Forums | MacLife

bedstuy wrote:

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!

Trouble here is, you're making perfect sense. For some reason it's not a rational discussion ... though of course expect to be accused of making 'emotional' arguments.

The governments were considering breaking the patent of anthrax vaccine (owned by Bayer, a German company) in 2001 due to the high cost. Hypothetical question: Let's say the anthrax hoax really happened, people in the US were dying from it, would you be against it?

Note: I usually don't like hypothetical questions, but these are really close. The US government was considering breaking a patent due to high cost and the Brazil government is considering breaking a patent for the same reason.

mo' ron wrote:

Tria wrote:

Obviously, some of you disagree with that - that the means justify the ends, so you're in agreement with Robin Hood.  The conservatives disagree.

I think I see what you mean in context, but I can't believe the general idea that conservatives don't believe that the ends justify the means, if there's anything they believe, it is that.

It seems in this case though, the ends of the pharmaceutical company losing money is not justified by the means of their design being stolen from them.

I don't think it's about them losing money at all...  I think it's about having the patent broken.  Nothing else would have to happen for me to consider that wrong.  If they stood to profit off it, it would still be wrong.

Anyone who got into the medicine making biz for the lucre surely has made a mistake somewhere along the way.

They should still state their position, if only for the record.

The brazilians are a corporation?

Like price gouging?

And two weeks later, there's an agreement that will treat more people at less cost. 

I won't expect any Holy Cow, Go BigPharma! remarks though.

Holy Cow, Go Big Pharma! You found a way to lose less money on the deal!

unshavenyak wrote:

It sounds like a reasonable compromise was made that will allow more people to be treated and at a price that isn't so high that it'd bankrupt a Brazillian family.  However, the compromise probably wouldn't have been reached if the Brazilian government didn't have the patent breaking threat looming over Abbot's head and so the altruism of this agreement is questionable.

What does a Brazilian family have to do with it?

Warin wrote:

So, where is the outrage that the American government considered buying a "generic" patent busting version of Cipro in the interests of National Security?  Who has answered the hypothetical question? If the US needed it, wouldnt it be a short amount of time until it was rationalized away and the "theft" was all right?

Where is the outrage that drug companies are making great profits, in spite of Canadian laws that allow generic versions sooner than US law... yet American citizens are not allowed to buy these "inferior" drugs?

Perhaps it is arrogant to assume that we know what is "right" and "wrong" when it comes to the profit margins of a corporation.  But I think corporations again and again show the worst side of the greed instinct inherent in humanity, and some people seem to want to celebrate... no.. wallow.. in that.  Yet anyone who suggests doing something in the name of humanity might be reasonable, and involve the idea of good corporate "citizenship"... none of us understand reality and reason.

And people wonder why those in the third world hate our "freedom"

amen brother I do remember the outrage of the republicans when Bayer refused to do the same thing and in the interests of national security, over two smurfing letters I might add, (Who is smurf reaction?) the neocons  in congress were ready to invade germany and boycott german goods.
It so sweet to see it works the same way everywhere if it is the other guys you do not give a smurf
If it is you how do they dare to charge us the regular price it is an emergency.