Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that it's really just an opposition to profits at the expense of human life?

So in other words we'd better get a whole smurfing bunch of Mother T's out there doing med research and making new drugs cause heaven forbid somebody makes money at it. (sorry, I swore I'd leave the smurfing Catholics and their smurfing influence in a country with 80% smurfing Catholics having smurfing safe sex problems out of this, at least I picked a dead one)

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that it's really just an opposition to profits at the expense of human life?

So in other words we'd better get a whole smurfing bunch of Mother T's out there doing med research and making new drugs cause heaven forbid somebody makes money at it. (sorry, I swore I'd leave the smurfing Catholics and their smurfing influence in a country with 80% smurfing Catholics having smurfing safe sex problems out of this, at least I picked a dead one)

The catholic church is not alone in its opposition to premarital sex, just its opposition to birth control. Abstinence, unrealistic as it is, would solve this problem - condoms break, they don't protect against genital warts or crabs anyway, and the pill doesn't protect against STDs. You can't catch an STD if you don't have sex.

The US is 75% christian, only 1/3 of that population is catholic, and only 5% of those catholics, last I checked, actually followed the vatican's strictures regarding contraceptives. But, we still have an AIDS problem too... and a teen pregnancy problem, and, last I checked, a million abortions a year. Birth control isn't illegal here, or in Brazil. So get the anti-catholic chip off your shoulder - I probably don't like them any more than you do, but it's not their fault.

And generally, picking on the dearly departed is considered worse manners than picking on somebody who is around to defend themselves and their actions.

It's not the matter of making money, it's the matter of making money at the expense of human lives - in this country, we have anti-trust laws whereby if a company in a superior business position uses that position to charge consumers an unfair price, or otherwise harms consumers, they get in trouble. Remember a couple years ago when Microsoft had to pay people a rebate on Windows? Or back in the day when the government broke up Ma Bell, Standard Oil, and US Steel? That's all this is - by charging too much money and making patents exclusive, this company is, in the opinion of the Brazilian government, price-gouging.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

So in other words we'd better get a whole smurfing bunch of Mother T's out there doing med research and making new drugs cause heaven forbid somebody makes money at it. (sorry, I swore I'd leave the smurfing Catholics and their smurfing influence in a country with 80% smurfing Catholics having smurfing safe sex problems out of this, at least I picked a dead one)

Again with the anti-profit strawman.

Hey, whatever gets you guys through the day.

Sorry, I went overboard.
I do think people are being deliberately obtuse and sanctimonious about this though, "oh life is so much more important than money (when it isn't my money)" and it is maddening.

And I think you're stubbornly refusing to recognize gradations. Rather than just staying calm, we get the "oh how dare those bleeding hearts steal the company's property, it will prevent new drugs from being discovered!"

What's needed is just moderate, rational thinking in betwee those two extremes.

In my case, I think it's prefectly reasonable to believe it's possible for the company in question to continue making profits, while allowing the Brazilians to do their thing.

Pariah wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I do think people are being deliberately obtuse and sanctimonious about this though, "oh life is so much more important than money (when it isn't my money)" and it is maddening.

I dont think I am being the least bit sanctimonius or obtuse.

While I am hearing a great deal of knashing of teeth over the drug companies lost revinues I keep remembering that the whole reason this situation exists is because the people in question CANNOT afford the drugs, so therefore cannot represent lost revinues.
Its not like we are suggesting open sourcing the drug companies entire patent portfolio.
The sanctimony I am hearing from you Farmer Kev is that I get the felling you think that profit always counts more than lives, no matter how small the monitary impact is.

I think what concerns the nay-sayers most is whether or not the Brazil government will sell the drugs internationally. I personally don't have problem if they sell it to neighbouring countries, Africa, or other countries where most people won't be able to afford it.

Last edited by mahakali (2005-06-26 9:07 pm)

Pariah wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I do think people are being deliberately obtuse and sanctimonious about this though, "oh life is so much more important than money (when it isn't my money)" and it is maddening.

I dont think I am being the least bit sanctimonius or obtuse.

While I am hearing a great deal of knashing of teeth over the drug companies lost revinues I keep remembering that the whole reason this situation exists is because the people in question CANNOT afford the drugs, so therefore cannot represent lost revinues.
Its not like we are suggesting open sourcing the drug companies entire patent portfolio.
The sanctimony I am hearing from you Farmer Kev is that I get the felling you think that profit always counts more than lives, no matter how small the monitary impact is.

No.
I think if you feel that their lives are so important you, Pariah personally, should pony up the cash and not advocate taking from someone else "because they can afford it".
I hear people talking about them making obscene profits with no evidence that this drug even makes them money. For all we know they make their money on 120 other drugs and this one barely breaks even at best.
I see the same attitudes that define corporations as something soulless and somewhat evil when they are nothing more than a collection of people working in partnership for their own needs and goals.
What you hear from me is disgust.

Pariah wrote:

You really, really are obsessed.
Its funny how you can argue on one hand that the coercive power of the state ought to be used against private property owner to enrich more powerful entities in the eminent domain debate, yet in this case are outraged that that same power may be used to actually help people.
Add to that your anger over the fact we wont be executing children anymore and I have to wonder seriously if you have one single redeeming belief at all.

No dimwit, I don't like that either.
I do find more than a tad of hypocrisy in those that decry that taking as wrong and cheer this one.
The difference is in who has to sacrifice for some higher common good. It seems to me it boils down to if it's that rich guy over there then he can afford it but if it's 'me' then hell no.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that you can't see it.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Kev just doesn't believe that any of us actually gives a rat's ass about these people. Or any, I suppose.

If you believe it's all crap, then of course liberalism just comes out seeming like nauseating hypocrisy.

Which, I guess, makes conservatism "honest" -- i.e. not pretending to give a tinker's damn.

No, and you're wrong if you think conservatives don't care about the people dying of AIDS.  I'm sure that's one of the fallacies, somewhere.  False dilemma, maybe?

That makes it harder - to think of the people who are going to die.  But it doesn't excuse the fact that stealing is wrong, period.  Obviously, some of you disagree with that - that the means justify the ends, so you're in agreement with Robin Hood.  The conservatives disagree.

But then, you have to ask yourself...  Are you taking all your disposable income and pouring it into buying AIDS meds for people?  Or giving it to some charity?  Maybe not even 'all'.  Choose a portion - how do you set that portion for a company?  Who regulates how much it's OK for a company to lose?  I don't think that's something you'd want to trust the government with.  Why should it only be one company - why don't they ALL tip in to the common good?  And more than anything - why does one person, or a million people's need take precedence over this company's right to market a drug that they designed?

Humans are greedy.  It's what drives us to innovate.  Take away the ability to profit from innovation and you'll take away any desire to innovate, at least until we all live in a utopia.

Tria wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Kev just doesn't believe that any of us actually gives a rat's ass about these people. Or any, I suppose.

If you believe it's all crap, then of course liberalism just comes out seeming like nauseating hypocrisy.

Which, I guess, makes conservatism "honest" -- i.e. not pretending to give a tinker's damn.

No, and you're wrong if you think conservatives don't care about the people dying of AIDS.  I'm sure that's one of the fallacies, somewhere.  False dilemma, maybe?

That makes it harder - to think of the people who are going to die.  But it doesn't excuse the fact that stealing is wrong, period.  Obviously, some of you disagree with that - that the means justify the ends, so you're in agreement with Robin Hood.  The conservatives disagree.

But then, you have to ask yourself...  Are you taking all your disposable income and pouring it into buying AIDS meds for people?  Or giving it to some charity?  Maybe not even 'all'.  Choose a portion - how do you set that portion for a company?  Who regulates how much it's OK for a company to lose?  I don't think that's something you'd want to trust the government with.  Why should it only be one company - why don't they ALL tip in to the common good?  And more than anything - why does one person, or a million people's need take precedence over this company's right to market a drug that they designed?

Humans are greedy.  It's what drives us to innovate.  Take away the ability to profit from innovation and you'll take away any desire to innovate, at least until we all live in a utopia.

Stealing what?
Information?
This wont cost the drug companies hardly anything seeing as how the people in question CANNOT AFFORD THE DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is all getting very Ayn Randish.

Steyr AUG wrote:

They cant affort it? That must make it ok to steal it then, who knew life was so simple

If they want an AIDS drug so bad and dont want to pay this company for it, they can design their own. Frankly they would probably find it cheaper to just buy the drug legit.

You're all heart, skyler.

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2005-06-26 11:56 pm)

Steyr AUG wrote:

They cant affort it? That must make it ok to steal it then, who knew life was so simple

If they want an AIDS drug so bad and dont want to pay this company for it, they can design their own. Frankly they would probably find it cheaper to just buy the drug legit.

They want to pay this company for it, they just can't pay as much as they are selling it for (which is currently at a loss).

Also, they aren't really stealing it, they are just legally making their own from plans they legally acquired. Stealing would be like if they sent a special ops team in to a warehouse and walked off with a bunch of crates of the stuff.

bedstuy wrote:

Let's say in a decade the economy of the US enters a major depression and we're all earning an average of $25/day.  With over a million US citizens infected with a disease like HIV and no other way to obtain something like Kaletra (which I'm sure few, if any, of you know much about but it's a very crucial drug in the treatment of HIV). China holds the patent to the drug but is charging $8,500 PER YEAR PER PATIENT and there's no way for anyone to afford it privately nor can the government afford to buy it at that price.  But hey!  We still have pharmaceutical companies sitting around that can reverse engineer the drug and make it available to our citizens.  Oh, and to make it more fun your two only children are infected!  Would you encourage your elected representative to break the patent or would you say "Oh no!  We can't break the patent of that Chinese pharmaceutical company!"

A: this is to emotionally loaded to answer fairly.
B: In a situation you described, it seems to me that we would be more concerned for basic items such as food and gas than aids meds for the minority of the population.

My opinion on the whole topic: The parmaceutical companies who have their patents stolen to create drugs to save peoples lives now will lose monetary motivation to create drugs which save peoples lives tomorrow. In essense, they are robbing people of tomorrow to save those of today.

That said, Brazil using this move as negotiation leverage to force a price drop market wide is a good deal for all involved. Undercutting the market by releasing their knock-off would be bad overall, for my reason stated above.

Beddie's right. Beddie's logical.

The rest of you can go straight to hell.

Rock on, beds!

You "last post" still doesn't make sense.  The Brazilian government supplies all HIV-related drugs, mostly due to the fact that many favela residents subsist on $100/month.  If you consider that about 30% of Rio's population of around 6 million lives in a favela you can see that the $8,100 median income figure is rather misleading.  Not to mention that the cost of Kaletra for a year is $8,500.  At any rate Brazil's policy allows for exactly what you advocate: money for food... even at $3/day!