Allure Massage
Toronto Escorts

Trump Declines to Take Part in "Baseless" House Impeachment Inquiry

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,820
2,280
113
I couldn't give a shit about patents for medicine.
It's morally corrupt.

Que the "but research costs billions of dollars" apologists.
If you care about developing new medicines and new treatment technologies you have to care about patents. Doctors and scientists are not our slaves. Don't expect them to devote their talents to improving health care without being paid, and without the reward of profit for innovation. Stealing the product of someone else's work and talents is morally corrupt.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
If you care about developing new medicines and new treatment technologies you have to care about patents. Doctors and scientists are not our slaves. Don't expect them to devote their talents to improving health care without being paid, and without the reward of profit for innovation. Stealing the product of someone else's work and talents in morally corrupt.
And there it is... and it's bullshit.

Paying smart people what they are worth, and providing medicine for affordable prices, are not mutually exclusive concepts.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,820
2,280
113
And there it is... and it's bullshit.

Paying smart people what they are worth, and providing medicine for affordable prices, are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Really, how much are smart people worth? The amount Big Brother decides? How much were slaves sold to American plantation owners worth?
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
Really, how much are smart people worth? The amount Big Brother decides? How much were slaves sold to American plantation owners worth?
What the fuck does slavery have to do with anything?
A tax-payer-funded government branch put men on the moon.

Why the fuck can't they cure cancer?
Answer: they can.

Do you understand that elementary concept?
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
From the US National Library of Medicine.
Cuba can do it, but American can't... wonder why?

In Cuba, health care is considered a human right for all citizens; health care is therefore a national priority. Cuba's health policy emphasizes prevention, primary care, services in the community, and the active participation of citizens. These emphases have produced an impressively high ranking on major health indicators, despite economic handicaps. The Cuban experience demonstrates the influence of ideological commitment and policy-making on the provision of health care and challenges the assumption that high-quality care for all citizens requires massive financial investment. The evolution of the Cuban health care system since the revolution thus has implications for the U.S. health care system; specifically, it suggests that the equitable distribution of health care services in the United States requires a national health insurance and service delivery system.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2315760#:~:targetText=In%20Cuba%2C%20health%20care%20is,is%20therefore%20a%20national%20priority.&targetText=Life%20expectancy%20in%20Cuba%20is,%2C%20typhoid%20fever%2C%20and%20diphtheria.
You make it sound so good...why do so many Cubans want to flee?
Could it be that mediocre free healthcare is not worth trading in your freedom?
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,820
2,280
113
What the fuck does slavery have to do with anything?
A tax-payer-funded government branch put men on the moon.

Why the fuck can't they cure cancer?
Answer: they can.

Do you understand that elementary concept?
Since your post started with a question, I think its you that doesn't understand. Patents were developed as a way of preventing the theft of other people's intellectual work. It was recognized that without that protection, not enough intelligent people would work towards improving all of our lives with innovation. Governments cannot innovate. The best an institution can do is hire people and ask them to innovate.

That's what happened in the space program. Do you think that program was an example of frugal or efficient government spending? It certainly was not. The US government paid contractors handsomely to develop the innovations required for that program. They had to pay them enough to get them to set aside the other commercial projects they would have engaged in but for the space program. However, governments were never GUARANTEED that these innovations would be developed, or that the space program would be a success. The various failures of the program, and the current inertia of the program are well known.

A government could take the same approach to medical research. However, corporate medical research firms would not suddenly accept less money to develop a cure for cancer. If the government set the price for such work too low, these companies would simply pursue more profitable research opportunities.

The only way you can control people to get them to do what you want them to do, and pay them no more than you wish to pay them, is if they are your slaves.

I'll take a pass on your Brave New World.
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
You should start marching with your sandwich board.
Canadians really need to be told that supporting universal health care is communism and you're just the man for it.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
Since your post started with a question, I think its you that doesn't understand. Patents were developed as a way of preventing the theft of other people's intellectual work. It was recognized that without that protection, not enough intelligent people would work towards improving all of our lives with innovation. Governments cannot innovate. The best an institution can do is hire people and ask them to innovate.

That's what happened in the space program. Do you think that program was an example of frugal or efficient government spending? It certainly was not. The US government paid contractors handsomely to develop the innovations required for that program. They had to pay them enough to get them to set aside the other commercial projects they would have engaged in but for the space program. However, governments were never GUARANTEED that these innovations would be developed, or that the space program would be a success. The various failures of the program, and the current inertia of the program are well known.

A government could take the same approach to medical research. However, corporate medical research firms would not suddenly accept less money to develop a cure for cancer. If the government set the price for such work too low, these companies would simply pursue more profitable research opportunities.

The only way you can control people to get them to do what you want them to do, and pay them no more than you wish to pay them, is if they are your slaves.

I'll take a pass on your Brave New World.
Kinda telling in regards to what some governments consider a priority, hey?
Let's spend as much money as we need to to get to the moon before the Ruskies... but medicine for our people, fuck them.
You're good with that model, right?
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,820
2,280
113
Kinda telling in regards to what some governments consider a priority, hey?
Let's spend as much money as we need to to get to the moon before the Ruskies... but medicine for our people, fuck them.
You're good with that model, right?
If you're asking me, finding a way to travel between habitable planets, or to alternative sources of resources or other waypoints towards that goal, is the most important work any government could possibly be engaged in. We live on a planet with finite resources that will be habitable for a finite period of time (however long that may be).

However, given the length of time that such a challenge will likely be worked on, there are ample resources to work on other goals at the same time. It isn't a "this or that" choice.

Governments are not standing in the way of a cure for cancer. They could influence how much cancer research is conducted vs. other medical research by offering greater compensation for cancer research than other research would return. Of course, that would leave the problem of deciding which medical conditions should be focused upon. I fail to see how governments, as institutions, are better placed than the existing medical research industry to determine which medical problems may most efficiency and successfully be researched. Personally, I don't want some ex union leader, sticker salesman, or drama teacher or insurance brokerage worker deciding what medical research doctors and scientists should devote their time and talents toward.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,260
4,497
113
One way Cuba can afford to provide public health care is by ignoring all international patent protections pertaining to prescription drugs. If you steal health care, it's a lot more affordable. Is that the model you advocate for?

Pretty big statement.

Care to back it up with any tangible reference?
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,778
113
One way Cuba can afford to provide public health care is by ignoring all international patent protections pertaining to prescription drugs. If you steal health care, it's a lot more affordable. Is that the model you advocate for?
You would clearly prefer the Cuban Government letting its people die, like in Iraq, because of US sanctions on drug sales.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,820
2,280
113
Pretty big statement.

Care to back it up with any tangible reference?
Since what I'm saying isn't even controversial, I'm not sure I want to work very hard to provide all the background. A short overview is:

a) the US embargo of Cuba virtually stopped the export of American prescription drugs to Cuba
b) this aspect of the embargo was challenged by Cuba as a violation of international human rights laws
c) the Cubans responded to it by beginning production of generic versions of many prescription drugs which were not licensed from American drug companies (because, by law, the American drug companies could not do so)
d) because the generic drugs are being produced at their production costs, with no licensing fees, they are, of course, very inexpensive.

This was addressed, to some extent, in Michael Moore's movie "Sicko", although many of his findings about the quality of Cuban health care were challenged (here's one such example - by ABC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8TcpOz6A4)
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,820
2,280
113
You would clearly prefer the Cuban Government letting its people die, like in Iraq, because of US sanctions on drug sales.
I think you've missed the point. The point is that you can only have cheap drugs if you steal them or force people to sell them to you at your preferred price. However, a universal system which allows for either is not sustainable. Cuba's practices can only exist because it can't, by law, export its artificially cheap generic drugs into the US market. If, however, every country did as Cuba does, no medical research would take place. So, we'd have cheap insulin, but there would never be any further medical innovation. No one would invest in research that could simply be stolen from them.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,812
3,468
113
I think you've missed the point. The point is that you can only have cheap drugs if you steal them or force people to sell them to you at your preferred price. However, a universal system which allows for either is not sustainable. Cuba's practices can only exist because it can't, by law, export its artificially cheap generic drugs into the US market. If, however, every country did as Cuba does, no medical research would take place. So, we'd have cheap insulin, but there would never be any further medical innovation. No one would invest in research that could simply be stolen from them.
The flaw is a whole crapload of research is done not by the private sector but on university campuses and funded by Govt's.

Oh and btw the creators of insulin didn't patent it. They just gave it to the world.

Scientists discover new drugs to benefit mankind. It's corporations that slap a huge price on it. Govt's can very easily fund new research and manufacturers make a profit on reproduction. And still lower the prices.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,778
113
I think you've missed the point. The point is that you can only have cheap drugs if you steal them or force people to sell them to you at your preferred price. However, a universal system which allows for either is not sustainable. Cuba's practices can only exist because it can't, by law, export its artificially cheap generic drugs into the US market. If, however, every country did as Cuba does, no medical research would take place. So, we'd have cheap insulin, but there would never be any further medical innovation. No one would invest in research that could simply be stolen from them.
Believe me, I understand patents and law. I have a dozen patents to my name.

I am just pointing out that USA sanctions on drug sales was ruinous to Iraq and Cuba. Any activity to make drugs would be justified under those circumstances, better than letting people die.

It is unconscionable to put sanctions on medical drugs. "In 1996 Madeleine Albright said on national TV that 500,000 Iraqi children dead from sanctions was "worth it".
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
If you're asking me, finding a way to travel between habitable planets, or to alternative sources of resources or other waypoints towards that goal, is the most important work any government could possibly be engaged in. We live on a planet with finite resources that will be habitable for a finite period of time (however long that may be).

However, given the length of time that such a challenge will likely be worked on, there are ample resources to work on other goals at the same time. It isn't a "this or that" choice.

Governments are not standing in the way of a cure for cancer. They could influence how much cancer research is conducted vs. other medical research by offering greater compensation for cancer research than other research would return. Of course, that would leave the problem of deciding which medical conditions should be focused upon. I fail to see how governments, as institutions, are better placed than the existing medical research industry to determine which medical problems may most efficiency and successfully be researched. Personally, I don't want some ex union leader, sticker salesman, or drama teacher or insurance brokerage worker deciding what medical research doctors and scientists should devote their time and talents toward.
Yep... in the 60's the priority was to get off this planet. How did that work out, 60 years later?
So in your mind, you would prefer to have some hedge-fund manager decide that a single dose of something-or-other is worth $2,000... so that is what the research should focus on.
Got it.
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
The flaw is a whole crapload of research is done not by the private sector but on university campuses and funded by Govt's.

Oh and btw the creators of insulin didn't patent it. They just gave it to the world.

Scientists discover new drugs to benefit mankind. It's corporations that slap a huge price on it. Govt's can very easily fund new research and manufacturers make a profit on reproduction. And still lower the prices.
Who pays the scientists to discover new drugs? Corporations. Corporations are in business to make money so that they can continue to pay scientists and employ people to make more money
Who pays the government to fund new research? Tax payers. What happens when government puts companies out of business...people are unemployed and less tax revenue comes in, and eventually affects research funding.

The socialist mentality always leads to a dead end.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,812
3,468
113
Who pays the scientists to discover new drugs? Corporations. Corporations are in business to make money so that they can continue to pay scientists and employ people to make more money
Who pays the government to fund new research? Tax payers. What happens when government puts companies out of business...people are unemployed and less tax revenue comes in, and eventually affects research funding.

The socialist mentality always leads to a dead end.
The govt did. Via grants to universities. Drug companies don't search for cures. The search for ongoing maintenance drugs.

That's how polio and the like was cured and vaccines developed.
 
Toronto Escorts