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.
Vaccines are indemnified as of 1986.
Trial lawyers can’t touch them.
” It may be a temporary cost and
reduction in short-term profit, but
hopefully the longer-term good will would
turn to profit later.”
The long term goal is to survive, and have an economy that survives. What good is profit, if the SHTF? There is more than money to this world.
Why wouldn’t the shareholders support following capitalism that adheres to both of Adam Smiths works?
Why wouldn’t the shareholders themselves support helping “Samaritans” and support owners who called for this (either at shareholder meetings or whatnot)?
<><><><><
Answer the question yourself.
Has a cancer cure been created free of charge? Hepatitis? Any of the other illnesses that have caused considerably more death than Ebola.
Why not?
Thinking that shareholders are like good samaritans will not get you very far in this life, that and I’d wager than very few big pharm stockholders would even know Adam Smith wrote more than 1 book.
Yes, capitalism should be anchored in morality.
HOWEVER. What you are presenting is in fact the immoral thing to do. Millions of people DEPEND on that company making a profit to continue putting out life saving pharmaceuticals. What you propose would help run them into the ground, and with it every employee, or other business that depends on them making a profit. My god man, do you not understand this? I’m pretty sure I am talking to a flaming socialist liberal thief. There is no point in trying to explain this to you.
You are advocating for socialism. Plain and simple. Not even regular “state socialism.” You are advocating for worldwide socialism.
Things like Ebola are why God created billionaires. Bill Gates is making more progress against malaria than a host of governments ever did (not to mention it was governments that banned DDT on evidence that global warming fanatics would be proud of).
Philanthropic money has already started to pour into Ebola. Why should the pharmaceutical companies be singled out?
This isn’t one on one helping someone. This would hurt many people, and not at the rich CEO’s and stockholders expense. But the consumers expense. Tell me how that is fair? What if this company sells chemotherapy medication. What if I have stage 2 cancer and am depending on my treatment to live a full life? The CEO’s and stockholders decide they are going to spend millions and millions to help west Africa. Guess what happens? My chemo medicine COSTS MORE! What if it gets so bad, that the morons in government intervene, and start TAKING MORE taxes out of my income? Wow. I’m just one person, now I get to choose between death by starvation because I can’t afford to feed myself, or death by cancer, because I can’t afford treatment! You’re ridiculous and I am done talking to you. You are a socialist, and you do not belong here.
Oh sh... ! My bad. i had even looked it up on wiki to be sure...
oops.. lol
Because, Jesus. LOL
The Jewish man helped voluntary. You would impose costs on the Pharma industry rather than the whole of society. Why? Why is Pharmna uniquely responsible to develop a vaccine and you are not? How much will you give out of your own pocket as a Good Samaritan?
In Africa, there are 500 flu deaths for every single Ebola death. So are you saying big Pharma should provide flu vaccines for free in Africa?
So, you are volunteering to go work for free?
You're making the same argument that liberals make about just about everything--every time they want to raid your purse for more taxes! "We've got to have healthcare, because it's the moral thing to do; we've got to have a basic income, because it's the moral thing to do; we've got to give away housing with AC and cable TV because we can't have people living on the streets; we've got to have special programs to feed children before, during and after school, otherwise they won't get fed at home!" The list goes on...
I think that if you look, most pharma companies (and companies in general), do the "moral" thing when they can. They acknowledge that research and development is expensive, and they must charge high prices in order to fund new R&D. But, they know that if customers can't ultimately pay for their products, they don't make a dime. Many pharma companies have special assistance programs where they offer drugs at substantially lower costs to those who can't afford their medicines; many pharma companies offer aid during local and regional emergencies (such as during major earthquakes or tsunamis.)
I would believe that many pharmas that have the expertise and could develop them, would work on vaccines for Ebola, but I don't see why all those vaccines should be offered up at no cost at all.
And one last thing, you talk about morality for the customer--what about morality toward the business? Aren't they worthy of a little morality? Shouldn't this work both ways?
Are you talking to me or the OP?
Why? Why is it their responsibility to spend millions on a cure for a disease that they then must give away for free? Why not require them to give away treatments for cancer or heart disease, which kill far more people every day than Ebola has killed to date?
Yeah, what do they think they are, U2?
Hey retard, which of us is the one working for a company doing contract work for EXACTLY THAT REASON, for a primary that is ALSO doing its development work for EXACTLY THAT REASON.
But hey, you must know more about it than I do, since you’re probably some accountant or middle manager or something in some business completely unrelated to pharmaceuticals.
Sorry, the OP.
Yep, and who is paying for it? What will the company get in return? Was it the government that contracted your company? If so, you DO know where that money comes from right?
American company developing a cure to give to millions of Africans. Certainly those countries cannot pay, I doubt the company can. So who will? It will all come back to American taxpayers. Socialism. I don’t give a rat’s @$$ about Africa. I don’t want the money that my government steals from me going anywhere but AMERICA.
“YOU will have to take a $100 vaccine (times 330 million Americans) so they can afford to vaccinate 1B Africans.”
Exactly. And if Ebola gets a foothold in the U.S., many people would pay $300 to save their kids.
I had some surgery 20 years ago and was surprised at how much it cost. I asked the doc why it was so much. “I charge about 3x what it costs. I need to cover all the people that I have to treat for free or at very reduced prices. If anyone tells you that we need nationalized healthcare - we already have it!”
This mindset is the reason Gardasil is a $400 vaccine, btw. They’re vaccinating mass numbers of African children with Gardasil.
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.