3 ms·

The healthcare industry does a lot of really shady things, but you're picking the worst example. No doubt drugs could be cheaper, but denying pharma an incenti

The healthcare industry does a lot of really shady things, but you're picking the worst example. No doubt drugs could be cheaper, but denying pharma an incentive to ever develop them is not the answer. Of course manufacturing is cheap, but the research and clinical trials are expensive and have to be paid for somehow. Focusing on only the manufacturing costs is a bizarre combination of dumb and disingenuous.

leereeves 5y ago
> denying pharma an incentive to ever develop them is not the answer Research needs an incentive. It doesn't have to include a for-profit pharma company. Quite a bit of the research is publicly funded anyway, so why not publically fund the clinical trials as well? The answer, of course, is that people who are making money off the current system won't let things change. Ignoring the people dying because they can't afford to pay for the research is heartless. A previous post suggested "almost nobody is that heartless about children", but it appears the people in charge really are that heartless.
- anthonygd 5y ago
  Trials also need incentive. Everything does. Is your answer is to nationalize everything? If not, where do you draw the line? The world doesn't work the way you want it to and you're not making a real argument that it should. More people die if research isn't done _and_ developed. In no way does just not paying improve the situation. "Think of the children" is just an empty appeal to emotion over reason. Great indicator of a bad faith argument though.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    I think it's reasonable to nationalize everything that saves lives. That's where I would draw the line. I support public pharma research (and trials, and drug development, and other expenses) for the same reason I support public healthcare and public firefighting. Remember that once upon a time, firefighting companies would stand outside a burning building and watch it burn until the owner paid up? That's pretty much the current situation with healthcare - the healthcare and pharma companies just watch patients die if they can't afford to pay. But nationalization isn't my suggestion for the problem of pharma patents preventing healthcare in impoverished countries. For that, just let those countries ignore US patents. They don't have a lot of money anyway, so allowing them to use lifesaving medications would not imperil pharma research. Of course you're right, the world doesn't work the way I want it to, but I think saving lives is an excellent argument why it should. If you think that's "bad faith" or "an empty appeal to emotion over reason", then there's really nothing more to say.

leereeves 5y ago

> denying pharma an incentive to ever develop them is not the answer Research needs an incentive. It doesn't have to include a for-profit pharma company. Quite a bit of the research is publicly funded anyway, so why not publically fund the clinical trials as well? The answer, of course, is that people who are making money off the current system won't let things change. Ignoring the people dying because they can't afford to pay for the research is heartless. A previous post suggested "almost nobody is that heartless about children", but it appears the people in charge really are that heartless.

anthonygd 5y ago
Trials also need incentive. Everything does. Is your answer is to nationalize everything? If not, where do you draw the line? The world doesn't work the way you want it to and you're not making a real argument that it should. More people die if research isn't done _and_ developed. In no way does just not paying improve the situation. "Think of the children" is just an empty appeal to emotion over reason. Great indicator of a bad faith argument though.
- leereeves 5y ago
  I think it's reasonable to nationalize everything that saves lives. That's where I would draw the line. I support public pharma research (and trials, and drug development, and other expenses) for the same reason I support public healthcare and public firefighting. Remember that once upon a time, firefighting companies would stand outside a burning building and watch it burn until the owner paid up? That's pretty much the current situation with healthcare - the healthcare and pharma companies just watch patients die if they can't afford to pay. But nationalization isn't my suggestion for the problem of pharma patents preventing healthcare in impoverished countries. For that, just let those countries ignore US patents. They don't have a lot of money anyway, so allowing them to use lifesaving medications would not imperil pharma research. Of course you're right, the world doesn't work the way I want it to, but I think saving lives is an excellent argument why it should. If you think that's "bad faith" or "an empty appeal to emotion over reason", then there's really nothing more to say.