If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Cheap Drugs for the US...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The US govt secured a deal with the drug company Bayer to purchase Cipro (the anthrax 'cure') at $1 per tablet, compared to the usual price of $5 per tablet - thus reducing Bayer's profits.
At the same time the US govt is arguing that US drug companies should not reduce the price of their drugs for the Third World market (esp. HIV supressants) in order to maintain their (already large) profits...
So what does this tell us?
1. That US Govt policy is hypocritical (as if!)
2. That US citizens are more important than those in poorest countries?
3. That the US is just about to make a major policy change towards drugs for the Third World?
4. Or that US policy is to put prfit before the lives on any citizen except their own?
At the same time the US govt is arguing that US drug companies should not reduce the price of their drugs for the Third World market (esp. HIV supressants) in order to maintain their (already large) profits...
So what does this tell us?
1. That US Govt policy is hypocritical (as if!)
2. That US citizens are more important than those in poorest countries?
3. That the US is just about to make a major policy change towards drugs for the Third World?
4. Or that US policy is to put prfit before the lives on any citizen except their own?
0
Comments
Of course theres another option...economies of scale. Supplying the entire US population with Cipro, even at $1 a pop is gonna make a massive amount more profit than supplying the regular numbers with the drug at $5 a go. I seriously doubt that they are selling the drug at cost so even without knowing figures I would say they are probably making more profit now.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
Which makes it all right.
The rich have the right to get richer, if poor countries got the drugs cheap they'd just sell them back to the rich on the gray market.
Of course, bayer could have held out at $5 per tablet - they are the manufacturers of the only antibiotic which apparently works.
Personally, I'd say that Bayer had a better idea of what it means to be human than the US Govt does. What Bayer have done is put the lives of millions ahead of profit. What the US Govt is doing is the reverse - making sure that US companies make a huge profit at the expense of lives...
Who do you think is acting morally here?
Morality is something I would never associated with either the US government or big business.
Bayer havent put lives ahead of profit. They are going to be supplying the US govt with its entire supply of Cipro. Now I dont know if that means they will supply the entire population but I suspect it does. Thats 300 million dollars minimum. Its not a wonder drug and you need to take a course of these things to cure the anthrax..Lets say a course of at least 5 tablets which means this company will be making at least $1,500,000,000....Now considering theres only been 2 or 3 cases of anthrax over the past 25 years, how much of this stuff do you think they usually sell? Believe me, its no skin off their nose if they sell for $1 a go.
The US govt has a duty to keep business within its own borders as much as possible. The fact that they demanded Bayer reduce the prices so much shows how much they want this stuff. It is illegal for the government to demand this stuff for free or even at cost.
Really? Why?
Sorry it appears ive lied to you. Its not actually illegal but it is an incredibly bad idea and the govt would be destroyed if it ordered the company to provide the stuff for free.
It is totally frowned upon to interfere with private enterprise for obvious reasons. Jimmy Carter did it with the Gas prices. Huge error on his part. The Congress does have safe guards. Impeachment and removal from office..As well as the supreme court. They very well could order companies to set prices as they dictate but they just don't. America is a free enterprise economy. If the government steps in...Well..Think about it..Why would anyone want to own a business?
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
When was the last time someone in Africa or another 3rd world country died from an anthrax attack???
If it's "obvious," then it ain't so, by a thousand to one.
I would not be at all surprised at a government making forced purchases of critical materials in time of emegency. These purchases of Cipro would seem to fall into that category, wouldn't they?
America doesn't have the experience that other countries (e.g. the UK) have. Given the USA hasn't been under direct and immediate threat for hundreds of years, that's not surprising. The UK, on the other hand, was very much in threat in WWII, and hence the government took a high degree of control of the war economy. It worked.
Not saying that total government control of the economy is in order here, mind you, just that some degree of control is neither unprecedented nor a priori out of order.
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics. But not much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.
Balddog, u were going on about how much it would make - $1,500,000,000 i believe was the figure. That's great. cept it's not so great if it costs Bayer $3 per pill to create it.
while were on economics, there are two problems with bayer being asked to produce this much. first, is the fact that Bayer has to have the capacity to produce this much quickly. then there is the law of diminishing returns...maybe the current output of Cipro is the most economically efficient for the firm, simply because they make the greatest profit. if they are forced to produce more, it is possible that it is going to cost them more PER UNIT than now, so not only are they forced to sell cipro at a reduced price, they also lose more money than b4.
so for all of u arguing that Bayer and the US Gov't are not being moral...i think they are. the US were willing to override an international patent (essentially breaking the law) to aid and protect its citizens, and Bayer are making potentially mostrous losses for various reasons, one of them moral/ethical. (another being massive advertising).
so yeah, that's my say in the matter.
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now
I did mention the production costs in my earlier post but as we dont know how much it costs to make we really cant get it right.
Damn thats a bit crappy..Didnt know theyd done that.
Sorry, the point was missed by YOU.
The drugs which the Africans are missing out on are treatments for HIV, Cancers and others, not Anthrax. These are drugs which relieve symptoms etc. The US Govt refuses to accept that poor people should not have to pay the excessive charges levied by drug firms - we all know how little profit these companies make, right?
"Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif">