4 ms·

> If <said thing> didn't exist, they'd have less money The "Criticisms" portion of the article has one response to this sort of argument. Most of Red's aid is

> If <said thing> didn't exist, they'd have less money The "Criticisms" portion of the article has one response to this sort of argument. Most of Red's aid is in the form of purchasing pharmaceutical treatments for those who need it. It sounds good in the short term, but it's essentially a private subsidy to the pharmaceutical companies and an excuse to keep drug prices high and not bother with government pricing regulations or government funded treatment programs. The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits.

gambiting 4y ago
>>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. By whose judgement? If someone comes to me and asks for money for their medical treatment, of course I'm going to give them it. They need it now, I'm going to help. Or are we going to argue that this money that I spent would have been better off donated to an organisation that lobbies government for regulating medicine prices(while the person who needs help now suffers because they aren't getting the meds). It just strikes me as such armchair judgement of the situation(not you personally, I mean the general criticism around this).
marcinzm 4y ago
>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. So it's better for lobbyists to get the money to encourage pharma companies to increase US prices to give Africa free doses? I don't see how that is a better use of the money. Now you've spent twice as much money on this. Once for lobbyists and then again from US price increases and pharma companies make just as much in the end.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
The idea that there's some kind of globally-optimizing resource allocation for altruism and that you're open to criticism for failing to adhere to someone's line on it is just so fucked up.

gambiting 4y ago

>>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. By whose judgement? If someone comes to me and asks for money for their medical treatment, of course I'm going to give them it. They need it now, I'm going to help. Or are we going to argue that this money that I spent would have been better off donated to an organisation that lobbies government for regulating medicine prices(while the person who needs help now suffers because they aren't getting the meds). It just strikes me as such armchair judgement of the situation(not you personally, I mean the general criticism around this).

marcinzm 4y ago

>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. So it's better for lobbyists to get the money to encourage pharma companies to increase US prices to give Africa free doses? I don't see how that is a better use of the money. Now you've spent twice as much money on this. Once for lobbyists and then again from US price increases and pharma companies make just as much in the end.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

The idea that there's some kind of globally-optimizing resource allocation for altruism and that you're open to criticism for failing to adhere to someone's line on it is just so fucked up.