8 ms·

One day, we will look back and not understand how this was even possible. You come up with a cure for something and you make the price so high that it is cheape

One day, we will look back and not understand how this was even possible. You come up with a cure for something and you make the price so high that it is cheaper to die from the disease.

StudentStuff 9y ago
Its late stage capitalism at its finest. Profiting off mass suffering is to be applauded and rewarded, not considered immoral and illegal. We would rather let each other die of treatable conditions than have slightly lower profit.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  Regulation has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalists (as in people believing in the free market) are actually opposed to what you're describing. What this non-profit did would happen immediately if there was no government to shut it down because there are high margins and so it's very desirable to enter the market with a lower price - and also charity.
  - xyzzyz 9y ago
    If there was no government to shut down the nonprofit, the company wouldn’t have spent billions to develop the cure in the first place. Why would you do that, if anyone could just copy your work and profit for themselves?
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      As a charity, for example. The market would find a way, I'm sure. This is already well thought out, if you're truly interested, I recommend this article by a well known economist: https://mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-fda https://mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-... And also this one: https://mises.org/library/advancing-pharmaceutical-and-medical-technology-does-not-depend-patents https://mises.org/library/advancing-pharmaceutical-and-medic... It's in no one's interest to have people dying instead of buying and selling services.
      - xyzzyz 9y ago
        I cannot imagine charity ponying up $11 billion on anything at all, much less the development of a single drug. Of course, a lot of this cost is due to excessive FDA requirements, but the charities are not funding drug development right now, and I imagine there is better use of charity money, for things that aren’t worth for companies to get into.
        TomMarius 9y ago
        You're thinking about a whole different world with mentality from this one. Right now the system works like it does - drugs get developed - and so there is no need for charity to do it. Charity is not just taking money and redirecting it, it's also operating a business - yes, you actually can run a business without taking massive margins and being greedy, that's what government tries to do (but fails because of involuntarity and lack of competition). Don't forget that the charities don't have the 11 billion now because the money goes elsewhere (to pharma corps), but people might give it to the charity if the corps didnt't exist. The same development could possibly cost less, that's another thing to consider. Overall my point is that the greed of pharma companies is not because of capitalism because it wouldn't be possible in pure capitalism. It's enabled by the government.
    - stu432 9y ago
      Yes, I would, and then I'd pay for an army to go shut down my competitors because there's no government to stop me and then 10x my profits.
      - TomMarius 9y ago
        You're very naive if you think that's worth it even in the slightest. See army budgets - and remember that no one will fight for you for your ideas, since you have none. And people (read: other armies) will oppose you.
- oisdfjoijok 9y ago
  Any data on how many cures are being invented in communist or socialist countries, compared to capitalist countries?
  - rantanplan 9y ago
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165
    - oisdfjoijok 9y ago
      Fine - so that is one. Any more numbers?
      - rantanplan 9y ago
        That is one? _That_ is one? Have you heard of cancer? That is _everything_! So what did we achieve with our superior capitalistic systems when it comes to fighting one of the worst threats to our species? Look, I ain't a communist, but I ain't in favor of capitalism either. What I know is that cheerleading will get us nowhere. We need to critically think about our course as a human species and if you think we're on a proper trajectory, think again.
        kss238 9y ago
        It's one specific type of cancer (although it is for the most common subset of the most common type of cancer), not a panacea.
        oisdfjoijok 9y ago
        There has been a lot of progress in fighting cancer. Survival rates for many types of cancer have increased tremendously. I assume this medication from Cuba is just one of many specific approaches.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    Probably better to ask how many drugs are developed without public funding. Usually, the private sector finds public funds for the risky parts.. or starts off from discoveries made with public funds in a University.
- icebraining 9y ago
  There's nothing "late stage" about it, it's been going on forever. Literal wars have been fueled just to sell more product.
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    I was reading about Res Rubber and the Belgian Congo yesterday. Horrific period in a time full of them.
xyzzyz 9y ago
The alternative is to have no cure at all. The businesses need that money as incentive to develop new cures. If we don’t want it to work this way, we need government to spend much more on research, otherwise we will just get fewer new drugs.
- thefounder 9y ago
  It's not really true. Have you heard of pharma boy? There are alternatives/solutions to regulate the market.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  I understand the drug companies ("pharmaceutical industry" in the link below) pay about 60% of the research costs. It's a lot of it, but it's not orders-of-magnitude bigger than the public contribution. https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193 https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-266... Some would suggest that the drug companies actually take on the lower risk research, leaving the high risk work to be funded by other sources: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-mazzucato-big-pharma-prices-20151027-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-mazzucato-bi... There are more questions opened by these pieces, sure, but it's clear that we would still have research and still have cures without the businesses stumping up for research. otherwise we will just get fewer new drugs. I thought I had a link here somewhere, but can't find it; I have a strong suspicion that the companies have a preference to repackage or reformulate existing drugs, and that basic research on new drugs is disproportionately covered by the public purse and charity.
  - mft_ 9y ago
    > I thought I had a link here somewhere, but can't find it; I have a strong suspicion that the companies have a preference to repackage or reformulate existing drugs, and that basic research on new drugs is disproportionately covered by the public purse and charity. Absolutely there are companies which do this, and there are some very interesting examples of somewhat shady practices, but the vast majority of companies which you think of as 'pharma' --i.e. big pharma, and the big biotechs-- survive by discovering or insourcing and then developing new drugs, and/or developing their existing drugs in new indications.
kickling 9y ago
Isn't it always cheaper to die from disease instead of treating it? Purely economical obviously.
- gpm 9y ago
  Funerals can be expensive...
  - AdrianB1 9y ago
    Funerals are a given, so they make no difference.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Only for the patient and only in the immediate term. But if you could increase your wealth by more than the cost of the cure by living longer, then you could say dying is more expensive. And the same for society, if your future contributions (taxes and others) are worth more than the cost of the cure.
  - zerr 9y ago
    Also take in count the psychological impact for relatives and close ones.
    - wastedhours 9y ago
      Even just factoring in purely lost output from compassionate leave would probably contribute significantly to bridging that gap (not that any employer should even try and quantify it, but if we're looking at the "system cost" of treatment vs non-treatment, the wider impact is probably staggering).
    - trophycase 9y ago
      You can find infinite varieties of confounding variables and perform infinite levels of indirection to find effects. Maybe the death of someone will motivate someone to perform better. Maybe if a relative dies of lung cancer from smoking, I will be motivated to quit, which thereby increases my productive output (healthier, less time smoking). Maybe keeping the person alive longer will increase the total number of visits to them in the hospital, which could be considered lost productivity time.
adventured 9y ago
Only when the day arrives that extraordinarily talented scientists don't need to be paid high salaries, labs are free, manufacturing facilities are free, quality control & distribution are free, decades of research are free, etc. Quick math example: how much does it cost - all in - to hire & retain just 100 top notch biotech personnel for 10 years? The $300 HepC cure mentioned can only exist because of the extremely expensive R&D investment made over many years by the companies (such as Pharmasset) & public health entities that made HepC cures possible in the first place. They're free riding, so of course their context is always going to be far cheaper: they don't have to recoup nearly as much investment, and they have no concern for generating a profit at $300 so they can invest saved capital into the next 20 years of paying for expensive research.
- azeotropic 9y ago
  >Quick math example: how much does it cost - all in - to hire & retain just 100 top notch biotech personnel for 10 years? I'm going to guess close to $180M in present-day dollars. Edit: And that's just if they sit around doing nothing but collecting salary and benefits. Facilities, equipment, and supplies will be much cheaper than personell, but still expensive.
golergka 9y ago
Imagine that you, a regular person, invest all of your family's pension and other savings in a company that specializes on drug research. How would you feel about drug prices then? Would you be OK if all your investment went towards research that could never be paid back for? It would cure a lot of people and do a lot of good in the world, you know. Are you OK with spending all of your family's money for a good cause like that?
- ramblerman 9y ago
  pretty financially irresponsible. As to your point, making an emotional plea works against you in this case, because there will always be a point where the greater good trumps pure profits. Take the simple thought experiment that 99% of the world will die in 1 month unless they get treated with this new drug. Would you really argue we should seal it off from the general public. Now just move the slider to the left (98%) and repeat the experiment. My point being, there certainly is a middle ground, where regulation and free market enterprise meet when it comes to medicine.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Imagine investing all your family's pension in arms manufacturers, and then a war not starting. How would you feel about that?
  - golergka 9y ago
    I would feel bad and not invest in these companies anymore. Is that what you want for companies that research drugs?
loceng 9y ago
Society needs to create a payout/reward system, on top of a universal basic income (that society as a whole is serving and working towards using automation to increase everyone's quality of life exponentially) for breakthroughs in effort - following a chain and distributing pre-determined amounts to those who contributed (trickling into early research that's referenced) and perhaps taking into account the number of people that benefit from it -- and perhaps ongoing or future payments if the people who benefit, a royalty of sorts, increase or is a constant over time, perhaps with a cap. Edit: To add, if everyone earns "$500,000" per year (the quality of life they have, based on what $500k of today's money could buy) and your life's work leads to rewards/payout of $5,000,000 ... the buying power of that $5M will buy you a lot more than 10 years worth of improvements to quality of life, etc.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >To add, if everyone earns "$500,000" per year The global GDP per capita is more like $10k/yr. That's a much more realistic number. >Society needs to create a payout/reward system, Society already has a payout/reward system. Unless by "society" you mean the government. And by government I assume you mean Donald Trump.
  - loceng 9y ago
    You misunderstood me. Money is a human-made concept, it's simply a promise of work to be done or resources provided. So let's take that $10k/year number (I don't know if it's accurate), what I'm saying is that we could provide everyone else with $490k/year more worth of value into their lives - at "no cost" to anyone else, because it would be value created through automation; we have to of course account for resources used and create/produce in a 100% sustainable way. What payout/reward system are you referencing? Society, in the best case scenario, elects the government - puts people in a position to make the right decisions for them. One problem with the current political system and structure is that if you have only a 4-year term, then people game/play the system to give them the best looking perception so they get elected again; this in part is why I feel it will be private organizations that don't have a 4-year elected cycle process will solve this problem, be examples for wider society, and then adopt or join those systems. I don't understand your reference to Donald Trump.
conanbatt 9y ago
I think there are two contradictory conditions in this. The reality is that just because it saves lives doesn't mean it should be free. The US is the only country in the world that spends a billion dollars to develop a drug for a disease that helps 1000 people. It is kind of amazing, but ultimately economically terrible: half a billion can save a lot more than 1000. We have to bear the cost of accepting that lives are not worth infinite, and that its not okay to spend irrationally to save one. That said, the US has deep issues in its pharma, like extreme regulatory restrictions and importation restrictions that can be tear down overnight and would drop drug prices to the floor very quickly.
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> I think there are two contradictory conditions in this. The reality is that just because it saves lives doesn't mean it should be free. If the economy can't support peoples' lives, what's the point of having an economy in the first place? Is it just so a very few people can accumulate most of the available wealth and leave everyone else unable to access vital goods and services?
  - ilikethiscmnt 9y ago
    An economy isn't something you choose to have or not have. It arises naturally as a matter of fact. Our legislation and rules and laws that govern it are a consequence of its existence, not its cause.
    - Firadeoclus 9y ago
      It's a feedback cycle, not a one-way arrow.
  - fucking_tragedy 9y ago
    > what's the point of having an economy in the first place? Ask yourself who established the rules for our economy and who stands to benefit from them. If you ask them, things are working just as they are meant to. Our country owes its roots to a wealthy, merchant class uprising. The system they setup benefited people like themselves.

One day, we will look back and not understand how this was even possible. You come up with a cure for something and you make the price so high that it is cheaper to die from the disease.

StudentStuff 9y ago

Its late stage capitalism at its finest. Profiting off mass suffering is to be applauded and rewarded, not considered immoral and illegal. We would rather let each other die of treatable conditions than have slightly lower profit.

TomMarius 9y ago
Regulation has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalists (as in people believing in the free market) are actually opposed to what you're describing. What this non-profit did would happen immediately if there was no government to shut it down because there are high margins and so it's very desirable to enter the market with a lower price - and also charity.
- xyzzyz 9y ago
  If there was no government to shut down the nonprofit, the company wouldn’t have spent billions to develop the cure in the first place. Why would you do that, if anyone could just copy your work and profit for themselves?
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    As a charity, for example. The market would find a way, I'm sure. This is already well thought out, if you're truly interested, I recommend this article by a well known economist: https://mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-fda https://mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-... And also this one: https://mises.org/library/advancing-pharmaceutical-and-medical-technology-does-not-depend-patents https://mises.org/library/advancing-pharmaceutical-and-medic... It's in no one's interest to have people dying instead of buying and selling services.
    - xyzzyz 9y ago
      I cannot imagine charity ponying up $11 billion on anything at all, much less the development of a single drug. Of course, a lot of this cost is due to excessive FDA requirements, but the charities are not funding drug development right now, and I imagine there is better use of charity money, for things that aren’t worth for companies to get into.
      - TomMarius 9y ago
        You're thinking about a whole different world with mentality from this one. Right now the system works like it does - drugs get developed - and so there is no need for charity to do it. Charity is not just taking money and redirecting it, it's also operating a business - yes, you actually can run a business without taking massive margins and being greedy, that's what government tries to do (but fails because of involuntarity and lack of competition). Don't forget that the charities don't have the 11 billion now because the money goes elsewhere (to pharma corps), but people might give it to the charity if the corps didnt't exist. The same development could possibly cost less, that's another thing to consider. Overall my point is that the greed of pharma companies is not because of capitalism because it wouldn't be possible in pure capitalism. It's enabled by the government.
  - stu432 9y ago
    Yes, I would, and then I'd pay for an army to go shut down my competitors because there's no government to stop me and then 10x my profits.
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      You're very naive if you think that's worth it even in the slightest. See army budgets - and remember that no one will fight for you for your ideas, since you have none. And people (read: other armies) will oppose you.
oisdfjoijok 9y ago
Any data on how many cures are being invented in communist or socialist countries, compared to capitalist countries?
- rantanplan 9y ago
  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165
  - oisdfjoijok 9y ago
    Fine - so that is one. Any more numbers?
    - rantanplan 9y ago
      That is one? _That_ is one? Have you heard of cancer? That is _everything_! So what did we achieve with our superior capitalistic systems when it comes to fighting one of the worst threats to our species? Look, I ain't a communist, but I ain't in favor of capitalism either. What I know is that cheerleading will get us nowhere. We need to critically think about our course as a human species and if you think we're on a proper trajectory, think again.
      - kss238 9y ago
        It's one specific type of cancer (although it is for the most common subset of the most common type of cancer), not a panacea.
      - oisdfjoijok 9y ago
        There has been a lot of progress in fighting cancer. Survival rates for many types of cancer have increased tremendously. I assume this medication from Cuba is just one of many specific approaches.
- jopsen 9y ago
  Probably better to ask how many drugs are developed without public funding. Usually, the private sector finds public funds for the risky parts.. or starts off from discoveries made with public funds in a University.
icebraining 9y ago
There's nothing "late stage" about it, it's been going on forever. Literal wars have been fueled just to sell more product.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  I was reading about Res Rubber and the Belgian Congo yesterday. Horrific period in a time full of them.

xyzzyz 9y ago

The alternative is to have no cure at all. The businesses need that money as incentive to develop new cures. If we don’t want it to work this way, we need government to spend much more on research, otherwise we will just get fewer new drugs.

thefounder 9y ago
It's not really true. Have you heard of pharma boy? There are alternatives/solutions to regulate the market.
EliRivers 9y ago
I understand the drug companies ("pharmaceutical industry" in the link below) pay about 60% of the research costs. It's a lot of it, but it's not orders-of-magnitude bigger than the public contribution. https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193 https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-266... Some would suggest that the drug companies actually take on the lower risk research, leaving the high risk work to be funded by other sources: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-mazzucato-big-pharma-prices-20151027-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-mazzucato-bi... There are more questions opened by these pieces, sure, but it's clear that we would still have research and still have cures without the businesses stumping up for research. otherwise we will just get fewer new drugs. I thought I had a link here somewhere, but can't find it; I have a strong suspicion that the companies have a preference to repackage or reformulate existing drugs, and that basic research on new drugs is disproportionately covered by the public purse and charity.
- mft_ 9y ago
  > I thought I had a link here somewhere, but can't find it; I have a strong suspicion that the companies have a preference to repackage or reformulate existing drugs, and that basic research on new drugs is disproportionately covered by the public purse and charity. Absolutely there are companies which do this, and there are some very interesting examples of somewhat shady practices, but the vast majority of companies which you think of as 'pharma' --i.e. big pharma, and the big biotechs-- survive by discovering or insourcing and then developing new drugs, and/or developing their existing drugs in new indications.

kickling 9y ago

Isn't it always cheaper to die from disease instead of treating it? Purely economical obviously.

gpm 9y ago
Funerals can be expensive...
- AdrianB1 9y ago
  Funerals are a given, so they make no difference.
icebraining 9y ago
Only for the patient and only in the immediate term. But if you could increase your wealth by more than the cost of the cure by living longer, then you could say dying is more expensive. And the same for society, if your future contributions (taxes and others) are worth more than the cost of the cure.
- zerr 9y ago
  Also take in count the psychological impact for relatives and close ones.
  - wastedhours 9y ago
    Even just factoring in purely lost output from compassionate leave would probably contribute significantly to bridging that gap (not that any employer should even try and quantify it, but if we're looking at the "system cost" of treatment vs non-treatment, the wider impact is probably staggering).
  - trophycase 9y ago
    You can find infinite varieties of confounding variables and perform infinite levels of indirection to find effects. Maybe the death of someone will motivate someone to perform better. Maybe if a relative dies of lung cancer from smoking, I will be motivated to quit, which thereby increases my productive output (healthier, less time smoking). Maybe keeping the person alive longer will increase the total number of visits to them in the hospital, which could be considered lost productivity time.

adventured 9y ago

Only when the day arrives that extraordinarily talented scientists don't need to be paid high salaries, labs are free, manufacturing facilities are free, quality control & distribution are free, decades of research are free, etc. Quick math example: how much does it cost - all in - to hire & retain just 100 top notch biotech personnel for 10 years? The $300 HepC cure mentioned can only exist because of the extremely expensive R&D investment made over many years by the companies (such as Pharmasset) & public health entities that made HepC cures possible in the first place. They're free riding, so of course their context is always going to be far cheaper: they don't have to recoup nearly as much investment, and they have no concern for generating a profit at $300 so they can invest saved capital into the next 20 years of paying for expensive research.

azeotropic 9y ago
>Quick math example: how much does it cost - all in - to hire & retain just 100 top notch biotech personnel for 10 years? I'm going to guess close to $180M in present-day dollars. Edit: And that's just if they sit around doing nothing but collecting salary and benefits. Facilities, equipment, and supplies will be much cheaper than personell, but still expensive.

golergka 9y ago

Imagine that you, a regular person, invest all of your family's pension and other savings in a company that specializes on drug research. How would you feel about drug prices then? Would you be OK if all your investment went towards research that could never be paid back for? It would cure a lot of people and do a lot of good in the world, you know. Are you OK with spending all of your family's money for a good cause like that?

ramblerman 9y ago
pretty financially irresponsible. As to your point, making an emotional plea works against you in this case, because there will always be a point where the greater good trumps pure profits. Take the simple thought experiment that 99% of the world will die in 1 month unless they get treated with this new drug. Would you really argue we should seal it off from the general public. Now just move the slider to the left (98%) and repeat the experiment. My point being, there certainly is a middle ground, where regulation and free market enterprise meet when it comes to medicine.
pjc50 9y ago
Imagine investing all your family's pension in arms manufacturers, and then a war not starting. How would you feel about that?
- golergka 9y ago
  I would feel bad and not invest in these companies anymore. Is that what you want for companies that research drugs?

loceng 9y ago

Society needs to create a payout/reward system, on top of a universal basic income (that society as a whole is serving and working towards using automation to increase everyone's quality of life exponentially) for breakthroughs in effort - following a chain and distributing pre-determined amounts to those who contributed (trickling into early research that's referenced) and perhaps taking into account the number of people that benefit from it -- and perhaps ongoing or future payments if the people who benefit, a royalty of sorts, increase or is a constant over time, perhaps with a cap. Edit: To add, if everyone earns "$500,000" per year (the quality of life they have, based on what $500k of today's money could buy) and your life's work leads to rewards/payout of $5,000,000 ... the buying power of that $5M will buy you a lot more than 10 years worth of improvements to quality of life, etc.

Consultant32452 9y ago
>To add, if everyone earns "$500,000" per year The global GDP per capita is more like $10k/yr. That's a much more realistic number. >Society needs to create a payout/reward system, Society already has a payout/reward system. Unless by "society" you mean the government. And by government I assume you mean Donald Trump.
- loceng 9y ago
  You misunderstood me. Money is a human-made concept, it's simply a promise of work to be done or resources provided. So let's take that $10k/year number (I don't know if it's accurate), what I'm saying is that we could provide everyone else with $490k/year more worth of value into their lives - at "no cost" to anyone else, because it would be value created through automation; we have to of course account for resources used and create/produce in a 100% sustainable way. What payout/reward system are you referencing? Society, in the best case scenario, elects the government - puts people in a position to make the right decisions for them. One problem with the current political system and structure is that if you have only a 4-year term, then people game/play the system to give them the best looking perception so they get elected again; this in part is why I feel it will be private organizations that don't have a 4-year elected cycle process will solve this problem, be examples for wider society, and then adopt or join those systems. I don't understand your reference to Donald Trump.

conanbatt 9y ago

I think there are two contradictory conditions in this. The reality is that just because it saves lives doesn't mean it should be free. The US is the only country in the world that spends a billion dollars to develop a drug for a disease that helps 1000 people. It is kind of amazing, but ultimately economically terrible: half a billion can save a lot more than 1000. We have to bear the cost of accepting that lives are not worth infinite, and that its not okay to spend irrationally to save one. That said, the US has deep issues in its pharma, like extreme regulatory restrictions and importation restrictions that can be tear down overnight and would drop drug prices to the floor very quickly.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> I think there are two contradictory conditions in this. The reality is that just because it saves lives doesn't mean it should be free. If the economy can't support peoples' lives, what's the point of having an economy in the first place? Is it just so a very few people can accumulate most of the available wealth and leave everyone else unable to access vital goods and services?
- ilikethiscmnt 9y ago
  An economy isn't something you choose to have or not have. It arises naturally as a matter of fact. Our legislation and rules and laws that govern it are a consequence of its existence, not its cause.
  - Firadeoclus 9y ago
    It's a feedback cycle, not a one-way arrow.
- fucking_tragedy 9y ago
  > what's the point of having an economy in the first place? Ask yourself who established the rules for our economy and who stands to benefit from them. If you ask them, things are working just as they are meant to. Our country owes its roots to a wealthy, merchant class uprising. The system they setup benefited people like themselves.