This is why capitalism sucks

[luiz]

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.

Are you capable of creating any drug at all? Do you expect everyone in your hippie commune to be able to create drugs?

No matter how "connected to nature" you are, there will still be infections, viroses and all sorts of nasty stuff that used to kill people before they turned 30 when we didn't have modern medical science.

You are good natured and all, but almost unbelievably naive. Am I wrong in assuming you're quite young?

 

[Elrohir]

Human nature is the problem here, not capitalism.

 

[skadistic]

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.



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?



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?



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?



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.



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

Absolutly brilliant post.

 

[amadeus]

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

He's not against computers, he's only against the steel corporation that built the case, the circuit board company that printed the motherboard, the glass company that constructed components for the monitor, the assembly plant where the motheboard and the case were put together, the corrugated cardboard box factory that made the box the computer would be shipped in, the shipping company that built and managed the freighter that the computer was shipped in, the ports that handled the shipping of the computer, the truck that took the computer from the dock to the store, the store that sold the computer to him, and the company that built the car he drove to get to the store to buy the computer that was shipped from in the freighter from Taiwan in the corrugated cardboard box that was assembled from parts manufactured in steel corporations and printed circuit board companies.

 

[classical_hero]

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.

I'd wish that were true, but unfortunately it is not. Most of the research is done by Universities and it is only once the research has proven successful that the Pharmaceutical companies take over and make massive profits. Yet for some reaons they are one of the few markets that are protected by Governments yet they are the most expliotative sectors.

 

[CaptainF]

I think this is not indicative of capitalism sucking per se, just people sucking in general.

Pharmaceutical companies can be quite shady however. Remember those COX-2 Inhibitors? The ones that killed some 5 people due to heart attacks that were aggressively marketed the world over? Yeah, thats right.

 

[ComradeDavo]

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.



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.


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.

-Does a busy parent, who has just finished a 8 hour shift and had to travel half way across town to get home, really have the will power to lecture their kids on why junk food is bad for them and the details of how to live healthy? And do they relaly have time to prepare a healthy meal, or in fact are many parents actually that concerned enough?

-All I can say is that I believe Weafare states to be generally better off and more equipped to deal with economic unrest and so on. Also you don't seem to realsie that it is perfectly possiable to have a wealfare state and a competetive market!

-But then again the prices of some products have also expolited millions of people.

 

[Sidhe]

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.

Yes these people are poor and every new drug depends on the profit from the last?

You can't justify this position this is a very rich drug complany trying to exploit it's customers. Because avastin hasn't and wont be tested it will dissapear unless their patent of it runs out and they allow others to manufacture it. The question is why didn't they test avastin, because some morally dead ****** decided he wanted to make a fast buck and gradually withdraw one product in favour of another one, thus dooming second world countries to blindness and filling his coffers in the process.

The NHS works like this, what does it cost now, how can I balance our budget, not how much will it cost in the future, or will I save money in the long run, which avastin patently will, it has to be seen to be saving money now, and so the company knows they will accept the new drug despite the huge financial burden it will eventually create, there milking the cow, wasting resources that could be used elsewhere, and they know it, it sickens me that profit mongers with such disregard for people are alowed to get away with this sort of manipulaiton.

 

[mdwh]

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.]

But people can create drugs if they need them under capitalism. And if someone is trying to stop others from using them, that can happen under anarchy. And why would people be more ecologically smart?

As for freedom from authority, that's arguing against democracy, not capitalism. There is no authority in laissez-faire capitalism - in fact, a true anarchy would look very much like a laissez-faire capitalist society.

It sounds like you're more against corporatism than capitalism.

Anarchy isn't an economic system, it's just wishful thinking. It's like me saying "I propose a system much better than capitalism. It would work because everyone would work hard and be nice to each other and no one would be selfish".

 

[Kozmos]

$$$ ka-ching! All behold the power of money! Get rich or die trying.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

-Does a busy parent, who has just finished a 8 hour shift and had to travel half way across town to get home, really have the will power to lecture their kids on why junk food is bad for them and the details of how to live healthy? And do they relaly have time to prepare a healthy meal, or in fact are many parents actually that concerned enough?

-All I can say is that I believe Weafare states to be generally better off and more equipped to deal with economic unrest and so on. Also you don't seem to realsie that it is perfectly possiable to have a wealfare state and a competetive market!

-But then again the prices of some products have also expolited millions of people.

-A busy parent can limit their child's access to the food by simly not buying it and making available in their house. Also if parents aren't concerned about their child's eatting habits, then its their fault for the child's poor eatting habits, not a corporations.

- It is possible to have a competetive market and a welfare state, but its not long before the state decides to take control of other areas and extend the influence of the welfare state. The more control the state takes through subsidies, direct control, and regulations the less competetive the market is. I firmly believe that much of the world's economic problems could be solved by promoting more capitalistic policies such as free trade, because each nation could specialize in the area the have a comparative advantage in.

- Capitalism is based on both parties benefiting from the transaction. Capitalism is not a zero sum game like merchantilism. The drug company spends millions of dollars developing a drug hoping that the product will bring them a profit. After developing the drug they price the product at a point that covers the cost of developing it and to bring some extra revenue to the company. The individuals who purchase it are no longer burdened by their medical ailment, and the company that produced it got a return on their investment. People are free to not purchase the product and live with whatever condition they have or shop around for a better deal from other companies.

 

[ibn sina]

There's more to life than growth rates and unemployment rates.

I mean lets look at life expectancy...which is rather releavant to a thread about healthcare and capitalism....

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

1 Andorra 83.51 2006 est.
2 Macau 82.19 2006 est.
3 San Marino 81.71 2006 est.
4 Singapore 81.71 2006 est.
5 Hong Kong 81.59 2006 est.
6 Japan 81.25 2006 est.
7 Sweden 80.51 2006 est.
8 Switzerland 80.51 2006 est.
9 Australia 80.50 2006 est.
10 Guernsey 80.42 2006 est.
11 Iceland 80.31 2006 est.
12 Canada 80.22 2006 est.
13 Cayman Islands 80.07 2006 est.
14 Italy 79.81 2006 est.
15 Gibraltar 79.80 2006 est.
16 France 79.73 2006 est.
17 Monaco 79.69 2006 est.
18 Liechtenstein 79.68 2006 est.
19 Spain 79.65 2006 est.
20 Norway 79.54 2006 est.
21 Israel 79.46 2006 est.
22 Jersey 79.38 2006 est.
23 Faroe Islands 79.35 2006 est.
24 Aruba 79.28 2006 est.
25 Greece 79.24 2006 est.
26 Martinique 79.18 2006 est.
27 Austria 79.07 2006 est.
28 Virgin Islands 79.05 2006 est.
29 Malta 79.01 2006 est.
30 Netherlands 78.96 2006 est.
31 Luxembourg 78.89 2006 est.
32 Montserrat 78.85 2006 est.
33 New Zealand 78.81 2006 est.
34 Germany 78.80 2006 est.
35 Belgium 78.77 2006 est.
36 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 78.61 2006 est.
37 Guam 78.58 2006 est.
38 United Kingdom 78.54 2006 est.
39 Finland 78.50 2006 est.
40 Isle of Man 78.49 2006 est.
41 Jordan 78.40 2006 est.
42 Puerto Rico 78.40 2006 est.
43 European Union 78.30 2006 est.
44 Guadeloupe 78.06 2006 est.
45 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.00 2006 est.
46 Bermuda 77.96 2006 est.
47 Saint Helena 77.93 2006 est.
48 United States 77.85 2006 est.
49 Cyprus 77.82 2006 est.
50 Denmark 77.79 2006 est

Thats the US all the way down there at 48, below those countries you just used in comparison.

I think you just disproved yourself. Hong Kong having the most free market (aka capitalist market) in the world is at the top. The same is true for many other nations there.
The link between longevity and public healthcare is probably negative according to those statistics.
Furthermore its about more than the system. Both Sweden and Denmark have public healthcare but the swedes still live on average three years longer, the danes are at the american level of longevity in spite (or perhaps because) of their public healthcare.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

He's not against computers, he's only against the steel corporation that built the case, the circuit board company that printed the motherboard, the glass company that constructed components for the monitor, the assembly plant where the motheboard and the case were put together, the corrugated cardboard box factory that made the box the computer would be shipped in, the shipping company that built and managed the freighter that the computer was shipped in, the ports that handled the shipping of the computer, the truck that took the computer from the dock to the store, the store that sold the computer to him, and the company that built the car he drove to get to the store to buy the computer that was shipped from in the freighter from Taiwan in the corrugated cardboard box that was assembled from parts manufactured in steel corporations and printed circuit board companies.

My mistakes, I completely misunderstood.

 

[tomsnowman123]

You are good natured and all, but almost unbelievably naive. Am I wrong in assuming you're quite young?

I don't see what my age has to do with this. My beliefs should not be viewed differently whether I am 15, 25, or 232. Don't worry, you'll see my age June 26, my birthday.

As for freedom from authority, that's arguing against democracy, not capitalism. There is no authority in laissez-faire capitalism - in fact, a true anarchy would look very much like a laissez-faire capitalist society.

I believe a laissez-faire system directly contradicts itself because of the elitist society it creates and the power it gives to the rich.

He's not against computers, he's only against the steel corporation that built the case, the circuit board company that printed the motherboard, the glass company that constructed components for the monitor, the assembly plant where the motheboard and the case were put together, the corrugated cardboard box factory that made the box the computer would be shipped in, the shipping company that built and managed the freighter that the computer was shipped in, the ports that handled the shipping of the computer, the truck that took the computer from the dock to the store, the store that sold the computer to him, and the company that built the car he drove to get to the store to buy the computer that was shipped from in the freighter from Taiwan in the corrugated cardboard box that was assembled from parts manufactured in steel corporations and printed circuit board companies.

How about localized prodcution, not global corporations.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

How about localized prodcution, not global corporations.

How about being decades or centuries behind in technology, being unable to meet demand, and charging prices that are ten times as much. There is a reason corporations developed over time, and that is because of there efficiency.

 

[stuge]

The problem of capitalism is that everyone can be greedy and work only for themselves.

The problem of socialism is that everyone has to work for a tiny group of greedy people.

Personally I believe that the best form of economy is the one where people grow, hunt and gather what they need. But of course, these things cannot be controlled and such economy couldn't provide me with CIV 4. Gasp.

 

[tomsnowman123]

How about being decades or centuries behind in technology, being unable to meet demand, and charging prices that are ten times as much. There is a reason corporations developed over time, and that is because of there efficiency.

Localized production for small ecovillages, not for worldwide demand. Each village could produce what they need, which wouldn't be a lot.

 

[Sidhe]

- Capitalism is based on both parties benefiting from the transaction. Capitalism is not a zero sum game like merchantilism. The drug company spends millions of dollars developing a drug hoping that the product will bring them a profit. After developing the drug they price the product at a point that covers the cost of developing it and to bring some extra revenue to the company. The individuals who purchase it are no longer burdened by their medical ailment, and the company that produced it got a return on their investment. People are free to not purchase the product and live with whatever condition they have or shop around for a better deal from other companies.

In this case the company in question has produced a completely unnecessary version of the drug, instead of testing the one that's cheap and already available, this means that it can with draw the successful drug and reintroduce the higher priced drug at 1000 pounds to the original 10 pounds pricing, I fail to see the inherent benefit to both sides, in this case this is exploitation in the name of a buck and patients will suffer when refused the new drug because of costs.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Localized production for small ecovillages, not for worldwide demand. Each village could produce what they need, which wouldn't be a lot.

And how many people could these small ecovillages support. It sounds like the human's population would drastically decline, as the means to support such a large populous is eliminated.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

In this case the company in question has produced a completely unnecessary version of the drug, instead of testing the one that's cheap and already available, this means that it can with draw the successful drug and reintroduce the higher priced drug at 1000 pounds to the original 10 pounds pricing, I fail to see the inherent benefit to both sides, in this case this is exploitation in the name of a buck and patients will suffer when refused the new drug because of costs.

Yes, this corporation is looking for a more profitable means of distributing this drug. If patients are outraged, they can refuse to buy the drug from this company and give it to their rival. If this company loses enough buisness then they will work to market the cheaper version of the drug.