And yet I noticed that you failed to cite a single empirical source published in an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal. The closest you came was the vague reference to "whale bends", which is NOT linked to sonar in any way, shape or form - except by environmentalists, who apparently can't be bothered to do research or get published.
Next time, try for some *real* science articles, not propaganda pieces. The propaganda only impresses the choir.
It should also be noted that since the late '90's the Navy has on a number of occasions let whale researchers use their equipment, or listen to parts of recordings made while on patrols, to do research on the animals. One of the more notable bits of research included the discovery that there were *at least* 800 blue whales in the northern Atlantic, when it was presumed that blue whales had been wiped out in this area. Turns out the blues that survived whaling just became more adept at avoiding ships, and passed this knowledge onto their young.
There was no mandate for this cooperation. They did it "just because", after the Navy changed it's policy on the use of some of its listening equipment (and recordings), which previously had been blanketed as classified. Why? Because quite a few folks in the Navy actually *like* whales, and a sizable fraction are amateur whale enthusiasts who thought it might be of use to their more professional counterparts.
The military is not the heart of evil that some people seem to think it is.
These people are training to kill humans, why would they care about killing a few animals?
You really don't have a clue, do you? The idea that being in the military makes you nothing more than a killing machine intent on sadistically murdering every living creature that crosses your path went out of vogue in the '70's. Mostly because it's a load of hippy horseshit.
So who do you trust more? The US Military or the Natural Resources Defence Council? I'd say that's a no brainer.
Yep, the military wins hands-down. The NRDC is well-known for it's inability to accept new information which might put certain of its fundraising activities in question, especially where science is concerned. They have a track record for lambasting any scientist who doesn't toe their party line and support them in every proclamation, no matter how thinly supported by evidence that proclamation is. They're fanatics to the core, little different than GreenPeace, Earth First!, or PETA.
The military, despite what the conspiracy fools say, doesn't outright lie nearly as often as people think. They just say "that's classified, now get the fuck out of my face" and leave it at that.
And due to a push of money into R&D one year, a coorporation come up with a AIDS vacince and patients it. Whoopee! But wait, aren't we right back were we started?
No, because government can *still* work on its own AIDS vaccine. And because corporation A would like to make some profit (or at least make up some of its losses, just like airline companies do with half-empty flights) they push the drug out as quickly as possible, for a lower price than they otherwise would in order to pre-empt any government success. Because it would SUCK if they sold the drug for $50,000 a pop in order to scoop up on the high end, only to have Uncle Sam come up with its own cure - and provide it for free to all and sundry.
Patenting one cure doesn't patent ALL cures.
Also, please stop with the knee jeck response to the idea of an "anti-capitalist."
You called yourself an anti-capitalist. By definition, anti-capitalists are against capitalism in any form. It isn't "knee jerk", it's how the term is defined. If you used it incorrectly then suck it up, admit it, and use some other term. Don't blame me because you expressed yourself poorly.
Can't you at least allow us to see what else is possible?
What this line has to do with anything that's gone before is beyond me. Perhaps you'd do better just sticking to the whole "let's kill off the evil pharma corps" argument.
It's bad enough that you're arguing to hold back improvements to infrastructure like this
Oh yeah, this is a real "improvement to infrastructure". As if converting from analog to digital TV - something the vast majority of Americans couldn't give two shits about - is somehow akin to building a needed national highway system.
it's worse that you're using your 15 years of helpless poverty as an excuse.
No, he's using his 15 years of poverty to point out that right here, in the good ol' USA of A, the money could *probably* be spent on something a bit more relevant to some of our taxpayers. That is, if you don't have a silver spoon rammed up your ass, or shoot your wad every time you think of things like "HDTV" and "like digital, dude!".
If you live in the United States, and you've been so poor for 15 years that all you can afford is the basics to sustain life, then you're either lazy or mentally ill.
Anyone who thinks that luck doesn't play a role in where he's at in life, right this minute, is a stupid, egomaniacal fuck. The implication is that you're so special and so superior to everyone around you that you *deserve* every single thing you've gotten - because you're innate superiority fates you to have it! And anyone who doesn't have what you have is just some inferior little schmuck whose lot in life is to lick your boots.
Let's all pause for a moment while laugh my ass off at the notion. Really, the idea that anyone would believe in this bullshit in this day and age is just too funny. It's practically Calvinism, set to the orchestra of 19th century economics and class privilege.
I have cable. Essentially 100+ channels of nearly pure, grade-A shit. As opposed to ten over-the-air channels of Grade-A shit. Somehow I don't see the quality of my television viewing experience improving any time in the near future, act of Congress or no.
The important thing to do is write to or call your representative and tell them that you oppose this and that they should vote against it.
After which your representative will make consoling noises, then privately laugh his ass off at the thought that your moral indignation could somehow compete with his corporate campaign contributions, or his corporate-sponsored "junkets" to the Caribbean for a weekend with a hot teenage hooker.
It's called a republic, not a democracy. Use your mastery of Webster's to illumine yourself on the difference. Or read the Constitution, if your school never got around to teaching you about it.
Economic and political trends in Western Europe and Japan both show why subsidizing the "breeders" is a sound economic policy
Because if you subsidize the breeders, you don't have to keep your population rates up by letting more of those dirty foreigners into your country. God knows we gotta keep the race pure. Next we'll be putting up David Duke for president!
They don't even care enough to goddamn vote once every four fucking years.
And a fat lot of good that does. Since third parties are so pitifully marginalized there isn't a hope in hell of one of their candidates ever getting elected to major office, I get a choice between Sleezeball A or Sleezeball B. You only have to take a look at Kerry and Bush to see the truth of this. It always boils down to whatever candidate is *slightly* less evil than the other.
No, I'm not. Government could compete just like any private company, and keep the patent for production if it actually came up with a cure for something. There's no Constitutional prohibition for granting government a patent (indeed, government will seize patents for itself in the case of national security).
If corporations would take a principled approach
Corporations aren't in the business of promoting charity, or principles. That's governments shtick. It's one the defining differences between the two entities.
then anti-capitalists such as myself wouldn't be forced to suggest that we legislate corporations out of the market.
If you are indeed anti-capitalist it really doesn't matter what corporations do. You won't be happy until the free market is dead and buried, replaced by god knows what. That's kinda what "anti-capitalist" means.
But they don't allow people in need to use their research.
You have no evidence whatsoever that that's the case. There has never been proof of any sort offered up by anyone, anywhere, that corporations sit on cures. All we ever get is X-Files-like conspiracy crap that bears no relation to anything real and that exists only in the minds of the paranoid and delusional.
Human need before corporate greed.
That's what government is for. If you want your government to do something about it, demand that it fund its own research programs into cures for whatever diseases you think it should work on. And while I'd support that, I'll be damned if you think I'm going to let government use this as an excuse to raise taxes, so be prepared to cut something else out of the budget (say, most of the Dept. of the Interior?).
But that it will arise eventually is an absolute certainty.
No, it isn't. And there isn't a shred of science behind such a proclamation. The world of medicine is vastly different, and vastly more effective, than at any other time in human history; to declare that a massive pandemic is an "absolute certainty" based on past instances where even basic medical care was completely beyond our capabilities is simply hogwash.
they could instruct every 15 year old high school girl to swim in the ocean between china and taiwan, the resulting tidal wave from all that displaced water would sink all our carriers.
If they were using 15-year-old schoolgirls to invade Taiwan, I think the Taiwanese would welcome their new overlords with open arms. I know I would!
It may be possible for someone to come up with that kind of money, but not likely. So this fellow will just go away and die so that the holy patent can be preserved. The wrongness of that should be evident.
Remember that the next time you walk past a bum on the street, carefully avoiding his eyes so you won't have to give him a few bucks. A few bucks which might be enough to put a meal in his stomache and keep him alive through a cold winter night.
It never ceases to amaze me how eager people are to blame "Big Evil Corporations(TM)" for despicable, mostly imaginary acts, but manage to erase from their memories the evils they themselves do on a daily or weekly basis. Especially the evils of omission, which apparently are perfectly okay to blame on those massive, satanic oligopolies, but not, of course, on themselves.
You *could* have saved 1,000 kids from starvation in Africa for the next year, but instead you bought that shiny new computer with the nifty LCD screen you're posting on to slashdot. Isn't that the same sort of sin? Or is it only a sin if it meets the standards for the liberal party line?
I think it is clear, given how much trouble elderly in the states are having affording drugs, that pricing at the most profitable pricepoint is not good for the health and welfare of the US population.
If we were actually interested in caring for our citizens in a capitalist country, we'd pay (through taxes) to subsidize their treatment - not simply shut down what's left of our market economy in medical care. Of course we do something along those lines already, but the argument is that it's simply not enough (which I *might* agree with, if a further increase in this budgetary item corresponded to a decrease in other budgetary items, since I sure as shit am not going to pay more taxes).
public support for medical research funding is so overwhelmingly high that it would not be a problem.
There's obviously public support for medical research funding, but the U.S. citizenry has made it quite clear that there's anything but majority support for *government-based* medical research funding. Apparently most Americans don't trust their government to do a decent job in this area. I think it *might* have something to do with the governments track record in, oh, just about everything else it sticks its nose in.
Now, the NIH has made a great many mistakes, but if you think the NIH even *approaches* the corruption and incompetence of the drug industry, you're from Mars.
A government agency is more competent than private industry? You've never worked for government, have you?
at the same time, government financing of R&D should, as a policy question, be expanded to take up the slack.
So, instead of the funding being voluntary (through private industry research) you want it to be involuntary (through tax dollars). Thanks, but I think government taxing authority is far too out of control as it is; I certainly don't want to give them more of my paycheck.
*is it* a capitalist solution, or not?
Of course it isn't. That's obvious on its face.
I stand by my statement that public financing of R&D is less of a market distortion than are patents, and therefore is more capitalist. Why and in what way am I wrong?
That's a contradiction in terms. Capitalism requires voluntary transactions; government taxes at the point of a gun, an inherently involuntary transaction. Worse, no market forces of any sort are used to decide the distribution of resources, including manpower (your bureaucrats certainly aren't going to be the best people for the job).
Or maybe we could educate the society that it's not really all about profit?
Somebody still has to pay for it. So either it's going to be voluntary (corporate investment) or involuntary (taxes taken from citizens by government, whether those citizens want to spend their money that way or not).
Assuming we have one, which we don't. You can't call what's left of the market economy in the United States "capitalist" any more than the old Soviet Union was actually "socialist". If there are problems with the current situation it sure as hell isn't due to the capitalism.
Yes, you make zero from curing cancer, but you have zero to actually start the research.
How would you know? They guy might be a multi-millionaire, or a good enough salesman to secure millions in VC capital. Hell, VCs were stupid enough to fund an internet startup that sold *pet food* via the internet; getting them to fund a passle of knowledgeable researchers with a sound game plan couldn't possibly be harder than that.
Unless you're assuming that everyone who has money is part of some giant conspiracy to thwart the development of an effective cure for cancer?
VoIP is probably not a good example of your argument, as the VoIP traffic still flows over the Telco infrastructure
Which would explain why cell phone companies tried so hard to kill VoIP.
Only half a million Americans died in the 1918 pandemic and 50 million worldwide.
That's 20 million world-wide, not 50 million.
There was no air travel at the time
Nor were there any vaccines. Nor were people nearly as healthy as they are today; conditions in both nutrition and medical care (not to mention basic hygiene) were so poor that the average lifespan was around 50 years of age. Despite all the grumbling about how unhealthy the First World is at the moment (e.g., rising obesity), the simple fact is that we're leaps and bounds better off than we were in 1918.
Mind you life is full of risks, the media delights in scaring us with the latest one.
Yes, and this is just the latest. We get a big "you're all going to die" flu scare every ten years or so, and people conveniently seem to forget about how the last one failed to materialize so they can obsess over the current one. Probably the same folks who revel in telling everyone they run into the details of whatever medical ills they 'suffer' from, even though it's clear from the first few minutes that these ills mostly, if not entirely, exist only in their minds.
You would have to find out what the probability of this is before you can say whether a pandemic is imminent and I dont think anybody has reliable figures on this. Governments seem to think it inevitable.
Governments like scaring their citizenry. It keeps said citizenry from questioning the antics of their politicians, or disputing an increase in tax rates.
none of these are likely to destroy our civilisation, a bird flu pandemic could well do.
There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that the avian flu will do anything of the sort. Not a single credible study published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal has made any such claim. Even if the avian flu were to kill as many people as the Spanish Flu did, so what? Heart disease kills that many people every year, yet no one claims that civilization will be destroyed by this 'pandemic'. And heart disease is indeed a pandemic, at least by CDC standards.
It would be sensible to pay a lot more interest to this scare story than most
You mean like the Swine Flu? Because this story reads *exactly* like the Swine Flu did, only you get it from birds. And we saw just what a terror Swine Flu was; more people died from the vaccine than from the flu itself.
As for the future - get corporations out of medical research.
I have no problem with you encouraging the use of tax dollars to fund medical research - especially medical research that private industry isn't interested in undertaking - but I absolutely oppose any attempt to legislate these corporations out of existence. If they fold because they can't compete with government in the specific endeavors they specialize in, that's one thing; but being barred from competition by a bunch of crazy anti-capitalist loons is quite another. The last thing I want is government handed an instant monopoly in any and all endeavors that special interest group X thinks is "evvvillll!" if left in the hands of corporations.
Competition, however...if government were to compete, no matter how ineptly (and that's a given, seeing as how you're talking about government), it just might have the market effect of speeding drug development and lowering prices, i.e., corporations trying to undercut government efforts in order to keep their hand in the game. That works for me.
the Spanish Flu in the late 1910's killed tens of millions around the world
The Spanish Flu killed twenty million people during it's entire run. Heart disease kills that many people every year, while cancer kills 75% of that number yearly (15 million). Despite being labeled a pandemic, the Spanish Flu had virtually no effect whatsoever on the viability of civilization, or even on the daily course of most peoples lives.
The scientific community has been estimating that a new epidemic derived from the bird flu virus has a much more lethal potential since the virus would be able to spread throughtout the whole world in a matter of weeks.
The "scientific community", which usually amounts to the CDC and associated concerns, has said this about a number of different diseases over the course of my lifetime, e.g., the Swine Flu silliness. Not a single one of their 'predictions' has ever panned out. But fear is a certainly a good way to keep the funding and research grants flowing.
So, we are talking here about breaking a patent because whole countries could be wiped out if the medicine is not available
There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that avian flu would ever be capable of 'wiping out whole countries', or even a significant minority of the population of any country. In fact, the actual infection and death rates of the flu are nothing more than pulled-it-outa-my-ass guesstimates, much like what was done during the Swine Flu scare. Color me a bit more than skeptical of this most recent (and tiresome) chicken little routine.
The next stage of civilization will include different laws for each industry instead of our current blanket of "capitalism must be perfect because we won the Cold War" laws.
This isn't a failure of capitalism but a failure of government. Government exists to do the things that capitalistic ventures can't or won't do. If private industry won't fund a cure because it's bad for their bottom line, it's incumbent on government to start it's own program to find the cure. If government isn't doing this something is wrong with government, not capitalism.
And doctors are nothing more than service providers, like plumbers, electricians, and mechanics. Being a doctor doesn't grant one special privilege, nor an exalted status.
Certainly among conspiracy enthusiasts, they are. But in real life conspiracies are often hard to put together, and even harder to maintain. While I'll agree that private industry is more likely to succeed (simply because government is so incredibly inept at even the easy conspiracies), that isn't saying much.
so you're obviously not in the loop.
I see. If you don't know about, and have never encountered any evidence whatsoever, that Conspiracy X exists, all that means is that "you're not in the loop" - but that the conspiracy still exists. The more testimonials to the contrary, the better the conspirators are at covering up their nefarious dealings. At no point does the preponderance of evidence prove that the conspiracy is hogwash, just that the conspirators have reached the level of criminal mastermind, something on the order of Dr. Doom or Lex Luthor.
and since neither you or i have exact details of such "back room deals"
Nobody here has any empirical evidence whatsoever that any "magic bullet" has ever been suppressed, by any company anywhere on Earth. No one can provide a single shred of solid evidence showing that this has ever happened. The idea is nothing more than a combination of fantasy and paranoia.
there goes on things that would make you sick to your stomach
Provide the evidence. Show us incontrovertible proof that these cures are being suppressed. Better yet, call the press and show them the proof; you'll be famous.
feel free to believe what you want and i will do the same.
Yeah, I stick with these little things called "the facts". Inconvenient for you, quite useful for me - and most others not slated for permanent residence in a padded room.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet I noticed that you failed to cite a single empirical source published in an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal. The closest you came was the vague reference to "whale bends", which is NOT linked to sonar in any way, shape or form - except by environmentalists, who apparently can't be bothered to do research or get published.
Next time, try for some *real* science articles, not propaganda pieces. The propaganda only impresses the choir.
Max
It should also be noted that since the late '90's the Navy has on a number of occasions let whale researchers use their equipment, or listen to parts of recordings made while on patrols, to do research on the animals. One of the more notable bits of research included the discovery that there were *at least* 800 blue whales in the northern Atlantic, when it was presumed that blue whales had been wiped out in this area. Turns out the blues that survived whaling just became more adept at avoiding ships, and passed this knowledge onto their young.
There was no mandate for this cooperation. They did it "just because", after the Navy changed it's policy on the use of some of its listening equipment (and recordings), which previously had been blanketed as classified. Why? Because quite a few folks in the Navy actually *like* whales, and a sizable fraction are amateur whale enthusiasts who thought it might be of use to their more professional counterparts.
The military is not the heart of evil that some people seem to think it is.
Max
These people are training to kill humans, why would they care about killing a few animals?
You really don't have a clue, do you? The idea that being in the military makes you nothing more than a killing machine intent on sadistically murdering every living creature that crosses your path went out of vogue in the '70's. Mostly because it's a load of hippy horseshit.
Max
So who do you trust more? The US Military or the Natural Resources Defence Council? I'd say that's a no brainer.
Yep, the military wins hands-down. The NRDC is well-known for it's inability to accept new information which might put certain of its fundraising activities in question, especially where science is concerned. They have a track record for lambasting any scientist who doesn't toe their party line and support them in every proclamation, no matter how thinly supported by evidence that proclamation is. They're fanatics to the core, little different than GreenPeace, Earth First!, or PETA.
The military, despite what the conspiracy fools say, doesn't outright lie nearly as often as people think. They just say "that's classified, now get the fuck out of my face" and leave it at that.
Max
And due to a push of money into R&D one year, a coorporation come up with a AIDS vacince and patients it. Whoopee! But wait, aren't we right back were we started?
No, because government can *still* work on its own AIDS vaccine. And because corporation A would like to make some profit (or at least make up some of its losses, just like airline companies do with half-empty flights) they push the drug out as quickly as possible, for a lower price than they otherwise would in order to pre-empt any government success. Because it would SUCK if they sold the drug for $50,000 a pop in order to scoop up on the high end, only to have Uncle Sam come up with its own cure - and provide it for free to all and sundry.
Patenting one cure doesn't patent ALL cures.
Also, please stop with the knee jeck response to the idea of an "anti-capitalist."
You called yourself an anti-capitalist. By definition, anti-capitalists are against capitalism in any form. It isn't "knee jerk", it's how the term is defined. If you used it incorrectly then suck it up, admit it, and use some other term. Don't blame me because you expressed yourself poorly.
Can't you at least allow us to see what else is possible?
What this line has to do with anything that's gone before is beyond me. Perhaps you'd do better just sticking to the whole "let's kill off the evil pharma corps" argument.
Max
It's bad enough that you're arguing to hold back improvements to infrastructure like this
Oh yeah, this is a real "improvement to infrastructure". As if converting from analog to digital TV - something the vast majority of Americans couldn't give two shits about - is somehow akin to building a needed national highway system.
it's worse that you're using your 15 years of helpless poverty as an excuse.
No, he's using his 15 years of poverty to point out that right here, in the good ol' USA of A, the money could *probably* be spent on something a bit more relevant to some of our taxpayers. That is, if you don't have a silver spoon rammed up your ass, or shoot your wad every time you think of things like "HDTV" and "like digital, dude!".
If you live in the United States, and you've been so poor for 15 years that all you can afford is the basics to sustain life, then you're either lazy or mentally ill.
Anyone who thinks that luck doesn't play a role in where he's at in life, right this minute, is a stupid, egomaniacal fuck. The implication is that you're so special and so superior to everyone around you that you *deserve* every single thing you've gotten - because you're innate superiority fates you to have it! And anyone who doesn't have what you have is just some inferior little schmuck whose lot in life is to lick your boots.
Let's all pause for a moment while laugh my ass off at the notion. Really, the idea that anyone would believe in this bullshit in this day and age is just too funny. It's practically Calvinism, set to the orchestra of 19th century economics and class privilege.
Max
So more channels with higher quality.
I have cable. Essentially 100+ channels of nearly pure, grade-A shit. As opposed to ten over-the-air channels of Grade-A shit. Somehow I don't see the quality of my television viewing experience improving any time in the near future, act of Congress or no.
Max
The important thing to do is write to or call your representative and tell them that you oppose this and that they should vote against it.
After which your representative will make consoling noises, then privately laugh his ass off at the thought that your moral indignation could somehow compete with his corporate campaign contributions, or his corporate-sponsored "junkets" to the Caribbean for a weekend with a hot teenage hooker.
Max
It's called a democracy
It's called a republic, not a democracy. Use your mastery of Webster's to illumine yourself on the difference. Or read the Constitution, if your school never got around to teaching you about it.
Max
Economic and political trends in Western Europe and Japan both show why subsidizing the "breeders" is a sound economic policy
Because if you subsidize the breeders, you don't have to keep your population rates up by letting more of those dirty foreigners into your country. God knows we gotta keep the race pure. Next we'll be putting up David Duke for president!
Max
They don't even care enough to goddamn vote once every four fucking years.
And a fat lot of good that does. Since third parties are so pitifully marginalized there isn't a hope in hell of one of their candidates ever getting elected to major office, I get a choice between Sleezeball A or Sleezeball B. You only have to take a look at Kerry and Bush to see the truth of this. It always boils down to whatever candidate is *slightly* less evil than the other.
Max
You're ignoring corporate use of patents.
No, I'm not. Government could compete just like any private company, and keep the patent for production if it actually came up with a cure for something. There's no Constitutional prohibition for granting government a patent (indeed, government will seize patents for itself in the case of national security).
If corporations would take a principled approach
Corporations aren't in the business of promoting charity, or principles. That's governments shtick. It's one the defining differences between the two entities.
then anti-capitalists such as myself wouldn't be forced to suggest that we legislate corporations out of the market.
If you are indeed anti-capitalist it really doesn't matter what corporations do. You won't be happy until the free market is dead and buried, replaced by god knows what. That's kinda what "anti-capitalist" means.
But they don't allow people in need to use their research.
You have no evidence whatsoever that that's the case. There has never been proof of any sort offered up by anyone, anywhere, that corporations sit on cures. All we ever get is X-Files-like conspiracy crap that bears no relation to anything real and that exists only in the minds of the paranoid and delusional.
Human need before corporate greed.
That's what government is for. If you want your government to do something about it, demand that it fund its own research programs into cures for whatever diseases you think it should work on. And while I'd support that, I'll be damned if you think I'm going to let government use this as an excuse to raise taxes, so be prepared to cut something else out of the budget (say, most of the Dept. of the Interior?).
Max
But that it will arise eventually is an absolute certainty.
No, it isn't. And there isn't a shred of science behind such a proclamation. The world of medicine is vastly different, and vastly more effective, than at any other time in human history; to declare that a massive pandemic is an "absolute certainty" based on past instances where even basic medical care was completely beyond our capabilities is simply hogwash.
Max
they could instruct every 15 year old high school girl to swim in the ocean between china and taiwan, the resulting tidal wave from all that displaced water would sink all our carriers.
If they were using 15-year-old schoolgirls to invade Taiwan, I think the Taiwanese would welcome their new overlords with open arms. I know I would!
Max
It may be possible for someone to come up with that kind of money, but not likely. So this fellow will just go away and die so that the holy patent can be preserved. The wrongness of that should be evident.
Remember that the next time you walk past a bum on the street, carefully avoiding his eyes so you won't have to give him a few bucks. A few bucks which might be enough to put a meal in his stomache and keep him alive through a cold winter night.
It never ceases to amaze me how eager people are to blame "Big Evil Corporations(TM)" for despicable, mostly imaginary acts, but manage to erase from their memories the evils they themselves do on a daily or weekly basis. Especially the evils of omission, which apparently are perfectly okay to blame on those massive, satanic oligopolies, but not, of course, on themselves.
You *could* have saved 1,000 kids from starvation in Africa for the next year, but instead you bought that shiny new computer with the nifty LCD screen you're posting on to slashdot. Isn't that the same sort of sin? Or is it only a sin if it meets the standards for the liberal party line?
So many rocks, so many glass houses....
Max
I think it is clear, given how much trouble elderly in the states are having affording drugs, that pricing at the most profitable pricepoint is not good for the health and welfare of the US population.
If we were actually interested in caring for our citizens in a capitalist country, we'd pay (through taxes) to subsidize their treatment - not simply shut down what's left of our market economy in medical care. Of course we do something along those lines already, but the argument is that it's simply not enough (which I *might* agree with, if a further increase in this budgetary item corresponded to a decrease in other budgetary items, since I sure as shit am not going to pay more taxes).
public support for medical research funding is so overwhelmingly high that it would not be a problem.
There's obviously public support for medical research funding, but the U.S. citizenry has made it quite clear that there's anything but majority support for *government-based* medical research funding. Apparently most Americans don't trust their government to do a decent job in this area. I think it *might* have something to do with the governments track record in, oh, just about everything else it sticks its nose in.
Max
Now, the NIH has made a great many mistakes, but if you think the NIH even *approaches* the corruption and incompetence of the drug industry, you're from Mars.
A government agency is more competent than private industry? You've never worked for government, have you?
at the same time, government financing of R&D should, as a policy question, be expanded to take up the slack.
So, instead of the funding being voluntary (through private industry research) you want it to be involuntary (through tax dollars). Thanks, but I think government taxing authority is far too out of control as it is; I certainly don't want to give them more of my paycheck.
*is it* a capitalist solution, or not?
Of course it isn't. That's obvious on its face.
I stand by my statement that public financing of R&D is less of a market distortion than are patents, and therefore is more capitalist. Why and in what way am I wrong?
That's a contradiction in terms. Capitalism requires voluntary transactions; government taxes at the point of a gun, an inherently involuntary transaction. Worse, no market forces of any sort are used to decide the distribution of resources, including manpower (your bureaucrats certainly aren't going to be the best people for the job).
Max
Or maybe we could educate the society that it's not really all about profit?
Somebody still has to pay for it. So either it's going to be voluntary (corporate investment) or involuntary (taxes taken from citizens by government, whether those citizens want to spend their money that way or not).
Max
The capitalist world is far from the ideal
Assuming we have one, which we don't. You can't call what's left of the market economy in the United States "capitalist" any more than the old Soviet Union was actually "socialist". If there are problems with the current situation it sure as hell isn't due to the capitalism.
Yes, you make zero from curing cancer, but you have zero to actually start the research.
How would you know? They guy might be a multi-millionaire, or a good enough salesman to secure millions in VC capital. Hell, VCs were stupid enough to fund an internet startup that sold *pet food* via the internet; getting them to fund a passle of knowledgeable researchers with a sound game plan couldn't possibly be harder than that.
Unless you're assuming that everyone who has money is part of some giant conspiracy to thwart the development of an effective cure for cancer?
VoIP is probably not a good example of your argument, as the VoIP traffic still flows over the Telco infrastructure
Which would explain why cell phone companies tried so hard to kill VoIP.
Max
Only half a million Americans died in the 1918 pandemic and 50 million worldwide.
That's 20 million world-wide, not 50 million.
There was no air travel at the time
Nor were there any vaccines. Nor were people nearly as healthy as they are today; conditions in both nutrition and medical care (not to mention basic hygiene) were so poor that the average lifespan was around 50 years of age. Despite all the grumbling about how unhealthy the First World is at the moment (e.g., rising obesity), the simple fact is that we're leaps and bounds better off than we were in 1918.
Mind you life is full of risks, the media delights in scaring us with the latest one.
Yes, and this is just the latest. We get a big "you're all going to die" flu scare every ten years or so, and people conveniently seem to forget about how the last one failed to materialize so they can obsess over the current one. Probably the same folks who revel in telling everyone they run into the details of whatever medical ills they 'suffer' from, even though it's clear from the first few minutes that these ills mostly, if not entirely, exist only in their minds.
You would have to find out what the probability of this is before you can say whether a pandemic is imminent and I dont think anybody has reliable figures on this. Governments seem to think it inevitable.
Governments like scaring their citizenry. It keeps said citizenry from questioning the antics of their politicians, or disputing an increase in tax rates.
none of these are likely to destroy our civilisation, a bird flu pandemic could well do.
There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that the avian flu will do anything of the sort. Not a single credible study published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal has made any such claim. Even if the avian flu were to kill as many people as the Spanish Flu did, so what? Heart disease kills that many people every year, yet no one claims that civilization will be destroyed by this 'pandemic'. And heart disease is indeed a pandemic, at least by CDC standards.
It would be sensible to pay a lot more interest to this scare story than most
You mean like the Swine Flu? Because this story reads *exactly* like the Swine Flu did, only you get it from birds. And we saw just what a terror Swine Flu was; more people died from the vaccine than from the flu itself.
Max
As for the future - get corporations out of medical research.
I have no problem with you encouraging the use of tax dollars to fund medical research - especially medical research that private industry isn't interested in undertaking - but I absolutely oppose any attempt to legislate these corporations out of existence. If they fold because they can't compete with government in the specific endeavors they specialize in, that's one thing; but being barred from competition by a bunch of crazy anti-capitalist loons is quite another. The last thing I want is government handed an instant monopoly in any and all endeavors that special interest group X thinks is "evvvillll!" if left in the hands of corporations.
Competition, however...if government were to compete, no matter how ineptly (and that's a given, seeing as how you're talking about government), it just might have the market effect of speeding drug development and lowering prices, i.e., corporations trying to undercut government efforts in order to keep their hand in the game. That works for me.
Max
the Spanish Flu in the late 1910's killed tens of millions around the world
The Spanish Flu killed twenty million people during it's entire run. Heart disease kills that many people every year, while cancer kills 75% of that number yearly (15 million). Despite being labeled a pandemic, the Spanish Flu had virtually no effect whatsoever on the viability of civilization, or even on the daily course of most peoples lives.
The scientific community has been estimating that a new epidemic derived from the bird flu virus has a much more lethal potential since the virus would be able to spread throughtout the whole world in a matter of weeks.
The "scientific community", which usually amounts to the CDC and associated concerns, has said this about a number of different diseases over the course of my lifetime, e.g., the Swine Flu silliness. Not a single one of their 'predictions' has ever panned out. But fear is a certainly a good way to keep the funding and research grants flowing.
So, we are talking here about breaking a patent because whole countries could be wiped out if the medicine is not available
There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that avian flu would ever be capable of 'wiping out whole countries', or even a significant minority of the population of any country. In fact, the actual infection and death rates of the flu are nothing more than pulled-it-outa-my-ass guesstimates, much like what was done during the Swine Flu scare. Color me a bit more than skeptical of this most recent (and tiresome) chicken little routine.
Max
The next stage of civilization will include different laws for each industry instead of our current blanket of "capitalism must be perfect because we won the Cold War" laws.
This isn't a failure of capitalism but a failure of government. Government exists to do the things that capitalistic ventures can't or won't do. If private industry won't fund a cure because it's bad for their bottom line, it's incumbent on government to start it's own program to find the cure. If government isn't doing this something is wrong with government, not capitalism.
Max
And doctors are nothing more than service providers, like plumbers, electricians, and mechanics. Being a doctor doesn't grant one special privilege, nor an exalted status.
Max
conspiracies are abundant
Certainly among conspiracy enthusiasts, they are. But in real life conspiracies are often hard to put together, and even harder to maintain. While I'll agree that private industry is more likely to succeed (simply because government is so incredibly inept at even the easy conspiracies), that isn't saying much.
so you're obviously not in the loop.
I see. If you don't know about, and have never encountered any evidence whatsoever, that Conspiracy X exists, all that means is that "you're not in the loop" - but that the conspiracy still exists. The more testimonials to the contrary, the better the conspirators are at covering up their nefarious dealings. At no point does the preponderance of evidence prove that the conspiracy is hogwash, just that the conspirators have reached the level of criminal mastermind, something on the order of Dr. Doom or Lex Luthor.
and since neither you or i have exact details of such "back room deals"
Nobody here has any empirical evidence whatsoever that any "magic bullet" has ever been suppressed, by any company anywhere on Earth. No one can provide a single shred of solid evidence showing that this has ever happened. The idea is nothing more than a combination of fantasy and paranoia.
there goes on things that would make you sick to your stomach
Provide the evidence. Show us incontrovertible proof that these cures are being suppressed. Better yet, call the press and show them the proof; you'll be famous.
feel free to believe what you want and i will do the same.
Yeah, I stick with these little things called "the facts". Inconvenient for you, quite useful for me - and most others not slated for permanent residence in a padded room.
Max