by Imperial Nilfgaard » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:44 pm
by Olthar » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:53 pm
by Imperial Nilfgaard » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:57 pm
Olthar wrote:Anything dealing directly with the welfare of the people should be government run because the private sector does not care if people get sick/injured/dead. They can handle entertainment and luxury items, but leave the medication to those who are paid to care.
by Ripoll » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:59 pm
by Ripoll » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:03 am
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:Olthar wrote:Anything dealing directly with the welfare of the people should be government run because the private sector does not care if people get sick/injured/dead. They can handle entertainment and luxury items, but leave the medication to those who are paid to care.
I agree. Its absurd, you can't trust a profit driven corporation to want what is best for you.
by Tubbsalot » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:07 am
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:The most disturbing part about this dire news is that it isn't some new pathogen coming to kill us all, it is bacteria we already know becoming more resistant and achieving superbug status.
Our misuse of current antibiotics, such as their application in livestock and for incomplete treatments, is part of what is driving this path of resistance.
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:Furthermore, not enough new drugs are coming on the market because antibiotics aren't as profitable as, say, cholesterol medication.
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:Antibiotics you take for a limited amount of time, while other drugs require you to take them indefinitely. In a profit driven industry, companies will strive to make drugs that give the biggest returns (read: not antibiotics).
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:Healthcare should not be controlled by issues of narrow profit, but the good and wellbeing of the collective. I think nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry today could save trillions of dollars and millions of lives tomorrow.
by Grand Britannia » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:07 am
by New Stinkonia » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:09 am
by Ripoll » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:09 am
Grand Britannia wrote:I think pharmaceuticals should be a joint endeavor with both the private and public sector participating in the development of medicine.
This way both interests are covered. Companies can continue treating long term diseases if they wish while the public sector can dead with less profitable illnesses. If you assume this is the case, anyways.
by Kiribati-Tarawa » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:13 am
by Tubbsalot » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:17 am
New Stinkonia wrote:I think it's cute how you think that could actually happen. The multi-national corporations have their boot on the necks of most governments, and they would never allow any such thing.
Kiribati-Tarawa wrote:Just ban the use of antibiotics when they are not absolutely necessary for the health of humans.
by The Grim Reaper » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:18 am
Ripoll wrote:Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:
I agree. Its absurd, you can't trust a profit driven corporation to want what is best for you.
Who says all corporations are profit driven? https://hbr.org/2013/04/companies-that- ... sm-perform
http://blog.fora.tv/2013/04/want-to-per ... apitalism/
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com ... ctice.html
by Ripoll » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:23 am
The Grim Reaper wrote:Ripoll wrote:
Who says all corporations are profit driven? https://hbr.org/2013/04/companies-that- ... sm-perform
http://blog.fora.tv/2013/04/want-to-per ... apitalism/
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com ... ctice.html
How many of these are pharmaceuticals?
by Ripoll » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:24 am
New Stinkonia wrote:I think it's cute how you think that could actually happen. The multi-national corporations have their boot on the necks of most governments, and they would never allow any such thing. Who do you think funded all the FUD against the ACA, for example?
by The Grim Reaper » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:25 am
Ripoll wrote:The Grim Reaper wrote:
How many of these are pharmaceuticals?
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benchmark/n ... rticle.pdf
by Big Jim P » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:41 am
Ripoll wrote:New Stinkonia wrote:I think it's cute how you think that could actually happen. The multi-national corporations have their boot on the necks of most governments, and they would never allow any such thing. Who do you think funded all the FUD against the ACA, for example?
Almost every pharmaceutical company hopped on board obamacare. It was a GOP slander movement, corporations supported it all the way through.
by Alexanda » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:48 am
by New Stinkonia » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:10 am
Ripoll wrote:New Stinkonia wrote:I think it's cute how you think that could actually happen. The multi-national corporations have their boot on the necks of most governments, and they would never allow any such thing. Who do you think funded all the FUD against the ACA, for example?
Almost every pharmaceutical company hopped on board obamacare. It was a GOP slander movement, corporations supported it all the way through.
by Dalcaria » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:16 am
by Tubbsalot » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:17 am
Alexanda wrote:The Government should, in my opinion, force the companies to produce these drugs, and can then buy them, but should not, by any means, take control. How would you want them to take control, anyhow? By purchasing them?
New Stinkonia wrote:the hopeless droolers known as Republican voters
by Dalcaria » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:19 am
Alexanda wrote:I disagree.
The Government should, in my opinion, force the companies to produce these drugs, and can then buy them, but should not, by any means, take control. How would you want them to take control, anyhow? By purchasing them?
by New Stinkonia » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:19 am
Tubbsalot wrote:Alexanda wrote:The Government should, in my opinion, force the companies to produce these drugs, and can then buy them, but should not, by any means, take control. How would you want them to take control, anyhow? By purchasing them?
You don't think they should take control, you just think they should be in control?New Stinkonia wrote:the hopeless droolers known as Republican voters
Are you aware that most people will immediately begin to disregard your arguments if they decide you're an asshole?
by Tubbsalot » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
by New Stinkonia » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:26 am
Tubbsalot wrote:Are you completely uninterested in convincing Republicans that they're incorrect? Do you just want a circlejerk? Because that's what you'll generate by insulting people.
(And how on earth is it a 'platitude' to say that people don't want to agree with assholes?)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Australian rePublic, Cerespasia, El Lazaro, Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], Kreushia, Stratonesia, United Calanworie
Advertisement