US blocks cheap drugs agreement

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Which tech would you rather research in Civ? One that was immediately given to every other player for free, or one you could keep and utilise?

elaborate...


(But anyway...that sounds like a decent argument...the I don't want to have discontent isn't such a good argument.)

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by GP


The adhominem has a real power to it. Especially if delivered from a sufficiently haughty demeanor. Oh...for the old days when I used to torture Stew.

Apology accepted.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Apology accepted.

There, there. (Where did Stefu put that patting on the head smilie? )

[Jaakko]

If Stew's Civ argument was worthy, big pharm companies wouldn't do price reductions on AIDS drugs voluntarily, but the opposite is shown by my second article link. Given this, I think it could be quite feasible to get an agreement on the drugs for the worst epidemics in poor countries.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes there could be an agreement, but the COMPANIES must be involved. Forcing them into an agreement that countries decide is foolish and unfair.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by GP


There, there. (Where did Stefu put that patting on the head smilie? )

I win, my comebacks were much more effective than yours. Perhaps senility is finally settling in, eh?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes there could be an agreement, but the COMPANIES must be involved. Forcing them into an agreement that countries decide is foolish and unfair.

I'm quite certain that they are involved. But still, "forcing them into an agreement" is not unfair per se. The issue was patent protection vs. emergency needs, and governments are usually empowered enough to make such decisions without approval from companies.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Jaakko


I win, my comebacks were much more effective than yours. Perhaps senility is finally settling in, eh?

Yeah...but you lose some points for squeeling and showing your tender underbelly.

[Sava]

ahh yes... its nice to know that with the dismissal of Trent Lott, the pharmaceutical companies got a new friend in a very high place in Bill Frist (puppet of the Pharmaceutical industry). There is no defending the dismissal of this cheap, generic drug program. Doing so would be like trying to justify the Holocaust. And this is not an exagerrated analogy. Millions of people around the world die each year of disease... disease which could be fighted with cheap generic drugs. And so f*cking what if a black market is created. Frankly, if the black market can provide cheaper pharmaceutical drugs, then that will only increase competition from drug companies to provide lower costs to consumers, or force the creation of generic drugs in the US. Sorry, but in both instances, consumers win. I give two sh!ts about some crying drug company CEO who will have to suffer only making 10 million a year instead of 50 million . The names I see taking the drug companies' sides are the pro-capitalism people here. So what gives, hypocrits? Against increased competition that would eventually help consumers? conservative hypocrisy, what a surprise

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes there could be an agreement, but the COMPANIES must be involved. Forcing them into an agreement that countries decide is foolish and unfair.

Unfair to whom? The millions dying of disease outside the US, or a few super-rich pharmaceutical executives and CEO's?

[axi]

If the drug companies won't sell their drugs cheap, or their licences, then socialise them and let's get over with it. Health is definitely a field where profiteering is immoral, so let's do away with it.

Letting people die because they made the drug first! These are one million times worse scoundrels than the RIAA. Two centuries ago, no man on earth would ever think of throwing away the very life of millions of people, by simply patenting a few drugs.

Don't these people know anything about the Hippocratic oath?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unfair to whom? The millions dying of disease outside the US, or a few super-rich pharmaceutical executives and CEO's?

So when the pharmaceutical industry dies because of your policies and you don't have anyone to create drugs for diseases in the future, will you be thankful that we saved some people in 2003 in exchange for no future cures for disease?

Of course you have no idea what you are talking about (as usual). Yes, there is increased competition by governmental FORCING of companies to sell their drugs cheap.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by GP


Yeah...but you lose some points for squeeling and showing your tender underbelly.

Nah, I just thought you'd gone off your rocker...

[TCO]

Originally posted by axi
If the drug companies won't sell their drugs cheap, or their licences, then socialise them and let's get over with it. Health is definitely a field where profiteering is immoral, so let's do away with it.

Letting people die because they made the drug first! These are one million times worse scoundrels than the RIAA. Two centuries ago, no man on earth would ever think of throwing away the very life of millions of people, by simply patenting a few drugs.

Don't these people know anything about the Hippocratic oath?

Well...you are a communist. So it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand about incentives. go live in the USSR. They did a great job in that system.

[axi]

To those who don't know what to socialise means, it's just this: the state takes immediate posession of the company, the proprietors lose any rights of management and property and the company is working as a public service, under the collective management of it's employees.

And no we don't care about any property rights. The right to life is greater than that.

For the time being, I say that all 3rd world countries should plainly ignore the pharmaceuticals and the USA and all their patents. What can they do, go to war about it?