Time to Nationalize Pharmaceuticals

[Draakonitian Mars]

The day i see two people agreeing to what is the best color, will be the day i would think about the possibilities of several countries agreeing to something.

That's a cute belief system. Probably one of the prayers of the vulture capitalist religion.

If people ever figure out how badly they're getting screwed by their bought governments, they will make it happen.

If people ever visit north korea, they won't accept random nationalization as their lord and saviour.

[New Aerios]

Do you have anything useful to say, or are you just going to continue spewing edgy teen rhetoric?

Just one thing: take your own advice.

Ha.

[New Stinkonia]

That's a cute belief system. Probably one of the prayers of the vulture capitalist religion.

If people ever figure out how badly they're getting screwed by their bought governments, they will make it happen.

If people ever visit north korea, they won't accept random nationalization as their lord and saviour.

North Korea? Why not Hades?

[Draakonitian Mars]

If people ever visit north korea, they won't accept random nationalization as their lord and saviour.

North Korea? Why not Hades?

I used North Korea, because we don't have much data about the economical situation in Hades.
In my opinion, governments would be far better off with giving incentives (or evil evil corporate welfare) to companies that develop new anti-biotics... if a lack of new antibiotics was the problem in the first place.
You should search for an answer in the healthcare and agricultural sector.

[New Stinkonia]

North Korea? Why not Hades?

I used North Korea, because we don't have much data about the economical situation in Hades.
In my opinion, governments would be far better off with giving incentives (or evil evil corporate welfare) to companies that develop new anti-biotics... if a lack of new antibiotics was the problem in the first place.
You should search for an answer in the healthcare and agricultural sector.

Opinion noted. Still just as likely that nationalizing at least anti-biotics would be a benefit. Comparing that to North Korea is about as relevant as Hades or the Queendom of Hearts in Wonderland.

[Tubbsalot]

Never mind the fire and brimstone spiel. There is no reason the rest of us need to believe this based on your claims, unless you can prove you have a crystal ball.

He is absolutely correct. And even if he weren't, nationalising an industry has always been a great way to destroy your entire economy as business flees as quickly as possible. Nationalisation is not a solution. Introducing a public service is.

Also good for causing yourself problems: embargoing China or Ireland or whatever country they've relocated to. And no, people would not join in with the embargo just because they're engaged in a military alliance with the US.

[New Stinkonia]

Never mind the fire and brimstone spiel. There is no reason the rest of us need to believe this based on your claims, unless you can prove you have a crystal ball.

He is absolutely correct. And even if he weren't, nationalising an industry has always been a great way to destroy your entire economy as business flees as quickly as possible. Nationalisation is not a solution. Introducing a public service is.

Also good for causing yourself problems: embargoing China or Ireland or whatever country they've relocated to. And no, people would not join in with the embargo just because they're engaged in a military alliance with the US.

Works out as you say if we cherrypick what has already been discussed.

[New Nationale Einheit]

Not all corporations are evil and slobbering over profits. And you cannot always trust the government either...

[New Stinkonia]

Not all corporations are evil and slobbering over profits. And you cannot always trust the government either...

Yet it's not a corporation's job to look out for the well being of humanity. Only the government can coordinate that on the scale of society.

[New Aerios]

Not all corporations are evil and slobbering over profits. And you cannot always trust the government either...

Yet it's not a corporation's job to look out for the well being of humanity. Only the government can coordinate that on the scale of society.

And yet they often don't. Politicians are just as prone to selfishness and greed as everyone else.

[New Stinkonia]

Yet it's not a corporation's job to look out for the well being of humanity. Only the government can coordinate that on the scale of society.

And yet they often don't. Politicians are just as prone to selfishness and greed as everyone else.

Politicians bought and bribed by corporations.

And even if they "often don't", corporations "never do".

[Murkwood]

Nationalization is a very, very bad idea, no matter what the industry. The inherent competition of the private sector enables for more innovation.

[Greed and Death]

A troubling new projection sponsored by the British government has predicted that by 2050, 10 million people will succumb to anti-biotic resistant infections. Thats more annual deaths than cancer today.
The economic cost could be in the tens of trillions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30416844

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.
Furthermore, not enough new drugs are coming on the market because antibiotics aren't as profitable as, say, cholesterol medication. 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).

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.

That is not the pharmaceuticals fault that is the doctors fault for over prescribing antibiotics. Also worth pointing out the doctors are already nationalized in the NHS.

[Estado Nacional]

I don't feel like dying from an easily curable disease, so I'll have to go with no.

[The Nihilistic view]

A troubling new projection sponsored by the British government has predicted that by 2050, 10 million people will succumb to anti-biotic resistant infections. Thats more annual deaths than cancer today.
The economic cost could be in the tens of trillions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30416844

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.
Furthermore, not enough new drugs are coming on the market because antibiotics aren't as profitable as, say, cholesterol medication. 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).

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.

That is not the pharmaceuticals fault that is the doctors fault for over prescribing antibiotics. Also worth pointing out the doctors are already nationalized in the NHS.

This basically, but also many people expect to be given something. So it's partly the fault of the health service and partly the fault of people themselves.

[New Stinkonia]

A troubling new projection sponsored by the British government has predicted that by 2050, 10 million people will succumb to anti-biotic resistant infections. Thats more annual deaths than cancer today.
The economic cost could be in the tens of trillions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30416844

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.
Furthermore, not enough new drugs are coming on the market because antibiotics aren't as profitable as, say, cholesterol medication. 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).

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.

That is not the pharmaceuticals fault that is the doctors fault for over prescribing antibiotics. Also worth pointing out the doctors are already nationalized in the NHS.

Did you willingly ignore the part about livestock? People also want cheap meat, so the overuse of antibiotics is the only way to provide that.

Only buy antibiotic free meat if you don't want to contribute to super-bacteria in the future.

[Ripoll]

That is not the pharmaceuticals fault that is the doctors fault for over prescribing antibiotics. Also worth pointing out the doctors are already nationalized in the NHS.

Did you willingly ignore the part about livestock? People also want cheap meat, so the overuse of antibiotics is the only way to provide that.

Only buy antibiotic free meat if you don't want to contribute to super-bacteria in the future.

We;re making great strides in targeting super bugs without tanking our economy. Nationalization is never the way to go. http://www.medicaldaily.com/antibiotic- ... get-306266

[New Stinkonia]

Nationalization is never the way to go.

Then why don't we privatize the police, fire department, military and the Federal Highway Administration?

[Ripoll]

Nationalization is never the way to go.

Then why don't we privatize the police, fire department, military and the Federal Highway Administration?

There has always been a necessary collaboration between the public and private sector which is possessed even within all 4 of these constructs. We lease necessary resources for all the 4 things you stated through private contractors and there are certainly private owned entities operating within them. Regardless, pharmaceuticals are not traditional infrastructure, and adopting a pure public policy would be disastrous.

[New Stinkonia]

Then why don't we privatize the police, fire department, military and the Federal Highway Administration?

There has always been a necessary collaboration between the public and private sector which is possessed even within all 4 of these constructs. We lease necessary resources for all the 4 things you stated through private contractors and there are certainly private owned entities operating within them. Regardless, pharmaceuticals are not traditional infrastructure, and adopting a pure public policy would be disastrous.

The distinction is purely arbitrary. The truth of the matter is the fire department was privatized at one point, and the disastrous result is what led to it being government run. The same thing would happen if we nationalized the application of antibiotics.

[Frisbeeteria]

Never mind the fire and brimstone spiel. There is no reason the rest of us need to believe this based on your claims, unless you can prove you have a crystal ball. It's like when so called financial "experts" told us the banks were too big to fail. Let's see them fail, then I'll believe it. Otherwise it's just the wizard of Oz telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I don't need a crystal ball to see the past. My old company (it's GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK if you prefer) had 10,000 local employees 13 years ago when I started there. It's now around 3,000. It's not because business is bad. It's because they've sent entire research departments to China, India, Poland, and other less expensive worksites than the USA. Similar reductions have been made in the other US sites. Five of six London area R&D sites have been closed for the same reasons, and I heard from my old co-workers at lunch last week that they're planning another major downsizing.

When the USA wanted to help out Puerto Rico, they made a deal with Big Pharma and allowed them fantastic economic benefits for opening plants in PR. Big Pharma opened lots of plants ... and then closed the more expensive union shop manufacturing sites in the US. Government oversight blew it big time, and cost US jobs (and probably health). Incidentally, those incentives have mostly ended, and guess what? Big Pharma is shutting down their PR operations and moving to Asia.

No single country can determine the future of an industry anymore. Raise taxes, close loopholes, discuss nationalisation, whatever it is ... if it makes doing business more expensive, companies will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to avoid that impact. The movement hasn't just started, it's all but finished. The First World has already lost most of the jobs - it's nothing to move completely out of the impacted countries. That's not the Wizard of Oz speaking from behind his curtain, that's simple fact.

[New Stinkonia]

Never mind the fire and brimstone spiel. There is no reason the rest of us need to believe this based on your claims, unless you can prove you have a crystal ball. It's like when so called financial "experts" told us the banks were too big to fail. Let's see them fail, then I'll believe it. Otherwise it's just the wizard of Oz telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I don't need a crystal ball to see the past. My old company (it's GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK if you prefer) had 10,000 local employees 13 years ago when I started there. It's now around 3,000. It's not because business is bad. It's because they've sent entire research departments to China, India, Poland, and other less expensive worksites than the USA. Similar reductions have been made in the other US sites. Five of six London area R&D sites have been closed for the same reasons, and I heard from my old co-workers at lunch last week that they're planning another major downsizing.

When the USA wanted to help out Puerto Rico, they made a deal with Big Pharma and allowed them fantastic economic benefits for opening plants in PR. Big Pharma opened lots of plants ... and then closed the more expensive union shop manufacturing sites in the US. Government oversight blew it big time, and cost US jobs (and probably health). Incidentally, those incentives have mostly ended, and guess what? Big Pharma is shutting down their PR operations and moving to Asia.

No single country can determine the future of an industry anymore. Raise taxes, close loopholes, discuss nationalisation, whatever it is ... if it makes doing business more expensive, companies will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to avoid that impact. The movement hasn't just started, it's all but finished. The First World has already lost most of the jobs - it's nothing to move completely out of the impacted countries. That's not the Wizard of Oz speaking from behind his curtain, that's simple fact.

Anecdotal evidence is not some sort of universal truth.

[New Aerios]

I don't need a crystal ball to see the past. My old company (it's GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK if you prefer) had 10,000 local employees 13 years ago when I started there. It's now around 3,000. It's not because business is bad. It's because they've sent entire research departments to China, India, Poland, and other less expensive worksites than the USA. Similar reductions have been made in the other US sites. Five of six London area R&D sites have been closed for the same reasons, and I heard from my old co-workers at lunch last week that they're planning another major downsizing.

When the USA wanted to help out Puerto Rico, they made a deal with Big Pharma and allowed them fantastic economic benefits for opening plants in PR. Big Pharma opened lots of plants ... and then closed the more expensive union shop manufacturing sites in the US. Government oversight blew it big time, and cost US jobs (and probably health). Incidentally, those incentives have mostly ended, and guess what? Big Pharma is shutting down their PR operations and moving to Asia.

No single country can determine the future of an industry anymore. Raise taxes, close loopholes, discuss nationalisation, whatever it is ... if it makes doing business more expensive, companies will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to avoid that impact. The movement hasn't just started, it's all but finished. The First World has already lost most of the jobs - it's nothing to move completely out of the impacted countries. That's not the Wizard of Oz speaking from behind his curtain, that's simple fact.

Anecdotal evidence is not some sort of universal truth.

So where are your sources and years of experience in the industry that you can use to back up your argument?

[Republic of Coldwater]

We can find new ways to counter this, and there is no need to be an alarmist on this issue. History tells us that when humans face a threat, or if we are facing a new obstacle, we always find a way around it, which means that such drastic measures are unnecessary.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Nationalization is never the way to go.

Then why don't we privatize the police, fire department, military and the Federal Highway Administration?

Yeah why don't we?