This is why capitalism sucks

[.Shane.]

I would have thought that the drive to cure colon cancer was stronger.

For the scientists, probably so. For the executives, probably not.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

<witty>Executives don't discover cures for colon cancer.</witty>

 

[AxiomUk]

My interpretation of the OP's point was that it was not specifically engineered at saying 'Communism would be better' but one of 'our system is inherently flawed if it sees money as worth more than a human life'. Capitalism is the metaphorical embodient of the profit prinicple - i.e money at all costs. On that, I'll accept the statement and comment about the article.

Personally, I feel it's disgusting how there has to be a reliance on making a profit when there's people who could benefit so much from this. I believe there should be some form of globalised health-care system that would allow the spread of drugs worldwide for healthcare reasons, as well create a universal healthcare provision for everyone who is everywhere, of multiple nationalities and ethnicities. That would stop companies blocking things.

 

[Sidhe]

Maybe the UN should take a more direct aproach to it's charitable works, it's a good idea, sadly though I think many capatalist countries would take a stand against such direct intervention.

 

[Ellipsis Jones]

Is this really a problem with capitalism? I know next to nothing about the NHS, the Department of Health, and NICE. So please, correct me when I blunder here. But this issue seems more indicative of a problem with the UK's regulatory bureaucracy.

A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market.

Is the drug company really the one blocking access? They are selling Avastin, aren't they? Who's stopping doctors from using Avastin to treat eye conditions?

This unlicensed use of Avastin has spread across continents entirely by word of mouth from one doctor to another. It has now been injected into 7,000 eyes, with considerable success.

Nobody's stopping them, apparently. It's an off-label use that's gaining acceptance and popularity all over the world. So why isn't the NHS jumping on board?

Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS.

[...]

Although Nice's role is to look at cost-effectiveness, it says it cannot appraise a drug and pass it for use in the NHS unless the drug is referred to it by the Department of Health. The department says its hands are tied.

"The drug company hasn't applied for it to be licensed for this use. It wouldn't be referred to Nice until they have made the first move," said a Department of Health spokeswoman. "They need to step up and get a licence. If they are not getting it licensed, why aren't they?"

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is the roadblock, then. I have never heard of NICE before, but I'll take the Guardian at its word: "Nice's role is to look at cost-effectiveness." In other words, Avastin is not being used by the NHS to treat eye conditions because a government body hasn't decided that it's a cost-effective treatment?

The Department of Health spokeswoman asks an interesting question: why isn't Genentech pushing for Avastin to be licensed? Because I'm almost totally ignorant of the UK health system, let me throw out another question: what is involved in obtaining the license?

If getting licensed is a lengthy and expensive process, then it's pretty clear why Genentech isn't doing it. It sounds like it would be a needless embuggerance, undertaken to demonstrate "cost-effectiveness" to the NHS.

If getting licensed doesn't entail expense for Genentech, then why doesn't NICE just grant permission on their own initiative? Why do they need to wait for an engraved invitation from Genentech?

Avastin was first used on human eyes by Philip Rosenfeld, an ophthalmologist in the US, who was aware of animal studies carried out by Genentech that showed potential in eye conditions.

[...]

But although the evidence is good, regulators require randomised controlled trials before they grant licences, which generally only the drug companies can afford to carry out.

Regulators and licences. This doesn't sound much like capitalism to me.

I fail to see why it should be the drug company's obligation to seek a government license - at its own expense - every time someone comes up with a new off-label use for one of its products. Off-label usage is legal (obviously) and extremely common. Bringing a new drug to market in the US, if I remember correctly, costs something like three quarters of a billion dollars and involves nearly a decade of clinical trials. Pharmaceutical firms would never accomplish anything if we required them to indulge in this whenever someone discovers a new use for a drug.

Prof Rosenfeld [...] would like to see governments fund clinical trials of drugs such as Avastin in the public interest.

Hey, there's an idea. If you've already got socialized medicine, isn't government-funded testing the next logical step?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Your first point - many blame the problem of obesity directly on capitalism, due to the advertising power that food companies can have, especially their power to influence children's eating habits.

Well I'm sorry that you feel people are mindless sheep unable to make up their own minds about what they choose to do and eat. It is possible to simply ignore the advertisements and look towards healthier choices, many people already do this and live very long lives.

Your second point is the same old 'the soviet union was bad thus all socialism is' rhetoric that is constantly regurgitated by hardcore capitalists in the face of criticism. I do not adovocate 'socialism vs capitalism', I am for mixed economies and sensiable regulations. I don't care much for 'government control of ecomonomy = endless bureaucracy' arguments.

The more regulations a government has over an economy the bigger it has to be to enforce those regulations. As time goes on and new problems arise the same answer keeps coming up to enforce more regulation. You can already see the effects in many of the european nations of their move to a mixed economy in the form of slower economic growth and weaker employment rate. Constantly enacting "sensible" regulations usually gets out of hand due to different definitions of what sensible is, and you do get a move towards a more oversized bureaucracy.

 

[ainwood]

If the drug companies don't make profits, then they don't have any capital to invest in new research. I would imagine that it costs tens of millions in research for every drug brought to market.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Well I'm sorry that you feel people are mindless sheep unable to make up their own minds about what they choose to do and eat. It is possible to simply ignore the advertisements and look towards healthier choices, many people already do this and live very long lives.



The more regulations a government has over an economy the bigger it has to be to enforce those regulations. As time goes on and new problems arise the same answer keeps coming up to enforce more regulation. You can already see the effects in many of the european nations of their move to a mixed economy in the form of slower economic growth and weaker employment rate. Constantly enacting "sensible" regulations usually gets out of hand due to different definitions of what sensible is, and you do get a move towards a more oversized bureaucracy.

1 - I'm niot saying that all people are 'mindless sheep'. You didn't really read intyo what I am saying - that eatinh habits are often formed in ones childhood and alot of food companies aim their advertsiing at children.

2- The fact that you have your political compass score as a signature demonstrates that you are proud of being a capitalist, and this is reflected well in your arguments, the usual 'regulations are bad' logic which ignores the fact that for a succesfull economy you have to be flexiable, to stimulate when needed and to regulate when needed. A wealfare state ultimutely betters its people through education and sharing advancement, whilst in capitalist states progress is always profit driven so ineviatebly not everyone benifits.

In relation to this actual thread topic, medicinal drugs are an area where regulation is needed to ensure that patients get the best deal. personally when it comes to healthcare I go for the standard 'patients above profit' deal, because I feel it immoral to make money out of peoples pain, and that as human beings we should strive to hep each otehr, as we all rely on each other anyways.

 

[luiz]

It's very nice and self-cogratulatory to deplore the attitude of drug companies wanting to make a profit while people are suffering. But let's think things through instead of taking such a simplist approach to a complex question.

Someone earlier in the thread stated that "executives don't find the cure for colon cancer". As a matter of fact they do, in a way. Breaking-edge medical research is very expensive. Developing a new drug may cost millions of dollars and require years of effort. The only reason why there is such money invested in research (and hence the only reason why there are so many new drugs) is because investors are willing to place it there. The thing is, investors don't have a God-given mission to cure colon cancer. If they are investing they expect some return, and it's very fair since their money made the discovery possible in the first place. Nobody is forced to buy the medicine. If this corporation didn't exist so wouldn't the medicine. Would this make you guys feel better?

If this newspaper or anyone else in this thread is filling particularly outraged at the behaviour of the corporation, than I invite them to give away their money to buy colon cancer medicine or to develop a new, open patent one.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

1 - I'm niot saying that all people are 'mindless sheep'. You didn't really read intyo what I am saying - that eatinh habits are often formed in ones childhood and alot of food companies aim their advertsiing at children.

That is the goal of advertisers to be sure, but parents still have the biggest influence over their children's eatting habits and they can say no to their pleas for McDonald's or candy.

2- The fact that you have your political compass score as a signature demonstrates that you are proud of being a capitalist, and this is reflected well in your arguments, the usual 'regulations are bad' logic which ignores the fact that for a succesfull economy you have to be flexiable, to stimulate when needed and to regulate when needed. A wealfare state ultimutely betters its people through education and sharing advancement, whilst in capitalist states progress is always profit driven so ineviatebly not everyone benifits.

Yes an economy has to be flexible at times, but to what extent is often debatable. Your definition of flexible may be very different from my own or any other person out there. That is why enforcing regulations at a national level can become very burdensome as people have widely varying opinons on the extent of a governments influence. My personal view is that through competition in a free market economy both the producer and consumer end up benefiting more than in a welfare state, again there are going to be widely different opinions on the matter.

In relation to this actual thread topic, medicinal drugs are an area where regulation is needed to ensure that patients get the best deal. personally when it comes to healthcare I go for the standard 'patients above profit' deal, because I feel it immoral to make money out of peoples pain, and that as human beings we should strive to hep each otehr, as we all rely on each other anyways.

It is ideal to hope that humans would want to help each other, but without the capital means to fund research and developement of new drugs this dream can't be implemented. Yes, these drug companies are out to make a profit, but it doesn't change the fact that their products have helped the lives of millions of people.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

zulu9812, you seem to forget that capitalism is what makes pharmaceutical companies to come up with these drugs in the first place!

 

[tomsnowman123]

Capitalsim is terribly flawed, and this is an example. Greedy companies holding trying to garner large profits for themselves, when they could be saving lives. Greed drives corporations.

My problems with capitalism: the enforcement of property in land and exclusive rights to natural resources is unjustly enclosing upon what should be owned/available by/to all. That's why a free market is self-contradicting. Private owners of capital do not repay laborers the full value of their production. They keep a portion for themselves as profit; this is exploitative. It creates an incredibly unequal distribution of wealth.

I could go on and on, but I just wanted to get my two cents in for now.

 

[amadeus]

Fine, criticize the company. They didn't have to develop any drugs, but they did. You socialist knuckleheads don't seem to understand that these companies didn't have to do anything, certainly not to the benefit of people who don't pay for their services.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Fine, criticize the company. They didn't have to develop any drugs, but they did. You socialist knuckleheads don't seem to understand that these companies didn't have to do anything, certainly not to the benefit of people who don't pay for their services.

I resent being called a "knucklehead." (I know it's not personal... at least, I hope it's not).

But why can't they do something once they have it?

My quarrel is with capitalism and corporations as a whole, not this one incident only.

 

[amadeus]

Fine, let's eliminate capitalism and see how many new drugs are made then.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Fine, let's eliminate capitalism and see how many new drugs are made then.

And let's eliminate the government to. Then I would be happy. Every man gets to be free, and have any drugs they want.

 

[newfangle]

*snip*

I need to learn to be nice.

So let's approach this slowly. tomsnowman123, without any government or companies, how are these drugs created? And how is it assured that they are abundant enough so that every person gets all the drugs they want? Does this principle extend to other goods?

Doesn't seem very 'voluntarily simple' to me.

 

[tomsnowman123]

So let's approach this slowly. tomsnowman123, without any government or companies, how are these drugs created? And how is it assured that they are abundant enough so that every person gets all the drugs they want? Does this principle extend to other goods?

Doesn't seem very 'voluntarily simple' to me.

People can create drugs if they need them. But we would not need as many, since, in my green/eco-anarchy, we would be much more ecologically smart, and more connected to nature, thus eliminating many of today's health threats. It's about freedom from authority,. There is a lot more I could give, but going fully into my beliefs is a long process.

Edit: And I don't see how you are relating this to voluntary simplicity.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

tomsnowman123 if your against computers and the internet, what are you doing online?

 

[mdwh]

I'm confused why doctors are prevented from using the drug in this way? Until we answer this, we can't blame capitalism.

Capitalsim is terribly flawed, and this is an example. Greedy companies holding trying to garner large profits for themselves, when they could be saving lives. Greed drives corporations.

Under capitalism, people should be free to use a drug they buy how they like, and if the company doesn't want to sell it, another company is free to make the drug instead.

Private owners of capital do not repay laborers the full value of their production. They keep a portion for themselves as profit; this is exploitative. It creates an incredibly unequal distribution of wealth.

But you are assuming that there is a single value you can assign to work.

Yes, the value a company gets from my labour is more than they pay me, but at the same time, the amount they pay me is more than my labour would be worth if I was working on my own - so am I exploiting them?

The point is, you are free to work on your own if you think that's so better. Indeed, this division between "labourers" and capitalists is simply a false idea. Many companies are started by hard working "labourers" who invest both their labour and money.

Yet not everyone wants to be self-employed, so I like the choice to privately exchange my labour for money. If I can do that, it's capitalism.

PS - can you lend me £1000 for the next few years, interest free? I wouldn't want you exploiting me by charging for it.