Posted on 10/16/2014 10:03:45 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
The Obama administration has failed us.
With that in mind, potential treatments/vaccines for Ebola are being worked on and tested as we speak, and despite the lack of ability to pay for any potential vaccine on the part of almost all western Africans, pharmaceutical companies should develop said vaccine(s) (if at all possible) and distribute them free of cost to those who cannot afford them.
While I do support huge profits to be made by pharmaceutical companies, I believe that there are exceptions to the rule, and I do believe that this is the time and instance for this very exception.
If it was cheap to make, they would sell it at a reasonable profit, and it would be plentiful.
The real question is what they would do if they had a cure that was more expensive than the market would bear. That is where things get ugly.
The difference is, you want the people who could make that decision, to spend someone else’s money, not their own.
Not the teaching of Jesus.
You sure sound like Jesus. Hardly, in fact, given the first line of your post. Will you act like that when you stand before Him? I hope not...
You essentially argue that I am conflating things that are disparate when they are not.
Jesus never argued in favor of Socialism, but He did say that we must help out those who cannot help themselves.
Secondly, Adam Smith said that Capitalism must be anchored to morality, and I see no where in the scriptures where Jesus would disagree with that.
Last of all, there is nothing keeping owners and shareholders in taking an approach to profit (in some cases like this) that lines up with the Jewish man helping the Samaritan.
If you want a corporation to put its full effort into a drug, have congress double the patent life. And limit liability like they do for the nuclear industry.
Have a competition like the XPize.
Your ideas are goofy.
Go ahead, get busy. If you know how to do this and have the means to afford the production and have the insurance to cover the liability and nuisance suits, go right ahed and produce the vaccine.
If you can’t or aren’t willing to bear the burden yourself, where do you get the standing to tell someone else to do t?
Vaccines aren’t subject to patent expiration. They are considered ‘formulations’ like Coke or Pepsi.
Small molecule drugs like statins, antibiotics and other ‘pills’ and drugs have a 7yr patent expiration.
This is one reason new diseases are targeted with vaccines rather than drugs.
That and vaccines are also indemnified. You can’t sue the company for any issues with them.
Vaccines are a no lose proposition for pharma if they get approved. No expiration, no lawsuits. It’s why we have so many new vaccines under development right now.
Wow! He believes in capitalism but at the same time his huge brain can reconcile forcing a company to lose money.
Again...
The concept of “capitalism” was purely a boogeyman and or straw man of the collectivists of the 1800’s.
Adam Smith was dead long before then...
Those who accept the concept of capitalism also accept the the narrow box the F’ing marxists PUT you in.
I believe Adam smith was more along the lines of Natural rights. Which has as much to do with the metaphysical as it does the physical. Its not really surprising that marxists (the ultimate materialists) would come up with a single dimensional boogeyman based on nothing but what they understood most... Materialism.
People are people. Companies are made up of people... People do things for their own reasons and companies do things for the reasons the people who work in those companies decide is for their best interest. Materialistically AND metaphysically. The term CAPITALISM doesnt even begin to cover the reality. It cant... It was invented by people who had/have a warped view of reality.
The people who work for those companies may decide its in their best interest to do exactly what you stated... But its immoral to force them... This leads naturally into a discussion of culture, religion, and the basis of the morality of a people and if that morality is suitable for the survival of that culture and people. but thats beyond the scope of this thread.
I don’t recall anyone forcing the Samaritan.
The greatest problem is not cost but delivery of a vaccine in the shambolic conditions that prevail in most of the Third World, with refrigeration, sterile needles, capable medical personnel and security all difficult to arrange, and local peoples often resistant or hostile to vaccines. Also, corrupt Third World governments and bureaucracies frequently shake down international organizations for cash even when essential medical care is involved.
I would never argue in favor of socialism, and I would state too, that Jesus never argued in favor of socialism, either. But he did show that we must help the Samaritan, and should do this of our own free will.
What does this say about the free will choices of those that turn away Samaritans - be they even Samaritans in Africa?
There is nothing keeping owners and shareholders from taking the pro-Samaritan approach.
Where have I ever said that this should be forced? Nowhere. But lack of action by some in helping those who cannot help themselves would be quite telling.
And thus, this post and my others now show exactly where I stand and thus, further, nothing more needs to be said...
I follow what Jesus said, do not support Socialism, support both of Adam Smith’s works, and call upon all (of their own free will, be they shareholders or owners) to do the right thing and of their own free will take a pro-Samaritan approach in some cases -— like this.
Maybe they could stop the junk science against the 2nd Amendment.
In this case, maybe not -
the FDA has an incentive to NOT release a drug or treatment only if the casualties from not releasing it remain invisible.
In this case, they may go the other way, as the “cost” of not releasing it is entirely visible, and the cost of releasing it (side effects) is unknown and will be publicly acceptable.
So why are you arguing for socialism?!
Jesus also NEVER directed anyone to steal from a person just to give to the poor. And here we find you advocating STEALING from the shareholders to give to the poor.
You have said NOTHING that equates to being a good samaritan and lots that equates to being a thief using the force of government to do your thievery.
Should pharmaceutical companies distribute a cure if they have it? That is TOTALLY up to the owners of the company.
When Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) had property and sold it, but only gave half to the church after claiming they gave all, Peter told them "Whiles it remained was it not thine own?"
They had NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to give it to the church, or to anyone else.
Likewise the owners of a pharmaceutical company have NO OBLIGATION to give anything to anyone. If they choose to of their own free will, then they will be greatly rewarded for it. If they give it because they are forced to then it counts as if they never gave it at all.
So not only are your stealing their property but you are stealing their potential blessing by FORCING them to do something they may not want to.
Perhaps you should read more on capitalism and on the bible. Your understanding seems to be lacking on both topics
First, it has been said that companies are working on a cure. So there is no lack of action.
Second, you assume that there is a cure. Cures for viral infections are notoriously hard to come by, IIRC.
Third, you are promoting that the company use the resources entrusted to it by its shareholders to speculate, to its shareholders detriment, on a cure that may or may not exist.
Finally, you really should change your screen name.
Just to be clear, Jesus did ask ‘who is the neighbor’ but he did not compel the Samaritan to take care of or to pay for the injured man. The Samaritan did it of his own free will. Compelling charity is not charity it is tyranny as we have in this country now. Our biggest problem in this country of trying to get vaccines to magically appear is the trial lawyer who constantly sue manufacturers out of business. We have so politicized the healthcare industry and it is now high risk just to take care of someone. The hospital in Dallas that treated Ebola patient is probably going to be sued out of business. The innkeeper who took care of the injured man in the ‘good Samaritan’ story would today would soon be closed. Well, what are we going to do when hospitals and healthcare workers refuse to take on high risk patients in the future?
They don’t NEED to do any such thing. Granted, it would be the humanitarian thing to do, and the PR coup of the century. But they are not obligated in any way to produce a vaccine at their own expense.
Way off on Marx’s birthdate. Marx died in 1883, born in 1818.
Or did you mean Karl Rove?
Ummmmmmm. You’re taking an example of God (the Holiest man alive) helping one person on the side of the road out of the Bible. Then you are applying it multiple countries. One country is rich, the rest are dirt poor. All of these countries have millions of people, with millions of different interests, minds, and motivations. Then you are saying that the country that is rich should give away hundreds of thousands of hours of hard labor, sleepless nights, and stress. Not to mention the monetary cost, and the consequences to all those workers families. Which could include homelessness, starvation, illness, and death. Then saying they are morally obligated to do this all without compensation, because Jesus (Holiest man alive) helped a person on the side of the road.
In a nutshell, you are taking a Bible passage that teaches you to help others when you can out of the Bible cherry picked by your little communist fingers. Then telling us we are morally obligated to shift millions of dollars to people half a world away. In doing so would raise the tax rates, which would lower the quality of living, and hurt more Americans than it would help Africans.
You are advocating what I will call GLOBAL SOCIALISM. Which in my opinion is evil. Do you not understand that what you are asking would cost this company millions of dollars? Which gets passed on to their employees in the form of lower wages, lay offs, and cuts in benefits? Which is ultimately passed onto other companies because these employees no longer spend as much as they did? It then leads to that company to make up for profit loss selling their medicines at a higher rate, affecting EVERYONE else that needs their products to survive.
If you are not going to even TRY to listen to the argument, you are on the wrong forums. Try www.dailykos.com. You will find many like minded individuals there. Here you will find constant rebuttals, flames, and eventually a zot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.