Page 1 of 3
#2
That drug can't save lives, dipsh*t. It may prolong some cancer sufferers lives by up to 6 months.
That's all.
#3
Quote by MightyAl
That drug can't save lives, dipsh*t. It may prolong some cancer sufferers lives by up to 6 months.
That's all.

It's not like they can't stop developing it now can they?

That's how everything starts, just as prolonging lives then it saves them. I'd rather have something to prolong lives then evolve then quit.
#4
they put the research and time into making the drug, they can do whatever the hell they want with it until the government steps in.

is it right? of course not. is it gonna happen when ever someone gets the chance? absolutely.
Quote by 23:50 inbleach
can't i just eat the fucking cactus?

Quote by WildChicken
Go suck a cat westdyolf!

Quote by Cat Of Pain
So, West...

I hear you'll suck my cat...

Ill suck your cat
PEACE LOVE PANCAKES
call me zach

chocolate chip pancakes!
#5
Quote by The_Clansman_
It's not like they can't stop developing it now can they?

That's how everything starts, just as prolonging lives then it saves them. I'd rather have something to prolong lives then evolve then quit.

NICE doesn't develop drugs, they only decide which the NHS will pay for.
Drugs companies decide the price of drugs, and they've set the price of this one higher than NICE think is worth paying(£3,000/month, IIRC).
#6
Thy can still get it in the same way as they could under a USA system, provided you're rich as ****.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#7
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Thy can still get it in the same way as they could under a USA system, provided you're rich as ****.

Yeah, As I see it most countries need health care reform. If the government isn't willing to develop a drug and they control most of the industry we're screwed.

Quote by MightyAl
NICE doesn't develop drugs, they only decide which the NHS will pay for.
Drugs companies decide the price of drugs, and they've set the price of this one higher than NICE think is worth paying(£3,000/month, IIRC).

So they're deciding lives aren't worth the £3,000/month
If you extended your life a few months then a cure was found, wouldn't that be worth it?
Last edited by The_Clansman_ at Nov 19, 2009,
#8
yes it can help people and i think it should be used

but tbh with the fact it is working with prolonging it, the pharmaceutical companies are going to keep editing and changing the molecule to see if any more derivatives work better, better effiency, less toxic etc etc.
its good however to see something has came this far
Quote by rabidguitarist
Nothing gay about playing with another mans dick. I bet all of you play with your own.


he just owned everybody


Gary(L)Kirsty-Lea<3

RIP Ronnie James Dio. You will be deeply missed. You truely are a hero and a pioneer in metal
#9
Quote by The_Clansman_
Yeah, As I see it most countries need health care reform. If the government isn't willing to develop a drug and they control most of the industry we're screwed.

GOVERNMENTS DON'T DEVELOP DRUGS. Private companies do.
#10
Quote by MightyAl
GOVERNMENTS DON'T DEVELOP DRUGS. Private companies do.

They FUND it too. Our government spends millions upon millions to help develop an AIDS cure, sorry I'm not 100% clear
#11
Quote by The_Clansman_
Yeah, As I see it most countries need health care reform. If the government isn't willing to develop a drug and they control most of the industry we're screwed.

Private companies develop the drugs, the set the price. The government does not develop them. The issue here is that they have set the price too high. The same would be true in a purely private system of healthcare, if the price is too high then people can't afford it.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#12
Quote by The_Clansman_
They FUND it too. Our government spends millions upon millions to help develop an AIDS cure, sorry I'm not 100% clear



the fact is that 3rd world countries will get their medicines from the big pharmaceutical companies
these big pharmaceutical companies will be the one researching and developing the drugs. i am taking it at uni and have been looking at getting a placement for glaxo or astrazeneca in research and development
the malarial drugs which benefit people in thailand werent discovered by them, it was first discovered by the chinese, americans then found out how and were able to alter it and find a way to synthesise it in the labs.
in most cases all these life threatening diseases are researched by all the big companies. all the smaller countries will have to do is fund the drug when it actually comes to them
Quote by rabidguitarist
Nothing gay about playing with another mans dick. I bet all of you play with your own.


he just owned everybody


Gary(L)Kirsty-Lea<3

RIP Ronnie James Dio. You will be deeply missed. You truely are a hero and a pioneer in metal
#13
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Private companies develop the drugs, the set the price. The government does not develop them. The issue here is that they have set the price too high. The same would be true in a purely private system of healthcare, if the price is too high then people can't afford it.

Yeah I understand that, The government can fund and subsidize it. I said most countries, I know the US needs reform, Britain from this should have some, and it probably happens a lot in other countries too. I have class though so I'll be back to see where this goes.
#14
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Private companies develop the drugs, the set the price. The government does not develop them. The issue here is that they have set the price too high. The same would be true in a purely private system of healthcare, if the price is too high then people can't afford it.


Or we could, ya know, ban the fuckers from having a monopoly on the knowledge to produce that drug. Intellectual Property FTL.
.
#15
Quote by Nietsche
Or we could, ya know, ban the fuckers from having a monopoly on the knowledge to produce that drug. Intellectual Property FTL.

Of course, preventing a company from making money on a drug they've invested tens of millions in will interest them in developing more and better medicine!
O wait, no it won't.
#16
Quote by The_Clansman_
Yeah I understand that, The government can fund and subsidize it. I said most countries, I know the US needs reform, Britain from this should have some, and it probably happens a lot in other countries too. I have class though so I'll be back to see where this goes.

What do you see as the solution? About all they can do is raise taxes to fund it, and then people would whine about that even more.



Quote by Nietsche
Or we could, ya know, ban the fuckers from having a monopoly on the knowledge to produce that drug. Intellectual Property FTL.

...or they could also do that.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#17
Quote by MightyAl
Of course, preventing a company from making money on a drug they've invested tens of millions in will interest them in developing more and better medicine!
O wait, no it won't.


Except if we got rid of intellectual property they wouldn't have to spend that much since most of the info would be freely available to begin with. Plus removing intellectual property laws would improve competition by making sure that they can't rely on selling a single drug for several years.
.
#18
Quote by Nietsche
Or we could, ya know, ban the fuckers from having a monopoly on the knowledge to produce that drug. Intellectual Property FTL.

Then wouldn't the drug just not be produced? If a small company can barely afford to produce it, they'll have to sell it for a high price...


But yeah, the NHS could afford to use it if they get more funding which comes from our taxes. And people don't like taxes going up. Amount of people who dislike higher taxes > amount of people who could prolong their life with drug
Quote by Renka
OddOneOut is an Essex S&M mistress and not a pirate or a computer program.

#19
Quote by The_Clansman_
So they're deciding lives aren't worth the £3,000/month
If you extended your life a few months then a cure was found, wouldn't that be worth it?


Not really, as the drug their spending £3000 a month will only extend life for a bit, the one that cures it will be a different product and will probably cost a hell of a lot more. At least this way if a cure comes out the company that develops it may charge less after seeing the previous effort fail to sell.
I've Made You A Drawing of a Giraffe Fucking an Elephant. Notice How His Moustache Looks Just Like Mine.

Your Mother's Got a Penis
#20
Quote by Nietsche
Except if we got rid of intellectual property they wouldn't have to spend that much since most of the info would be freely available to begin with. Plus removing intellectual property laws would improve competition by making sure that they can't rely on selling a single drug for several years.

So, all the research is just going to magically appear for free?
Nice.
#21
Quote by MightyAl
So, all the research is just going to magically appear for free?
Nice.


No, that's not what I said at all.
.
#22
Quote by Nietsche
No, that's not what I said at all.

You said the info would be freely available.
Where precisely does it come from?
#23
Quote by Nietsche
Except if we got rid of intellectual property they wouldn't have to spend that much since most of the info would be freely available to begin with. Plus removing intellectual property laws would improve competition by making sure that they can't rely on selling a single drug for several years.


If there was no intellectual property there wouldn't be much of an incentive to do the research in the first place as somebody has to fund it and would need to make some sort of profit to continue research and to provide for themselves.

A time limit on intellectual property could be an idea though, then money could be made and research would eventually speed up.
I've Made You A Drawing of a Giraffe Fucking an Elephant. Notice How His Moustache Looks Just Like Mine.

Your Mother's Got a Penis
#24
Quote by MightyAl
You said the info would be freely available.
Where precisely does it come from?


From drug companies putting money into research and development. They'd still have a window of time after release of the drug before other companies managed to manafacture it, plus there's the prestige of being the first to come up with the idea which makes them more trustworthy as vendors.

Quote by faultyy
If there was no intellectual property there wouldn't be much of an incentive to do the research in the first place as somebody has to fund it and would need to make some sort of profit to continue research and to provide for themselves.


What I said above. Also IP skews money away from theoretical R & D as patents can only be gotten for practical uses not abstract theoretical discoveries. Also without IP companies wouldn't be able to spend so much money on acquiring and defending patents.
.
Last edited by Nietsche at Nov 19, 2009,
#25
Quote by Nietsche
From drug companies putting money into research and development. They'd still have a window of time after release of the drug before other companies managed to manafacture it, plus there's the prestige of being the first to come up with the idea which makes them more trustworthy as vendors.

It costs a significant amount of money to research and test medicines though, I doubt the limited amount of time would be long enough to make a profit enough to cover that.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#26
Quote by Nietsche
From drug companies putting money into research and development. They'd still have a window of time after release of the drug before other companies managed to manafacture it, plus there's the prestige of being the first to come up with the idea which makes them more trustworthy as vendors.

Isn't that a bit like saying the first aeroplanes built are more trustworthy than the ones built today?
Quote by Renka
OddOneOut is an Essex S&M mistress and not a pirate or a computer program.

#27
Quote by Nietsche
From drug companies putting money into research and development. They'd still have a window of time after release of the drug before other companies managed to manafacture it, plus there's the prestige of being the first to come up with the idea which makes them more trustworthy as vendors.

Because for-profit companies care oh-so-much about prestige.

Don't kid yourself. They're in it for the money; that's why they'll spend millions of dollars in drug research. There's a huge profit to be made by curing cancer, otherwise drug companies would just continue making asprin.
#28
Aren't pretty much all drug prices marked way the hell up anyways?
AROUND THE WORLD



Click here if you like the Washington Wizards
#29
Quote by OddOneOut
Isn't that a bit like saying the first aeroplanes built are more trustworthy than the ones built today?


Er, not really. It's more like saying that since Boeing have built pretty stable aircraft for the past god knows how long its a safe bet that they'll be better than those guys down the street who build them out of old bicycles in their backyard.

Quote by imicius
Because for-profit companies care oh-so-much about prestige.

Don't kid yourself. They're in it for the money; that's why they'll spend millions of dollars in drug research. There's a huge profit to be made by curing cancer, otherwise drug companies would just continue making asprin.


What I meant was that if the companies had prestige people would be more likely to buy from them because they know they're trustworthy.
.
Last edited by Nietsche at Nov 19, 2009,
#30
That's nothing when you consider that $30 a month could treat someone in poorer countries of curable conditions such as malnutrition. My point is that because of scarce resources, governments have to make choices regarding the value of a human life all the time. This happens regardless of medical or economic system. I could just as easily say how can the government pay $3000 a month for this drug when they could keep 100 people in developing countries alive for the same price. It's not that they don't think peoples lives are worth $3000 they just have to calculate it on the margin.
Mr. Butlertron are you A handsome B smart C scrap metal or D all of the above
Scangrade thats easy I'm A and B but not C, so it can't be all of the above, but you can't fill in two ovals Nooo!
Mr. Butlertron the answer is C... you fuckwad
#31
Quote by Nietsche
those guys down the street who build them out of old bicycles in their backyard.

Gotta keep it ol' skool man.

"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#32
Quote by Nietsche
Er, not really. It's more like saying that since Boeing have built pretty stable aircraft for the past god knows how long its a safe bet that they'll be better than those guys down the street who build them out of old bicycles in their backyard.


Either way it still wouldn't work. Competition wouldn't be encourage that much, in the drugs industry the kind of competition you want is who can produce the more effective drug (at least a bit more than who can manufacture the cheapest bog standard one)

greatone_12: you hit it exactly on the head. Except for its £3000 not $3000 We still have an army to fund which is at full capacity and trying to fight a war. The government can't afford to pump more money into the NHS to keep a small number of people alive for a few more months.
Quote by Renka
OddOneOut is an Essex S&M mistress and not a pirate or a computer program.

#33
Quote by faultyy
If there was no intellectual property there wouldn't be much of an incentive to do the research in the first place as somebody has to fund it and would need to make some sort of profit to continue research and to provide for themselves.

A time limit on intellectual property could be an idea though, then money could be made and research would eventually speed up.


An incentive based healthcare model is a bad idea anyway.
My Blog
New bands you wish you knew about!

Check This Band:As Blood Runs Black
Guitarist of the month: Quorthon


Got a good band that you want to share with the world? PM me and I'll write them a review.
#34
Is this not a prime example of why Government run healthcare is bad? Government develops drug that my prolong life to cancer pacients, decides its to expensive to give to pacients for FREE. So nobody gets the medicine.

When will you people understand that the government is not in it to help people, its all about money, and power. There is no such thing as a careing politician.
#35
Quote by ethan_hanus
Is this not a prime example of why Government run healthcare is bad? Government develops drug that my prolong life to cancer pacients, decides its to expensive to give to pacients for FREE. So nobody gets the medicine.

The same amount of people will get it as would get it in the USA: those who are able to afford health insurance willing to pay for it or are able to afford it on their own. This is not an example of a bad aspect of socialised medicine.
If people really care they can of course ask the government to raise taxes and pay for it.

When will you people understand that the government is not in it to help people, its all about money, and power. There is no such thing as a careing politician.

Ya, because private industry cares about you, not profit
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Nov 19, 2009,
#36
I swear they stumbled across the cure for cancer by now and have it secretly locked away somewhere. Cancer treatment is simply worth too damn much for the pharmacy business to actually find/publish a cure, which makes treatment generated $ void...
I am a postmodern vegetarian, I eat meat ironically.
#37
Without this sort of thing drug companies would have no incentive to develop new drugs. Sure, you can say that they should do it for the benefit of humanity, but if they are going to take millions of dollars worth of loss to do it I don't see it happening.

Drug research and production is a business, and it will only continue as long as it is profitable.

Is the NHS wrong for not buying the drug? No. The amount it costs is ridiculous. If you consider the 3,000 people diagnosed each year it would cost £54,000,000 just to prolong their lives by 6 months. This isn't exactly a small sum. Money doesn't magically appear.

I could understand if this was a complete cure, but it isn't. Sure it might be nice to live an extra 6 months, but you are still going to die either way. Not to mention that people in end stage liver cancer probably aren't living exciting lives at that point.
#38
Wow can't get it through government healthcare? Quick come to the US where you will surely be able to get it (after about 15 years of FDA testing) as long as you're able pay for the whole thing directly out of pocket, since the private insurance companies wouldn't pay for it either. I'll switch citizenship with whoever wants to come over here and get it.
#39
Quote by dullsilver_mike
Wow can't get it through government healthcare? Quick come to the US where you will surely be able to get it (after about 15 years of FDA testing) as long as you're able pay for the whole thing directly out of pocket, since the private insurance companies wouldn't pay for it either. I'll switch citizenship with whoever wants to come over here and get it.

+1
Although the FDA isn't all bad. They did reduce the effect of Thalidomide in the USA by not approving it at the time, although they still allowed it to be sold, which seems a bit weird.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#40
Quote by Ur all $h1t
+1
Although the FDA isn't all bad. They did reduce the effect of Thalidomide in the USA by not approving it at the time, although they still allowed it to be sold, which seems a bit weird.


And I can't believe it, but they've actually been proactive in investigating snake-oil products and other existing health risks like the whole mixing super caffine energy drinks with hard liquor trend over the last year or so. Maybe they're turning around in a lot of ways.
Page 1 of 3