morals need not apply.

[David Floyd]

Two centuries ago, no man on earth would ever think of throwing away the very life of millions of people, by simply patenting a few drugs.

Maybe, but two centuries ago, they would enslave millions of people, and launch wars that killed thousands (and, if you include WW1, or go back to the 30 Years War, tens of millions), so I don't see your point.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Socialization, eh? Yeah, THAT'D be a popular idea in the US

If it were put to a straight up popular vote and weren't subject to a massive propaganda campaign by capitalist pigs; socialized medicine would be a fact. But America is not a democracy, popular vote doesn't matter. The rest of the country is a lot different than your little world out there in Texas, David.

[David Floyd]

If it were put to a straight up popular vote and weren't subject to a massive propaganda campaign by capitalist pigs;

And instead, were subject to a massive propaganda campaign by socialists, right?

[Sava]

No, and that's the whole thing David. Socialized medicine works, you can put your head in the sand and forget about Western Europe and Canada, but in the end the thing that would sway public opinion is propaganda put out by the right. There need not be any socialist propaganda other that a stating of the facts. But ignorance and conformity is king in the US... whoever puts out the best ad campaign would win.