4 ms·

For me, issues like this raise the question: Does capitalism still make moral sense in a world where a large proportion of the population is so poor as to be un

by DanI-S 14y ago

For me, issues like this raise the question: Does capitalism still make moral sense in a world where a large proportion of the population is so poor as to be unlikely to participate in the free market during their lifetime? Even at $150 per month, those drugs aren't in any way affordable for most without government funding.

gaius 14y ago
You don't have to ask us: you can ask the scientists (who should be working for subsistence wages, apparently). Of course manufacturing is cheap once the difficult, risky bit - discovery and clinical trials - has been done.
- DanI-S 14y ago
  I'm not sure where you derived 'subsistence wages' from. If I were going to suggest a solution, it would be more centered around increased government funding of drug research, specifically with the aim reducing manufacturing costs. Funding cheap drugs for the developing world would probably reduce the need for other forms of economic aid in the long term, lessening the burden on all.
  - gaius 14y ago
    What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits. Besides manufacturing is already cheap. That's the whole reason generic drugs exist. It's easy to copy something someone else has invested 10s of billions in creating in the first place.
    - EvilTerran 14y ago
      "What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits." ...those profits don't have to be drug company profits, so that's irrelevant. Not to mention, focusing on the status quo source of government spending power somewhat begs the question in the context of "does capitalism still make moral sense?"
  - jt2190 14y ago
    He got that from this phrase: > Does capitalism still make moral sense... Suggesting that capitalism is immoral.
  - aggronn 14y ago
    pharmaceutical companies are granted a monopoly on their IP (as everyone else is) because of the extensive, expensive, long term research required to develop the IP. manufacturing costs are almost trivial compared to the costs of R&D--that is to say, there isn't much improvement to be made there. retail costs can go down, as they do in the rest of the world when governments set price controls, but if every country on earth set a low price on pharmaceuticals, you would begin to worry that these companies would no longer have an incentive to innovate, which is potentially as or more dangerous than the status quo insofar as newer treatments would be less likely to occur in our lifetime.
  - jandrewrogers 14y ago
    The expensive part is neither the research nor the production. The rate limiting step is very expensive development and clinical trials that happen after research and before production. Due to the way government funding is legally required to work, very expensive long-term investments like drug development cycles would be difficult to do efficiently under a federally funded program (at least in the US).
dcesiel 14y ago
I think capitalism overall is a good system. Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well with health care due in large part to information asymmetries and moral hazard.
- ashleyw 14y ago
  As somebody who's lived in the UK all their life, I can honestly say I'm flabbergasted every time I read something about the US healthcare system. It's like how Japanese cities don't have street names (http://sivers.org/jadr http://sivers.org/jadr), that completely astonished me too. It's just so outside of the reality I've known all my life, it makes no sense. (Granted, the US system is still better than that of third-world countries like India. At least you might get some assistance.)
  - rational_indian 14y ago
    > US system is still better than that of third-world countries like India I have never been to the US but from what I have been reading about it I have no question in my mind we are in a much better position. Please note I am mostly talking about the privately owned hospitals and clinics here. The government owned free clinics and hospitals are not used by anybody else except the poorest of poor in India. > At least you might get some assistance. This statement just reeks of ignorance and prejudice. There is a very good chance that people facing an expensive medical procedure will have higher chance of survival in India due to the abundance of advanced medical facilities throughout the country.
    - ashleyw 14y ago
      I don't even know why I chose India as my comparison. It was indeed prejudice and I'm sorry for any offence caused.
    - adiM 14y ago
      As an Indian who grew up in a medium sized town in India and who has lived in a medium sized town in the US, I would argue that the US health system is much much superior to the Indian heath system. If you want to talk about private clinics in India, compare them with the treatment that you will get in the US if you are paying out of pocket (as you'd do in private clinics in India), or at least with what you'd get if you have a good insurance plan in the US. The quality of treatment in the US is much better. People facing an expensive medical procedure may have higher chance of survival in India, but people facing emergency medical procedure certainly do not. Have you ever faced a medical emergency outside of the big metropolitan cities in India? My father had a cardiac arrest and he lost his life because neither the ambulance nor the hospital had a working defibrillator. And could not find one for the three hours that he was in the hospital (This incident took place in a state capital and not some tiny town). In contrast, the emergency response system in the US is amazing. Even the ambulances are well equipped with emergency care equipment.
alan_cx 14y ago
IMHO, the problem with capitalism is that some people want to use it as a complete way to run society, where I believe it is a tool to be used by society. Clearly, as you elude to, socialism is also needed, other wise the military would and should be privatised, along with law enforcement. I find is odd that capitalist bias countries like to use tax money for huge military commitments, yet go insane at the idea of providing health care for its people. Capitalism does not make any moral sense what so ever. Its is not supposed to. It is survival of the fittest. It is vicious and heartless. And it is supposed to be. So, socialist type stuff is required to serve other needs. Of course socialist stuff need capitalist profits to support it, while capitalism needs socialist stuff, like law, to support it. Broadly, that is how I see it anyway.
te_chris 14y ago
I don't understand why you're being downvoted.

by DanI-S 14y ago

gaius 14y ago

You don't have to ask us: you can ask the scientists (who should be working for subsistence wages, apparently). Of course manufacturing is cheap once the difficult, risky bit - discovery and clinical trials - has been done.

DanI-S 14y ago
I'm not sure where you derived 'subsistence wages' from. If I were going to suggest a solution, it would be more centered around increased government funding of drug research, specifically with the aim reducing manufacturing costs. Funding cheap drugs for the developing world would probably reduce the need for other forms of economic aid in the long term, lessening the burden on all.
- gaius 14y ago
  What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits. Besides manufacturing is already cheap. That's the whole reason generic drugs exist. It's easy to copy something someone else has invested 10s of billions in creating in the first place.
  - EvilTerran 14y ago
    "What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits." ...those profits don't have to be drug company profits, so that's irrelevant. Not to mention, focusing on the status quo source of government spending power somewhat begs the question in the context of "does capitalism still make moral sense?"
- jt2190 14y ago
  He got that from this phrase: > Does capitalism still make moral sense... Suggesting that capitalism is immoral.
- aggronn 14y ago
  pharmaceutical companies are granted a monopoly on their IP (as everyone else is) because of the extensive, expensive, long term research required to develop the IP. manufacturing costs are almost trivial compared to the costs of R&D--that is to say, there isn't much improvement to be made there. retail costs can go down, as they do in the rest of the world when governments set price controls, but if every country on earth set a low price on pharmaceuticals, you would begin to worry that these companies would no longer have an incentive to innovate, which is potentially as or more dangerous than the status quo insofar as newer treatments would be less likely to occur in our lifetime.
- jandrewrogers 14y ago
  The expensive part is neither the research nor the production. The rate limiting step is very expensive development and clinical trials that happen after research and before production. Due to the way government funding is legally required to work, very expensive long-term investments like drug development cycles would be difficult to do efficiently under a federally funded program (at least in the US).

dcesiel 14y ago

I think capitalism overall is a good system. Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well with health care due in large part to information asymmetries and moral hazard.

ashleyw 14y ago
As somebody who's lived in the UK all their life, I can honestly say I'm flabbergasted every time I read something about the US healthcare system. It's like how Japanese cities don't have street names (http://sivers.org/jadr http://sivers.org/jadr), that completely astonished me too. It's just so outside of the reality I've known all my life, it makes no sense. (Granted, the US system is still better than that of third-world countries like India. At least you might get some assistance.)
- rational_indian 14y ago
  > US system is still better than that of third-world countries like India I have never been to the US but from what I have been reading about it I have no question in my mind we are in a much better position. Please note I am mostly talking about the privately owned hospitals and clinics here. The government owned free clinics and hospitals are not used by anybody else except the poorest of poor in India. > At least you might get some assistance. This statement just reeks of ignorance and prejudice. There is a very good chance that people facing an expensive medical procedure will have higher chance of survival in India due to the abundance of advanced medical facilities throughout the country.
  - ashleyw 14y ago
    I don't even know why I chose India as my comparison. It was indeed prejudice and I'm sorry for any offence caused.
  - adiM 14y ago
    As an Indian who grew up in a medium sized town in India and who has lived in a medium sized town in the US, I would argue that the US health system is much much superior to the Indian heath system. If you want to talk about private clinics in India, compare them with the treatment that you will get in the US if you are paying out of pocket (as you'd do in private clinics in India), or at least with what you'd get if you have a good insurance plan in the US. The quality of treatment in the US is much better. People facing an expensive medical procedure may have higher chance of survival in India, but people facing emergency medical procedure certainly do not. Have you ever faced a medical emergency outside of the big metropolitan cities in India? My father had a cardiac arrest and he lost his life because neither the ambulance nor the hospital had a working defibrillator. And could not find one for the three hours that he was in the hospital (This incident took place in a state capital and not some tiny town). In contrast, the emergency response system in the US is amazing. Even the ambulances are well equipped with emergency care equipment.

alan_cx 14y ago

IMHO, the problem with capitalism is that some people want to use it as a complete way to run society, where I believe it is a tool to be used by society. Clearly, as you elude to, socialism is also needed, other wise the military would and should be privatised, along with law enforcement. I find is odd that capitalist bias countries like to use tax money for huge military commitments, yet go insane at the idea of providing health care for its people. Capitalism does not make any moral sense what so ever. Its is not supposed to. It is survival of the fittest. It is vicious and heartless. And it is supposed to be. So, socialist type stuff is required to serve other needs. Of course socialist stuff need capitalist profits to support it, while capitalism needs socialist stuff, like law, to support it. Broadly, that is how I see it anyway.

te_chris 14y ago

I don't understand why you're being downvoted.