TheTruePooka wrote:Apologies. I should have said; "in The United States".

Actually, I think this may be a uniquely American conundrum. I'm sure people will disagree, but I'm having a very difficult time seeing the problem. I just love socialist health care and pharmaceutical subsidies and that kind of thing, and I really don't feel it's taken away any liberty.

Andiferous wrote:

TheTruePooka wrote:Apologies. I should have said; "in The United States".

Actually, I think this may be a uniquely American conundrum. I'm sure people will disagree, but I'm having a very difficult time seeing the problem. I just love socialist health care and pharmaceutical subsidies and that kind of thing, and I really don't feel it's taken away any liberty.

because you don't manufacture pharmaceuticals and none of your liberty has been taken away

Andiferous wrote:

TheTruePooka wrote:Apologies. I should have said; "in The United States".

Actually, I think this may be a uniquely American conundrum. I'm sure people will disagree, but I'm having a very difficult time seeing the problem. I just love socialist health care and pharmaceutical subsidies and that kind of thing, and I really don't feel it's taken away any liberty.

Hey, we in America pay good fake money to our health care providers to not provide health!

obsidianavenger wrote:

Andiferous wrote:

Actually, I think this may be a uniquely American conundrum. I'm sure people will disagree, but I'm having a very difficult time seeing the problem. I just love socialist health care and pharmaceutical subsidies and that kind of thing, and I really don't feel it's taken away any liberty.

because you don't manufacture pharmaceuticals and none of your liberty has been taken away [/quote]

heh heh...

Actually, I see the whole argument of;

"They have a right to earn profit"

As a fallacious argument put forth by lobbyists of the Health Care oriented companies.

This is a wonderful example of how Government, representative of the people Government, would work.

We pay taxes; part of those taxes would go to the payment for the vaccine, the price of which would be set by standards and regulations that would be fair market value.

The vaccine is given out, preventing further infection and pandemic that would be a huge drain on hospital and health care resources.

People who are NOT sick can now go to work and do their jobs, which leads to further profit for the businesses they work for.

Those people who have not died can continue to be customers of the company that produced the drug for OTHER products they make using money that still has value because the economy never collapsed due to the pandemic.

The argument of "freedom" is put forth by companies that are immoral and chose to bias the perspective of the people on the topic so that the company can in turn charge outrageous prices for their product that are tantamount to blackmail.

TheTruePooka wrote:
heh heh...

Actually, I see the whole argument of;

"They have a right to earn profit"

As a fallacious argument put forth by lobbyists of the Health Care oriented companies.

This is a wonderful example of how Government, representative of the people Government, would work.

We pay taxes; part of those taxes would go to the payment for the vaccine, the price of which would be set by standards and regulations that would be fair market value.

The vaccine is given out, preventing further infection and pandemic that would be a huge drain on hospital and health care resources.

People who are NOT sick can now go to work and do their jobs, which leads to further profit for the businesses they work for.

Those people who have not died can continue to be customers of the company that produced the drug for OTHER products they make using money that still has value because the economy never collapsed due to the pandemic.

The argument of "freedom" is put forth by companies that are immoral and chose to bias the perspective of the people on the topic so that the company can in turn charge outrageous prices for their product that are tantamount to blackmail.

and where does this vaccine come from? is it invented, manufactured for free? no. it takes human effort to create. a lot of effort i might add. if poor people are entitled to the fruits of their labor then why aren't rich people? if employees are, then why aren't employers?

"standards and regulations" don't set fair market value. the free market does that

would you also force people to get vaccinated against their will for the greater good, since its such a public health risk? what other liberties are you williing to take away from millions of individuals for the sake of your vision?

the individuals that don't want the vaccine sitll have to pay for it with their taxes- how is that justified? the ones that do want it and happen to have more money than average have to pay for the vaccines of others because the government says so- how is that fair? why do you think its ok to so freely appropriate the resources of other people?

i find this utterly blithe attitude towards other's property incredibly frustrating.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:My mind just clicked onto a topic that is worth discussion

Aught3 wrote:Copyright is screwed up and needs to be fixed. But assuming you're talking about the current situation and not improvement to laws...

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:Exactly why I posted it.

But really and seriously, I want to hear everyone's responses! It's an interesting and controversial topic.

For some reason it actually pisses me off that you didn't give me attribution anywhere in this thread... But who cares about proper etiquette when discussing copyright issues

To (ironically) quote Hytegia, "Talk about Moral Reletivity" (Originally posted in the thread that inspired this one)

But of course, his mind just clicked onto the topic


Incredible!

Aught3 wrote:On the other side there is the issue of people dying while companies try to make a profit. I think I have to come down on the side that applauds India, China, Brazil, etc for making these drugs cheaply and supplying them to their citizens at low cost. It's not like the drug companies miss out on that much revenue since these people could never have brought the premium-priced drugs in the first place.

I have a little expertise on this subject. You might be surprised to learn that the cheap drugs overseas are actually manufactured by the same companies that charge a premium here. Several years ago, I was attempting to start a pharmaceutical importation business based on the buy low- sell high philosophy. At pennies on the dollar for identical products, it seemed like a great opportunity. The problem is the red tape wrapped around branding. A company only has to create 2 brand names for the same drug and they can sell them at two price levels without concern for arbitrage. It all comes down to a single legal line in the Food and Drugs Act

The pharmaceutical companies have stumbled upon an effective form of price discrimination. It allows them to capture a large amount of consumer surplus that would otherwise be lost if everything was sold at market clearing prices.

Yay capitalism!

Tbh, I didn't know that companies made two different brands of the drugs in order to get a cheap version out to poorer markets. I suppose it's a better solution that the poor country simply ripping-off the drug.


Btw, why am I quoted in your first post? I didn't start this thread.

Aught3 wrote:Yay capitalism!

Tbh, I didn't know that companies made two different brands of the drugs in order to get a cheap version out to poorer markets. I suppose it's a better solution that the poor country simply ripping-off the drug.


Btw, why am I quoted in your first post? I didn't start this thread.

Economics is an interesting subject... It gets way more interesting when you start learning about monopolies/oligopolies/cartels and how they restrict output so that their average variable costs equal their marginal costs in order to maximize their profits...

I quoted you because copyright was the subject of the thread where Hytegia's mind clicked onto the topic of this thread...

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:

JustBusiness17 wrote:...Covering everything from the origins of Mickey Mouse to the development of a low cost AIDS vaccine which was blocked from the market by patent laws -this movie will truly give you an all new perspective on life!

Wait - there's a Vaccine for AIDS being kept off the market?

>.>
That's bullshit - total bullshit.

Talk about Moral Reletivity.

After I apologized and corrected my mistake, he never returned. Next thing I know, I find this thread blatantly ripped off from the thread I created with no reference back to it. This stuff happens all the time in discussion forums, but the way he slapped me with an insult before running away to take credit for something I brought to the forums is "super classy"!

JustBusiness17 wrote:After I apologized and corrected my mistake, he never returned. Next thing I know, I find this thread blatantly ripped off from the thread I created with no reference back to it. This stuff happens all the time in discussion forums, but the way he slapped me with an insult before running away to take credit for something I brought to the forums is "super classy"!

1) I made this before you responded.
2) I apologize for having a life beyond the forums for me to respond to you. I mean - women, a job, friends, school, and a sporting team can be put aside for only SO LONG. -_-
3) This was just a conundrum I found from it. I'm not "ripping off" your idea - it was irrelevant to your topic in most cases.
4) Why is this being posted on a thread when it could have been persued within a PM? >.>

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:

JustBusiness17 wrote:After I apologized and corrected my mistake, he never returned. Next thing I know, I find this thread blatantly ripped off from the thread I created with no reference back to it. This stuff happens all the time in discussion forums, but the way he slapped me with an insult before running away to take credit for something I brought to the forums is "super classy"!

1) I made this before you responded.
2) I apologize for having a life beyond the forums for me to respond to you. I mean - women, a job, friends, school, and a sporting team can be put aside for only SO LONG. -_-
3) This was just a conundrum I found from it. I'm not "ripping off" your idea - it was irrelevant to your topic in most cases.
4) Why is this being posted on a thread when it could have been persued within a PM? >.>

1) good point, but...

The thing that bothered me the most was the harshness of your message in that thread. I happen to really like both of those movies because they expose a fundamental problem with the legal system that impedes human progress on levels that stretch far beyond music and video (and considering how useful these two mediums are for spreading knowledge, thats bad enough). Your comment was incendiary and did nothing to further the conversation. In fact, it probably helped to kill it...

Fair enough this little hypothetical diverges enough from the other thread to warrant a separate conversation, but the way you presented the idea as your own was rather shameless among other things. Especially considering the strength of the parallels and weakened state that you left the original in.

Why shouldn't this be posted here... Its relevant to the thread is it not?



------


On a semi-related point, it turns out I made another mistake with regards to the statement that inspired this thread. I will be updating the original thread shortly.

obsidianavenger wrote:

Aught3 wrote: The motivation is not that hard to understand is it? There's just no profit in it. If the company can't make money out of it selling the lower priced drugs to people who need it then they won't do it. It makes economic sense to concentrate their efforts selling the premium-priced drugs in countries that can afford it.

so they spent a lot of effort and money to create a product and then can make no profit for it- and yet you claim nothing is lost?

beyond that though, my point is that if they make the thing too expensive, no one will buy it and they will make no profit. its not worth it to them to make it unaffordable for the bulk of the population. though their gross might be lower, overall their profits will be much greater if they make it at least affordable for the middle class.

if i am born with a heart defect am i entitled to a transplant? even if i have no way to pay for it? if someone wants to donate their labor thats one thing but passing a law that they *must* labor for my benefit because i am in need regardless of their compensation level is wrong, and it *is* slavery.

I think of all the points in this thread I most take umbrage with the idea that medicine, caregiving and medical research should be subject to the free market model. I agree that physicians and medical researches should be well compensated for their important work (particularly, when the work is important), but opening these up to corruption via the free market puts them at risk of violating the very principles that define and hold them above the average snake oil salesman.

Medicine is about helping people. The Hippocratic oath reminds professionals to do no harm and exists to keep medicine bound to strict ethics. So, could cheating folks out of their money contradict the oath?

Money is nice, money is necessary, but the promise of money tends to corrupt. It's a fact. It does nice things and bad things, and we tend to swallow the bad with the good.

I am sure there are fantastic doctors who are partly motivated into the profession for money and status, but I have to question if capitalism is the best motivating factor in a caregiving profession. I also have to question if medical research is best left to commercialism and capitalism when it should properly be governed by a genuine desire to address medical problems.

When medicine and research are moved by economic principles they risk being being marketed for profit and being corrupted into another money making enterprise seeking niche markets and selling things that people don't really need.

I get a little stomach cramp when seeing drug commercials and advertisements that, while pretending to be informative, tend to convince gullible people that they are in need of treatment that is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Given this kind of attitude, how long before drug companies and the medical profession revert to snake oil salesmen who employ any means at their disposal to make a buck, even if this entails inventing new health issues or blowing minor issues out of proportion, to cheat ignorant people out of money they don't really have? Doesn't this dip heavily into unethical Hippocratic territory?

I don't care how, but those very noble professions that I hold in the highest regard should be protected from monetary corruption, and if that means increasing taxes by X%, I don't see what the problem is. Medicine must be held ethically accountable, and should not be left to flounder on the leash of capitalism.

Andiferous wrote:I get a little stomach cramp when seeing drug commercials and advertisements that, while pretending to be informative, tend to convince gullible people that they are in need of treatment that is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Given this kind of attitude, how long before drug companies and the medical profession revert to snake oil salesmen who employ any means at their disposal to make a buck, even if this entails inventing new health issues or blowing minor issues out of proportion, to cheat ignorant people out of money they don't really have? Doesn't this dip heavily into unethical Hippocratic territory?

I don't care how, but those very noble professions that I hold in the highest regard should be protected from monetary corruption, and if that means increasing taxes by X%, I don't see what the problem is. Medicine must be held ethically accountable, and should not be left to flounder on the leash of capitalism.

a few points. while i understand your discomfort with the idea of leaving something like medicine up to the free market, i strongly disagree that free market principles lead inexorably to corruption. in fact, it is just such division of labor coupled with trade that led from hunting and gathering to modern civilization. robert wright calls it "non-zero-sumness". psychologists call it reciprocal altruism. i call it pretty fucking awesome. sure some cheating goes on but the beauty of the system is that a minimal amount of cheating is possible before it simply stops paying off and the cheating business collapses... at least before the age of gov't bailouts

the point here is that the pharmaceutical company has no motivation to make something so expensive no one can afford it. then no one buys it and they make no money. they have no motivation to create useless products (well maybe some...) but if they are found out, there is public outrage and they ultimately lose business. if they lie in their ads, they are liable for that, but simply exaggerating is no crime. people aren't generally unthinking victims of advertising agencies- they can and do evaluate the truth of claims presented to them. if a pharmaceutical company makes money selling them something they don't need, who's fault is that? is the company responsible for the passive acceptance of the viewers? honestly, i don't think so. working to get the truth out is important but you can't blame a pharma company for someone buying a drug they sell- it was the consumers choice to buy it.

i also understand that there is a heightened sense of urgency when it comes to healthcare- a sense of need and panic. and i think thats why its all the more important to consider carefully the actual situation. you say people "need" drug x. before drug x existed did they also need it? were they also entitled to it then? does it make sense to say they were entitled to something that didn't exist? why, now that a company has invented it, is it suddenly up for grabs?

Guys, please... Give some credit to the study of economics. Prices are not set arbitrarily under monopolistic conditions. An organization can easily determine the profit maximizing price/production level for a good. I could even tell you the appropriate price level for a good with just a few simple variables...

JustBusiness17 wrote:Guys, please... Give some credit to the study of economics. Prices are not set arbitrarily under monopolistic conditions. An organization can easily determine the profit maximizing price/production level for a good. I could even tell you the appropriate price level for a good with just a few simple variables...

My dear, you must communicate with me in English. It's a bit like speaking Klingon to someone who has never seen inside a rocket ship, and not sure what you're replying to.

Andiferous wrote:

JustBusiness17 wrote:Guys, please... Give some credit to the study of economics. Prices are not set arbitrarily under monopolistic conditions. An organization can easily determine the profit maximizing price/production level for a good. I could even tell you the appropriate price level for a good with just a few simple variables...

My dear, you must communicate with me in English. It's a bit like speaking Klingon to someone who has never seen inside a rocket ship, and not sure what you're replying to.

My apologies. Business school really is like learning a new language. All I said is that if I could figure out the best price to make the most profit from sales, a multi-national pharmaceutical company will surely have people on payroll telling them the same thing.

I might put up some graphs to help you visualize things.