Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Big pharma has no interest in anyone getting healthy   (salon.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Patent, terms of this problem, People's Vaccine Alliance, personal protective equipment, Pharma firms, low-income countries, multinational pharmaceutical companies, intellectual property rights  
•       •       •

1325 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 Feb 2021 at 11:35 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



30 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-02-28 9:42:37 AM  
Yeah, when I bring this up, I get villified by Pharma Bros.
 
2021-02-28 10:31:55 AM  
A handful of pharmaceutical companies use patent laws to limit supply when the world most needs their drugs

This isn't a pharma story except at this outermost edge, it's a patent story in the middle, and at the base it's a regulatory capture/capitalism run amok story.

That capitalism part is at the base of a significant majority of our problems.
 
2021-02-28 11:00:05 AM  
Just noticed that, did we?
 
2021-02-28 11:43:30 AM  
"Chris Rock; paging Chris Rock to the shiat everyone was talking about 20 years ago phone; Chris Rock."
 
2021-02-28 11:47:58 AM  
You don't need to tell us the incredibly obvious.  The merely obvious will be fine.
 
2021-02-28 12:04:57 PM  
Well file a suit and have the law declared null and void
 
2021-02-28 12:11:17 PM  

lifeslammer: Well file a suit and have the law declared null and void


Lawsuits and legislation invalidation seem like standard healthcare 101 to me.

Come on guys, seek your treatment within the system!
 
2021-02-28 12:12:46 PM  

spacechecker: "Chris Rock; paging Chris Rock to the shiat everyone was talking about 20 years ago phone; Chris Rock."


20?  Getting closer to 30 already.

Hell, those ideas were floated in the '80s by the Reagan administration along with farking up medical coverage (1986).
 
2021-02-28 12:36:26 PM  
Ah, yes, the bleeding heart left-wing analysis of the patent system vis-a-vis pharmaceuticals. Because without patents we'd just be awash in innovation and new drugs. And best of all, they'd be practically free! Give me a farking break.
 
2021-02-28 12:45:11 PM  

MadHatter500: spacechecker: "Chris Rock; paging Chris Rock to the shiat everyone was talking about 20 years ago phone; Chris Rock."

20?  Getting closer to 30 already.

Hell, those ideas were floated in the '80s by the Reagan administration along with farking up medical coverage (1986).


Yea was thinking about that after I posted. Damn I'm old
 
2021-02-28 12:51:02 PM  

iamskibibitz: Ah, yes, the bleeding heart left-wing analysis of the patent system vis-a-vis pharmaceuticals. Because without patents we'd just be awash in innovation and new drugs. And best of all, they'd be practically free! Give me a farking break.


Evergreening
 
2021-02-28 12:58:50 PM  
iamskibibitz:

Obviously you don't have diabetes. Or have required an epi pen. Or had any moments in time where it was your life or your wallet in a hospital, when every other country with a comparable level of comfort in society has their citizens shrug when they trot out the serious diagnostics and drugs. Getting people compliant with their health in America involves their wallets when it shouldn't. Drug companies shouldn't be giving their stuff away for free, but the exorbitant prices charged currently are a barrier to health. Call me a bleeding heart farker, at least I care enough about my patients to stand for their health, and the health of this country.

Good troll, now go back to the Obama McCain election with you.
 
2021-02-28 1:48:55 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Yeah, when I bring this up, I get villified by Pharma Bros.


Big pharma does have an interest in keeping its lazy sit at home stock owners well fed with free capital gains goodies at 15% tax rate.
 
2021-02-28 1:50:37 PM  

Barfmaker: A handful of pharmaceutical companies use patent laws to limit supply when the world most needs their drugs

This isn't a pharma story except at this outermost edge, it's a patent story in the middle, and at the base it's a regulatory capture/capitalism run amok story.

That capitalism part is at the base of a significant majority of our problems.


I guess its the new and improved free market capitalism engine.  Limit supply.
 
2021-02-28 1:51:41 PM  

BlazeTrailer: lifeslammer: Well file a suit and have the law declared null and void

Lawsuits and legislation invalidation seem like standard healthcare 101 to me.

Come on guys, seek your treatment within the system!


The System is rigged

---Bernie Sanders
 
2021-02-28 1:53:12 PM  

MadHatter500: spacechecker: "Chris Rock; paging Chris Rock to the shiat everyone was talking about 20 years ago phone; Chris Rock."

20?  Getting closer to 30 already.

Hell, those ideas were floated in the '80s by the Reagan administration along with farking up medical coverage (1986).


Ole Ronnie was a real Turd Blossom no doubt.

Big business played him like a fine fiddle.
 
2021-02-28 1:53:53 PM  
Don't try to change American Patent laws.

Or this guy, the Master of Patent Manipulation will make you go missing in the night.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-02-28 1:54:39 PM  

iamskibibitz: Ah, yes, the bleeding heart left-wing analysis of the patent system vis-a-vis pharmaceuticals. Because without patents we'd just be awash in innovation and new drugs. And best of all, they'd be practically free! Give me a farking break.


Patents can stifle innovation too when they are abused.

Same with copyright
 
2021-02-28 1:57:49 PM  

kozlo: iamskibibitz:

Obviously you don't have diabetes. Or have required an epi pen. Or had any moments in time where it was your life or your wallet in a hospital, when every other country with a comparable level of comfort in society has their citizens shrug when they trot out the serious diagnostics and drugs. Getting people compliant with their health in America involves their wallets when it shouldn't. Drug companies shouldn't be giving their stuff away for free, but the exorbitant prices charged currently are a barrier to health. Call me a bleeding heart farker, at least I care enough about my patients to stand for their health, and the health of this country.

Good troll, now go back to the Obama McCain election with you.


Part of the problem is Prevention
No profits in Prevention.

Also the AMA is one of the biggest lobbys in DC.
 
2021-02-28 2:02:22 PM  
Linux_Yes:

You're not wrong. But there could be... it would just take a complete revitalization of American society.
 
2021-02-28 2:05:56 PM  

TotallyRealNotFake: Don't try to change American Patent laws.

Or this guy, the Master of Patent Manipulation will make you go missing in the night.
[Fark user image image 425x506]


The Lawyers and deep pocket lobbyists in DC will make sure patent laws will only become more restrictive over time.
 
2021-02-28 2:09:05 PM  

kozlo: Linux_Yes:

You're not wrong. But there could be... it would just take a complete revitalization of American society.


We're only abt 240 years old.

Babies are difficult when teething.  And then theres the terrible twos
 
2021-02-28 3:20:46 PM  
That's a complicated one.
If you have a policy that lets the government nationalize production for important meds or in an emergency basis, the companies are just going to sit there fearing their profits will be reduced and act accordingly.

If you don't,
You're leaving it to the company's profits to determine who lives and dies.

It's one thing to leave things viagra to the companies. It's another to leave drugs of such wide importance to shareholders...
 
2021-02-28 4:54:36 PM  
Saw something on tv a few years ago about folks taking pills for acid reflux.  Turns out the surgery to fix the issue is easy and fairly cheap.  But is more profitable for drug companies to put you on pills, with harsh side affects. They pushed doctors and insurance companies to favor drugs over corrective surgery, when it was like 1-2 years of pills cost more.
 
2021-02-28 5:57:45 PM  

tobcc: Saw something on tv a few years ago about folks taking pills for acid reflux.  Turns out the surgery to fix the issue is easy and fairly cheap.  But is more profitable for drug companies to put you on pills, with harsh side affects. They pushed doctors and insurance companies to favor drugs over corrective surgery, when it was like 1-2 years of pills cost more.


Why would pharma be able to force insurance to take a loss on pharma's behalf?
 
2021-02-28 6:45:14 PM  

tobcc: Saw something on tv a few years ago about folks taking pills for acid reflux.  Turns out the surgery to fix the issue is easy and fairly cheap.  But is more profitable for drug companies to put you on pills, with harsh side affects. They pushed doctors and insurance companies to favor drugs over corrective surgery, when it was like 1-2 years of pills cost more.


You are forgetting that the alternative is surgery.  Surgery isn't just something one does.
 
kab
2021-02-28 10:21:20 PM  
glad to see that " well, no shiat" has been adequately covered.
 
2021-03-01 2:00:32 AM  
It's been known for some time the pharmaceuticals make money pushing medication that suppresses symptoms instead of curing the problem. Why is anybody surprised?
 
2021-03-01 4:32:59 AM  

ImmutableTenderloin: It's been known for some time the pharmaceuticals make money pushing medication that suppresses symptoms instead of curing the problem. Why is anybody surprised?


I hear people say this a lot, but do we have any specific examples of a big pharma company doing it?

Like, do we collectively believe they all big pharma is working together, whether formally or not, and have agreed not to cure X, Y and Z? Otherwise, wouldn't there still be a large incentive to make lots and lots of money from the cure of X, Y and Z?

Like, sure, if you owned the drug for the treatment of X, why would you also release the cure ... But after the original patent runs out, it seems like it would make sense to then sell the cure at some outrageous rate, right? And even if the answer is no, if company A is selling the pill that fixes some symptoms, but company B can make a cure... Certainty company B has a great reason to make a ton of $$$ selling it?
 
2021-03-01 8:18:10 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: ImmutableTenderloin: It's been known for some time the pharmaceuticals make money pushing medication that suppresses symptoms instead of curing the problem. Why is anybody surprised?

I hear people say this a lot, but do we have any specific examples of a big pharma company doing it?

Like, do we collectively believe they all big pharma is working together, whether formally or not, and have agreed not to cure X, Y and Z? Otherwise, wouldn't there still be a large incentive to make lots and lots of money from the cure of X, Y and Z?

Like, sure, if you owned the drug for the treatment of X, why would you also release the cure ... But after the original patent runs out, it seems like it would make sense to then sell the cure at some outrageous rate, right? And even if the answer is no, if company A is selling the pill that fixes some symptoms, but company B can make a cure... Certainty company B has a great reason to make a ton of $$$ selling it?


I'm not aware of any agreement. But Why would they have to come together and agree on this when the whole point of being in business is to make money? Symptom suppression is the rent seeking of pharmaceuticals.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.