NationStates

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:44 pm**

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.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:53 pm**

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.

Posted: **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.

I agree. Its absurd, you can't trust a profit driven corporation to want what is best for you.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:59 pm**

No, simply give heavy subsidies and work with the private sector hands on. There does not need to be a Government monopoly on anything but social security and medicare

Posted: **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.

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

Posted: **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.

None of which has anything to do with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Yes, and that's because no-one will buy expensive antibiotics, and antibiotics are extremely difficult to produce. It's not like we haven't been trying to develop new antibiotics. Plenty of companies have tried, and they've mostly shut down that division or gone out of business.

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).

Also, they're incredibly difficult to develop. Especially when it comes to the kind we need, i.e. Gram-negative drugs.

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.

Yeah, no, not really. The problems with the pharmaceutical industry revolve around how they're required to distribute their products, since they need to squeeze as much money as possible from their customers just to stay afloat. Getting these drugs would require an operation making a net loss, and you don't need to nationalise anything for that. (I would also note that there are plenty of public labs which work on this kind of thing too, and don't experience the same pressures as in the market, and they haven't come up with anything either.)

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:07 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:09 am**

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?

Posted: **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.

pragmatic solutions work best so I agree

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:13 am**

Just ban the use of antibiotics when they are not absolutely necessary for the health of humans.

Posted: **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.

Yeah, nevermind the fact that almost every country engages with the pharmaceutical market on a national scale via the government. Obviously governments can't do anything because they're owned by the plutocrats!

But yes, anyone who's involved in any market tends to be very concerned when huge industries are seized by the government, because it's basically saying "if you try to conduct business here, we will fuck you forever."

Kiribati-Tarawa wrote:Just ban the use of antibiotics when they are not absolutely necessary for the health of humans.

Most antibiotic-resistant pathogens in humans are caused by people failing to complete their assigned courses of antibiotics, and poor design of those courses by physicians. Also, I think a lot of people would be unhappy with their family pets dying of easily-cured illnesses.

Posted: **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

How many of these are pharmaceuticals?

Posted: **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?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benchmark/n ... rticle.pdf

Posted: **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?

Almost every pharmaceutical company hopped on board obamacare. It was a GOP slander movement, corporations supported it all the way through.

Posted: **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

"Since no regulation is in place to collectivize the contribution of global corporations - say through an internationally administered research and development fund derived from a levy on them or through a fund to support discounts and giveaways - the appeal to social responsibility may be
whistling in the capitalist wind." (ibid., pp. 40 - 41)

This is prior to the concluding statement.

Daniels' contention is that as it stands, multinational pharmaceuticals are in fact ignorant of any perceived social responsibilities they may face, and Daniels argues these responsibilities must be institutionalized through government regulation and direct action.

The essay is a rebuttal of David Resnik, who accepts that there is a current failure of the status quo manifest in dealing with the drug requirements of the developing world and argues that big pharma SHOULD recognize their ethical obligations - not that they DO.

Posted: **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.

Of course they did. Obamacare is nothing more than a subsidy for the health insurance industry (that we as individuals are forced to provide), which is also a forced expansion of the pharmaceutical industry (at the expense of the individual).

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:48 am**

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?

Posted: **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.

The GOP didn't have to look very hard to find corporate mouthpieces against the ACA. But of course, it's true that the theater was simply to rile up the hopeless droolers known as Republican voters.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:13 am**

Ripoll wrote:No, simply give heavy subsidies and work with the private sector hands on.

No more corporate welfare, thank you.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:16 am**

Wonderful! So on top of an estimate I heard about cancer in the UK (something about half the population will have it in between 2020 and 2050, don't remember the exact year), now they have to worry about disease!

I'm not always a fan of Nationalization, but in this case, if the situation is as dire as it sounds, then I fully support it. Obviously I think some debate and research over the scope of the whole situation should be done, but regardless, we're going to need to find a way of stopping this situation from becoming reality, and if that means nationalizing a few companies, then count my vote as a yes already. Health outweighs wealth.

Posted: **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?

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?

Posted: **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?

Vote on it in parliament, simple as that. I think legally, they can pretty much just pass a law that allows them to nationalize any company they want, or at the very least, they could pass a bill allowing them to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry at least. Since it's a law, I don't think (theoretically speaking) they'd have to pay any money for the business, which I see no problem with given the circumstances. Plus, honestly, forcing the government to buy the drugs is just going to be one more drag on the economy. They don't need the profits if nationalized, just the money to pay wages and expenses.

Posted: **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?

Are you aware that unsubstantiated platitudes amount to nothing?

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am**

New Stinkonia wrote:
Tubbsalot wrote:Are you aware that most people will immediately begin to disregard your arguments if they decide you're an asshole?

Are you aware that unsubstantiated platitudes amount to nothing?

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?)

Posted: **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.

You must be new around here if you believe jingoists (Republican voters) have any intent or capacity to be swayed by rational discourse. Any Republican true-believer left at this point will take their ideologies to their grave. And, yes, that's an opinion. Prove me wrong.

(And how on earth is it a 'platitude' to say that people don't want to agree with assholes?)

If you don't understand how your personal opinion doesn't equate to some sort of axiom, what else can be said?

NationStates

Time to Nationalize Pharmaceuticals

Time to Nationalize Pharmaceuticals