|
| Thread: Hedge funder buys rights to drug used by AIDS patients and raises price 5000% |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted September 23, 2015 06:48 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:49, 23 Sep 2015.
|
Corribus said:
Personally - and I've stated this before - while I'm all for free market capitalism and the ability of a company to charge what it wants for a product (and for the consumer to change corporate behavior basically through purchasing decisions), it has to be admitted that the healthcare industry, which includes pharmaceutics, is not like other industries, where consumers have the benefit of shopping around for services before they pay or have the ability to apply natural price regulation through the application of negative market pressure. This makes it difficult to advocate for a system where pharmaceutical companies or hospitals are free to charge as much as they can for products and services. It's not a fair market at all, and it's one of the few where I strongly believe in government price regulation. In the case of pharmaceutics, though, you can't regulate too strongly, because profits do without question motivate innovation. There's a fine line. Thankfully, bizarre cases like this seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Basically this. While I strongly agree that just because something is immoral, it shouldn't be illegal, one shouldn't push that notion in such matters of life or death. And it's not just that. If you're bleeding out on the road, I have every right not to take you in my car but being able to have patents to drugs of terminal diseases without any price regulation is kind of like owning the right to use ambulances and being able to charge as if they are limos. People dont choose to buy drugs, they have to buy drugs.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 08:15 AM |
|
|
artu said:
like owning the right to use ambulances and being able to charge as if they are limos.
i don't know about where you live, but here, the ambulance rides are charged like limo rides. it's horrible.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 10:38 AM |
|
|
fred79 said:
amazing, that people in this thread are ok with this, because "freedom". snowing amazing.
freedom, like any other power, comes with responsibility. or at least, it should. grown ups acting like spoiled children who say "MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE!!!" because they snowing think they should be ALLOWED to, should NEVER be allowed authority of ANY sort, over any other life form, let alone, their resources.
people being ok with this because "freedom" fill me with rage. it is absolutely disgusting human behavior, UNFIT of a species that so often claims to be some great thing; and anyone who is fine with it, should be disgusted with themselves. this kind of behavior from such an "advanced species" is an abomination. NO ONE should EVER be ok with it, for ANY reason.
I feel the same. It seems to me people confuse the freedom to do something with the right to do something. And unlike many here, I do consider that anything immoral should also be illegal, but that's something so ideal it's practically unachievable for us limited beings.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 10:58 AM |
|
|
We talked about this in other threads, and as Corribus already said, the Health industry is different. Otherwise what would keep a surgeon from telling the guy on his OP table: "Look, Pal, I have to raise my price for your upcoming heart surgery. I see, you have a home and I need one - your choice."
And if you think freedom and capitalism and rights and all - we don't have that. Otherwise - why would I be allowed to sell a kidney, but not to lease my genitals?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 11:50 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 11:56, 23 Sep 2015.
|
US drug company to cut 5,000% price rise after backlash
Martin Shkreli, the head of Turing Pharmaceuticals, told US media he would drop the price following the outcry, but did not say by how much.
Let's see what happens, but thank heavens there are still people to protest such blatant greed. 
5000% increase is not ok. Making an affordable drug into unaffordable one. I feel really bad for those who feel it was justified (or feel the increase should have done long ago, ugh!)
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 11:56 AM |
|
|
Having the right to raise price does not mean they should do.
This could even make new companies to thrive, who same the same (or similar) medicine under a different name and much lower price.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 11:59 AM |
|
|
|
i still think that he and his friend the world-chocolate-price-snower should have to fight each other to the death using only their teeth. the fact that he even tried such a thing is inexcusable.
|
|
Herry
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
100% Devil
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 01:40 PM |
|
|
Actually, the price rose by exactly 5445%(or something like that, I've only seen it once, I ain't got photographic memory).
And yes, with power comes responsibility, fred. This, in a way, explains the difference:
If you have no power, in this case freedom, you have no responsibility. For example, if a toaster zapped you or gave you non-fatal burns, it's not responsible because it didn't do it out of it's own accord, given it has no freedom, being a machine. With humans, it's different, you do something, you are responsible for it 100% because you did it out of your own accord.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 02:24 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:25, 23 Sep 2015.
|
Stevie said:
It seems to me people confuse the freedom to do something with the right to do something. And unlike many here, I do consider that anything immoral should also be illegal, but that's something so ideal it's practically unachievable for us limited beings.
The freedom (not ability) to do something exactly means that you have the right to do it, especially by legal means.
Making every immoral thing illegal wouldnt be ideal, it would be medieval primitive. Morality is both subjective AND relative in many situations. According to whose morality (or in your case, according to which religion's which branch's which interpretation) are you going to base the law on? One of the reasons secularism was invented is people got tired of the bloodshed caused by groups of different beliefs strangling each other to impose their faith as law. When you say such things, keep in mind that according to someone else's moral standards, it may be an okay thing to kill you for being a heathen.
You and Elodin are both devoted Christians but you are against the death penalty while he is a passionate supporter, you both have your verses that you think clearly proves God is supporting your point of view. Which interpretation will determine the law? When it comes to prostitution, will you go by the Old Testament or will you legalize "let the one without sin throw the first stone" And if you go by the second one, while it is quite easy to get a moral lesson from that story, how can one legalize such a philosophy? Not to mention, according to your own faith, God gave you free will, the ability to decide if you'll commit sin or not and he prepared a judgement in the after-life if you decide to break his rules, what's that for then?
Of course, the most basic problem with such a suggestion is the impossibility of making things like acting mean, cheap, selfish or heartless illegal since there is no legal platform to measure at which point they can be identified as so. Even on a platform of pure ethical discussions, almost everyone will have a different set of quantitative and qualitative standards to label them. You legally own the house that your mother lived for 30 years, she's going senile and not her lucid self all the time, yet, she clearly hates the idea of a retirement home, it will devastate her to leave. She worked many years to send you to collage and now, you want to sell the house for the education of your own children. Is it immoral to put her in a facility and if it is, on what premise the law will function so that it is also illegal?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 03:01 PM |
|
|
In my country you can take too little and too much for an item for purchase and get in trouble with the law. If you take too little, the police might arrest you on the suspicion of dealing with stolen goods. If you take too much (much more than you paid) it's usury pricing.
I don't like it, I'd by far prefer that you can take what you wish and if you take too little, you'll go broke and if you take too much someone else will sell the product at a cheaper price and will outcompete you.
bloodsucker said:
elodin said:
Should the government torture me until I reveal my secrets?
Short awser: YES!!!
Nah. His friends would want it for their close ones who'd want it for their close one. In that mix someone with either the will or capacity will copy and spread the drug. Especially if there won't come law enforcement to prevent such practice.
The only way to keep such a medical wonder hidden would be to somehow utterly destroy it before anyone knows about it, not even using it on oneself.
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 05:49 PM |
|
|
OhforfSake said:
The only way to keep such a medical wonder hidden would be to somehow utterly destroy it before anyone knows about it, not even using it on oneself.
Or give you a patent to protect your property rights over other people's right to live in good health. Meh...
|
|
Herry
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
100% Devil
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 05:50 PM |
|
|
|
If you want to keep it hidden, it's easier not discovering it at all, I mean, that way, it's still hidden, and there is a 100% guarrantee no clues remain.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 06:41 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Making every immoral thing illegal wouldnt be ideal, it would be medieval primitive. Morality is both subjective AND relative in many situations. According to whose morality (or in your case, according to which religion's which branch's which interpretation) are you going to base the law on? One of the reasons secularism was invented is people got tired of the bloodshed caused by groups of different beliefs strangling each other to impose their faith as law. When you say such things, keep in mind that according to someone else's moral standards, it may be an okay thing to kill you for being a heathen.
You and Elodin are both devoted Christians but you are against the death penalty while he is a passionate supporter, you both have your verses that you think clearly proves God is supporting your point of view. Which interpretation will determine the law? When it comes to prostitution, will you go by the Old Testament or will you legalize "let the one without sin throw the first stone" And if you go by the second one, while it is quite easy to get a moral lesson from that story, how can one legalize such a philosophy? Not to mention, according to your own faith, God gave you free will, the ability to decide if you'll commit sin or not and he prepared a judgement in the after-life if you decide to break his rules, what's that for then?
Dammit artu! WHY DO YOU DO THIS KNOWING I'LL ANSWER IN ANY THREAD YOU POST THESE THINGS!
First of all, I'm offended you don't include me in the devout Christians, considering I've proven myself to be the most susceptible to these arguments... 
Now, the serious first thing, that's the reason there is a need to have a centralized body ruling over a Religion, you said it, there are thousands of branches of Christianity, and already that's immoral as the buggers have skewed the message a thousand times, it was good when there was the supremacy of the Catholic Church, since there was one and only one definitive interpretation that can't be wrong since it's the only one interpretation. I won't go into details as to why the Catholic interpretation is the only right one here as it would derail the thread too much.
Secularism wasn't something that came from the people, hardly anything in history came from the people, secularism came from the minds of kings first and then from philosophers and politicians, it wasn't because people were tired of bloodshed, people were acquainted with the idea of a secular state when instruction became mandatory or at least very encouraged and the ideas of these philosophers were studied and understood.
The first example of what I consider secularism is when the first modern theocracies emerged, by that I mean when the Protestants swept across Europe, rulers always wanted to overthrow the supremacy of the Pope, so once the occasion came to separate from Rome due to dubious reasons they took it and posed themselves as heads of their state Churches, just as an example the Church of England and the Church of Sweden.
When you put religious authority beneath the state's authority you get the secular state (even though at the time they still professed themselves as Christians to avoid scandal), not being hampered by the Pope they could do what they wanted with religion and could appoint their own bishops decide on religious laws etc.
What is considered as modern Secularism then comes from that fringe of thinkers that came from Northern Europe from Universities, people like Voltaire and Robespierre, the "Enligthenment" came from a small part of the bourgeoisie, and only after revolution and the formation of militias their ideas became mainstream and accepted by the population, ideas accepted because they didn't like the authority of the king, not because Christians were imposing their laws (By the way, Europe was Christian until the last century, how could they clash because of imposing Christian laws is beyond me).
Now, I do agree that making immoral things a crime is not the way though, not because it's medieval, which by the way shouldn't ever be a reason to refuse something, but because it's not allowing the people to act on their agency, and not always immoral things are possible to witness or are physical crimes.
We couldn't possibly imprison people for watching a woman with lustful eyes now can we? How can we now what he was thinking. The idea of making immoral things a crime comes from the coincidence of immoral things with serious crimes like murder. Immoral things like adultery could be seen as a crime in a society where there is need of having monogamous couples making children and ensuring a conflict free society, otherwise, it's not a crime for a secular state where there is a liberal approach to sex. You can't imprison a a young boy because he closes himself in the bathroom supposing he's doing the little vice of children and lonely men.
Anyway, artu, I'm waiting for you to respond in the other thread, please let's get this off this thread.
Oh, by the way, regarding the topic, we had a scandal here in Italy regarding doctors prescribing costly medicines to patients, in our healthcare system usually these expenses are subsidized by the state.
The problem came when hospitals and doctors started prescribing too many of these medicines, even when it was unnecessary, it would be fun if this started happening, usually cheap medicines start being expensive and you completely destroy an healthcare system.
I'm baffled by the logic in which they originally raised the price, raise the price a little if you want to make more profits don't make it prohibitive, if less people can buy that you'll make less profits.
But, it's their right to do that, it's on their conscience after all...
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 07:05 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:08, 23 Sep 2015.
|
Well, Neraus, I wont be carrying this to the other thread because my answer will be short. We dont disagree much on the matter (except your semi-humorous comments about Catholics being the only ones right, of course.) I never implied secularism was invented by the masses, like most abstract ideas or innovations, it was first brought up by an educated elite, not peasents with pitchforks. One of the reasons (I had already said "one of the", mind you) was the neverending religion wars and another reason was some monarchs that wanted to by-pass the churchs authority.
The difference between looking at a woman with lustful eyes and murder is not only one can be proven and the other cant though. One involves a concrete harm to another individual and the other does not. If I write a "heretic" essay, it can be proven that I did it and it can be labeled as immoral by Catholics, but it is not a crime since I harm no one.
Btw, I will be replying to you about the other stuff in the related thread, I'm not back home yet and I feel too lazy for that post at the moment, Just be ready to aim and shoot.
Oh, I almost forgot, medieval this and medieval that can be nice, sure. But medieval law isnt, which was the subject.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 07:14 PM |
|
|
Herry said:
If you want to keep it hidden, it's easier not discovering it at all, I mean, that way, it's still hidden, and there is a 100% guarrantee no clues remain.
the government should torture everyone until someone end up discovering the formula.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 07:18 PM |
|
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 07:51 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Well, Neraus, I wont be carrying this to the other thread because my answer will be short. We dont disagree much on the matter (except your semi-humorous comments about Catholics being the only ones right, of course.)
OF COURSE CATHOLICS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!!
I meant in a Christian perspective, if you aren't a Christian there is no reason to see us as the real Christians (funny thing though are the ones calling us the heretics...), for various reasons, anyway, I thought you said secularism came from the masses, my bad. 
artu said:
Well, Neraus, I wont be carrying this to the other thread because my answer will be short. We dont disagree much on the matter (except your semi-humorous comments about Catholics being the only ones right, of course.)
The difference between looking at a woman with lustful eyes and murder is not only one can be proven and the other cant though. One involves a concrete harm to another individual and the other does not. If I write a "heretic" essay, it can be proven that I did it and it can be labeled as immoral by Catholics, but it is not a crime since I harm no one.
That was a given, I simply pushed the examples to the extremes, it was to make it more simple to understand why equating immorality with crime cannot work.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 06:07 AM |
|
|
lol, relevant.
just found out on the chan. he'll have to move now, but so what. he's a millionaire, it shouldn't be hard. hopefully somebody with talent can play around with him before he leaves.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 10:53 AM |
|
|
|
Good riddance. Though this may just be a minor setback for him.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 11:02 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:03, 24 Sep 2015.
|
fred79 said:
lol, relevant.
just found out on the chan. he'll have to move now, but so what. he's a millionaire, it shouldn't be hard. hopefully somebody with talent can play around with him before he leaves.
Lol at some of the reader comments. Well, this was quite expectable, if you do such a thing, there will be social consequences no matter what your legal rights are.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
