Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just want to clarify it's not only for AIDS this drug, it has been around for 62 years, long before AIDS. It just happens that one of the infections it fights is one that AIDS patients commonly get.
From what Ive read on the subject his argument was that this pill was vastly underpriced compared to its peer products (cancer medications). Either he's intentionally using this bench-marking incorrectly on purpose or he has no idea how pharmaceuticals works. What he may or may not know is that these pills are the "successful products" from a company that has failed to make hundreds more unsuccessful products. Those failed costs must be incurred by the successful line of products in order to keep the company in the black. Not only that but these pills have a short life span before the patent runs out on them. So sure cancer drugs are expensive, but thats because of all the other costs incurred by the company. This pill is an old one and the development costs have already been captured in the past. Hes just trying to make a buck (or too many bucks) out of greed.
From what Ive read on the subject his argument was that this pill was vastly underpriced compared to its peer products (cancer medications). Either he's intentionally using this bench-marking incorrectly on purpose or he has no idea how pharmaceuticals works. This pill is an old one and the development costs have already been captured in the past. Hes just trying to make a buck (or too many bucks) out of greed.
Five fast facts (it was interesting watching him on the interview i.e., his rational, reasons, excuses, is it
biotech or pharmaceutical.......) Plus his tweet responses really enhances his professional business
behavior....not.
First of all I didn't mention any type of ism.
You mentioned socialism.
Socialism has many different definitions, it means different things to different people.
I assume you like driving behind those socialist snowplows when you have to get to work or the supermarket for food.
Now Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist and points out many other countries that have some form of socialism have a higher standard of living than we do.
We are rated way down the totem pole in many categories, the only things we are rated number one is in highest defense spending and the highest incarceration rate in the world.
you forgot highest per capita spending on medical care and look where THAT has gotten us......
The problem with Capitalism is eventually there's no one left to buy your **** once you've taken all of the wealth.
Looks like Margaret was not aware that socialism creates its own money just like capitalism, it doesnt take that money from the people. It creates money to entice people into laboring just like capitalism does. The only issue, enticing power of the socialist money is much weaker by default, thus physical and legal coercion, expropriations, labor camps and very limited selection of goods. At the end everything crumbles, see USSR.
Both capitalism and socialism are two sides of the same coin called "industrialism" i.e. exploitation of resources rooted in the hierarchy of the specialized labor and professional science. Humans are not evolved to fit industrialism needs, coercion is a must, capitalist coercion and hierarchy that supervise it are by far more efficient. It takes much lesser amount of external coercion per unit of output. Capitalism transforms external coercion into internal compulsion, it is something that socialism has failed at.
You want the product-in this case-to remain alive?
Pony up. Or else. Simple as that. If he prices himself out, a competitor will come along.
It sucks but that's life.
I'll be the first to say that I'm all about the free market, but that is just effed up! Not to mention morally wrong on so many levels! What a greedy prick this guy is!
If every economic system since the dawn of mankind was socialism:
Aspirin would have never been invented.
People would still be riding horses as opposed to driving cars.
And, forums like this would not exist since the intelligence and technology to have an internet would have never existed with socialism.
- -
Increases in the standard of living of mankind is directly linked to how much economic (and political) freedom exists to allow inventions, creations and life changing prescription drugs.
Capitalism is responsible for the existence of the drug mentioned by the OP, and capitalism is responsible for the increase in cost.
Too many socialists want to have their cake and eat it too. And while doing it off the back of capitalism.
This is so well stated I think I'll quote it every few posts.
This is so well stated I think I'll quote it every few posts.
The only issue with that twisted rationale you admire: the capitalists who developed and introduced that drug were satisfied with returns far smaller than a speculative hedge manager, creating nothing, finds acceptable.
Monopolies and price gouging are not inherently capitalist. It is human to capitalize on other people misfortunes. What would you do if your electrical/water/gas etc. suppliers 500 folded their prices? Praise the wisdom of capitalist visions making your life impossible?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
