Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KomradeKorbyn)
    I'm not saying that people have been forced to pay extortionate amounts because of Shkreli, I'm saying that pharmaceutical companies have the ability to exploit people (IE the case in the US) and this bill simply prevents them from doing so.
    I have the ability to shoot you in the head. Should I be imprisoned before I do it?

    I won't do it because of morals and the high probability of a punishment. Companies won't do it because the market regulates itself and doesn't need some socialists to fiddle with the prices. Look at the CH stock price over the last three years, for example.

    You don't even know the famous US story—for starters, they were giving Daraprim away for free to patients who couldn't afford it even though most of them had AIDS due to their own poor judgement. How very evil of them, right?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    You don't even know the famous US story—for starters, they were giving Daraprim away for free to patients who couldn't afford it even though most of them had AIDS due to their own poor judgement. How very evil of them, right?
    Turing Pharmaceuticals weren't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Turing Pharmaceuticals weren't.
    I'll try to find a source to support that statement. Shkreli claimed it in an online interview.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Gonna be a Nay on this one too.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I have the ability to shoot you in the head. Should I be imprisoned before I do it?
    No, you should have your access to guns restricted so that you don't have the ability to shoot me in the head even if you wanted to, just like companies shouldn't have the ability to take advantage of people even if they want to.

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I won't do it because of morals and the high probability of a punishment. Companies won't do it because the market regulates itself and doesn't need some socialists to fiddle with the prices. Look at the CH stock price over the last three years, for example.
    Some companies will, a lot won't. American companies in the medical industry have a long history if screwing people over for personal gain, I don't see the problem with simply preventing the same from happening here in advance.



    (Original post by Life_peer)
    You don't even know the famous US story—for starters, they were giving Daraprim away for free to patients who couldn't afford it even though most of them had AIDS due to their own poor judgement. How very evil of them, right?
    Even if people get AIDS as a result of their own poor choices, they still deserve treatment - you think we should leave people to fend for themselves as soon as they make a bad decision?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KomradeKorbyn)
    .
    I like you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KomradeKorbyn)
    No, you should have your access to guns restricted so that you don't have the ability to shoot me in the head even if you wanted to, just like companies shouldn't have the ability to take advantage of people even if they want to.
    Which is exactly what morals, the market, and current regulations do without unnecessary interference such as this bill…

    Some companies will, a lot won't. American companies in the medical industry have a long history if screwing people over for personal gain, I don't see the problem with simply preventing the same from happening here in advance.
    Who developed those pharmaceuticals and who owns them? Would there be any pharmaceuticals without a plethora of researchers, executives, investors, shareholders, etc.? Do you know any socialists like yourself doing leading medical or any other research and then giving the products away without profit or even for free? Of course not, because all you can do is ***** about how you're entitled to everything and how it has to be served to you even if you added no value.

    Even if people get AIDS as a result of their own poor choices, they still deserve treatment - you think we should leave people to fend for themselves as soon as they make a bad decision?
    Why do they deserve treatment? It's a matter of opinion and my opinion is that people who willingly damage their health by having unprotected careless sex, eating junk food, etc. can't expect the rest of us to pay for their medical bills.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Which is exactly what morals, the market, and current regulations do without unnecessary interference such as this bill…
    But there aren't current regulations that do this, hence this regulation being proposed in the first place, and I'm afraid I don't have full faith in the morality of pharmacutical corporations.

    I don't see how the bill "unnecessarily interferes" - it's not preventing companies from doing anything other than potentially exploiting people, so I see no reason not to implement it. Even if the vast majority of the time it's going to be unnecessary and morals should prevent it from being needed, I don't see a way in which it can cause harm and I only see ways in which it can help protect people from exploitation.


    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Who developed those pharmaceuticals and who owns them? Would there be any pharmaceuticals without a plethora of researchers, executives, investors, shareholders, etc.? Do you know any socialists like yourself doing leading medical or any other research and then giving the products away without profit or even for free? Of course not, because all you can do is ***** about how you're entitled to everything and how it has to be served to you even if you added no value.
    Complete strawman. At what point did I say medical researchers should work for free? At what point did I saw researchers are unnecessary? At what point did imply I'm entitled to everything? You seem to just be making things up.



    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why do they deserve treatment? It's a matter of opinion and my opinion is that people who willingly damage their health by having unprotected careless sex, eating junk food, etc. can't expect the rest of us to pay for their medical bills.
    Because we should protect the weaker members of society, and that includes those who don't have the capability to make good choices all of the time. Do you propose we abolish all social workers because "it's their fault anyway"? We're not America, we should view obesity and STIs as a result of a lack of education on the subject, not as an opportunity to charge people for medical care they likely can't afford anyway.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I like you.
    Time to recruit?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It is important that, in any civilised society, the government does what it can to preserve the well-being of its citizens, by ensuring that the most cutting-edge treatments are available to its citizens, preferably free and otherwise affordable. And it is this belief of mine that makes feel deeply uneasy about the content of this bill.

    Yes, pharmaceutical companies generally make sizeable profits on their sales. Yes, there is occasional doubt over the precise motives. But on the whole, these profits are absolutely necessary for the funding of long-term research and innovation. In pharmaceuticals more than many other industries, the cost of bringing new products to market is quite colossal.

    Putting arbitrary limits on profits is to a fair extent just putting limits on research. I admit that sometimes affordability may be affected more than is reasonable - but the government can improve affordability and availability through a number of methods without damaging research. It would be decidedly more difficult to induce further research were the firms not to have any money to do it with.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krollo)
    It is important that, in any civilised society, the government does what it can to preserve the well-being of its citizens, by ensuring that the most cutting-edge treatments are available to its citizens, preferably free and otherwise affordable. And it is this belief of mine that makes feel deeply uneasy about the content of this bill.

    Yes, pharmaceutical companies generally make sizeable profits on their sales. Yes, there is occasional doubt over the precise motives. But on the whole, these profits are absolutely necessary for the funding of long-term research and innovation. In pharmaceuticals more than many other industries, the cost of bringing new products to market is quite colossal.

    Putting arbitrary limits on profits is to a fair extent just putting limits on research. I admit that sometimes affordability may be affected more than is reasonable - but the government can improve affordability and availability through a number of methods without damaging research. It would be decidedly more difficult to induce further research were the firms not to have any money to do it with.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This Bill places no limits on profits, nor does it place a limit on the initial pricing of pharmaceuticals, or indeed a limit on the pricing at any given point. All it seeks to do is to prevent pharma companies who hold a monopoly in small markets from raising their prices above efficient market prices by relying on a barrier to entry in terms of time. By requiring them to announce pricing policy ahead of time except in exceptional circumstances, we avoid a lot of the problems of the pharma market atm.

    Would you consider supporting this if I reduced the period of time required between the notice and the price increase?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Which is exactly what morals, the market, and current regulations do without unnecessary interference such as this bill…



    Who developed those pharmaceuticals and who owns them? Would there be any pharmaceuticals without a plethora of researchers, executives, investors, shareholders, etc.? Do you know any socialists like yourself doing leading medical or any other research and then giving the products away without profit or even for free? Of course not, because all you can do is ***** about how you're entitled to everything and how it has to be served to you even if you added no value.



    Why do they deserve treatment? It's a matter of opinion and my opinion is that people who willingly damage their health by having unprotected careless sex, eating junk food, etc. can't expect the rest of us to pay for their medical bills.
    This makes all sorts of incorrect assumptions about the content of this Bill. I suggest you refer to my reply to Krollo above.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Which is exactly what morals, the market, and current regulations do without unnecessary interference such as this bill…



    Who developed those pharmaceuticals and who owns them? Would there be any pharmaceuticals without a plethora of researchers, executives, investors, shareholders, etc.? Do you know any socialists like yourself doing leading medical or any other research and then giving the products away without profit or even for free? Of course not, because all you can do is ***** about how you're entitled to everything and how it has to be served to you even if you added no value.



    Why do they deserve treatment? It's a matter of opinion and my opinion is that people who willingly damage their health by having unprotected careless sex, eating junk food, etc. can't expect the rest of us to pay for their medical bills.
    And yet, this is EXACTLY what you advocate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    And yet, this is EXACTLY what you advocate.
    Really?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Really?
    Criticise people who "add no value"
    Supports private pharmaceuticals who hike up the price yet "add no value"
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    This is in cessation
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    Division! Clear the Lobbies!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 16, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.