 |
Apparently sleepy Joe has woken up to the barrier to fighting the virus, it is all those prized intellectual property rights and he wants to abolish them. Big Pharma must be quaking, what next?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-...e-ip/100119704
This is socialism on the march, make no mistake, your precious freedom to make outrageous profits is at risk
And the question to ask is why would a pharmaceutical company spend all the resources and years on R&D to develop a medication that they would not have exclusive patent protection ?
A Tough Road: Cost To Develop One New Drug Is $2.6 Billion; Approval Rate for Drugs Entering Clinical Development is Less Than 12% – Policy & Medicine (policymed.com)
You call it 'outrageous profits' . I call it a fair return on investment . First you call it socialism on the march and then you use a phony socialist cliche .
Tom, dear boy, haven't you heard of sarcasm?
I call it putting millions of lives ahead of profits.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
then go right ahead and make the investment in time and capital ....or let mwe guess .you think the taxpayer should foot the bill .
It's a CRISIS. Or haven't you noticed?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Paying is secondary to the crisis. Hard to believe you would put money ahead of millions dying.Quote:
or let mwe guess .you think the taxpayer should foot the bill .
Taxpayers have already footed the bill. Always have....always will. I doubt Big Pharma looses much money in the long run. They never do.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Yes we have noticed and there is a difference between abolishing IP rights and directing companies to make technology available on favourable terms
It isn't a matter of money, it is resources and goodwill. This is where the US can earn back much of its prestige since China is doing little to assuage the crisis it caused, but opportunism won't get the job doneQuote:
Paying is secondary to the crisis. Hard to believe you would put money ahead of millions dying.
What's the difference between protecting IP rights and millions of people dying for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
If you had been following the thread you would know that I'm not against making the drugs available, I just don't like to see creeping socialism effectively nationalising an industryQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Yeah, I got that. Nobody is nationalizing any industry - that's a stretch. The IP rights are being subjected to the needs of millions. This is an emergency.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
love the way crisis is used as a reason to surrender liberties and rights. Bill Gates the leading proponent of global vaccine initiatives opposes IP waivers . The better way to do it is through technology transfer partnerships and licensing agreements, AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India, which produced doses for COVAX have such a deal .
Serum Institute of India obtains emergency use authorisation in India for AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine
All Quid will accomplish is handing over US technology to the Chinese on a silver platter . Hunter is happy.
What better reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Who defines crisis ? Took Quid a long time to admit he screwed up and created a crisis on the border ,maybe he still does not admit it . And then when does a crisis end ? We still live under crisis laws established after 9-11 that abuse liberties for the 'greater good ' . Claims of urgency continue long after the "crisis " passes.
Nearly 600,000 dead! I call that a crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Big Pharma has been through this before, a few times and lost nothing. The details and procedures will be worked out like they always have been despite the public posturing, hollering, and handwringing.
the crisis is purely political, leaders must be seen to be doing something, so they create a war, a crisis, then they can be seen to act, but when they do act, they have their critics, their detractors, their opponents
600,000 dead is purely political?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
"crisis" is over . There were 2 spikes in deaths ;in April of last year and January this year . The US responded to the "crisis" by using genius of those evil greedy Big Parma companies to create vaccines in record times . Mission accomplished .
Crisis is ongoing. To end all safeguards now would be a disaster. Herd immunity is the goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It's amazing how some people resist good news. Could it be because the bad news is so wonderfully useful in a political sense?Quote:
"crisis" is over . There were 2 spikes in deaths ;in April of last year and January this year . The US responded to the "crisis" by using genius of those evil greedy Big Parma companies to create vaccines in record times . Mission accomplished .
No, because the crisis is ongoing. To end all safeguards now would be a disaster. Herd immunity is the goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I thought you were talking about the crisis at the southern border at first. Too much to hope for, I guess.
No, your comment referred to the vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I was being sarcastic. I knew it would be too much to hope for to see a liberal dem have any interest in securing our southern border.
There are a variety of ways to do that, you know. If only I were younger and livelier...Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It was very straightforward without sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Sure it was, to the sarcasm deaf here.
Yes jl line up and defend the southern border, against that old traditional enemy, Mexico, Should have annexed it when you had the chance, then there would be less border to defend and "a big beautiful wall" would be sufficient. Remember the Alamo!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nothing sarcastic in the quote below:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
I thought you were talking about the crisis at the southern border at first. Too much to hope for, I guess.
Need only to say it again. "to the sarcasm deaf here."
There was no crisis at the southern border...never was. Just talking points to legally discriminate against OTHER folks. Watch it when THEY holler MANIFEST DESTINY, IMMINENT DOMAIN, STATES RIGHTS, SOVEREIGNTY, AND HOMELAND SECURITY!
Somebody is about to be screwed big time
yes and I think it is you, someone has to pay for big plans, and that can only be achieved by taxation, not just taxation of the rich and corporations, but on every worker, otherwise debt at astronomical levels. Governments have drunk the koolaid and are buying votes with OPM, on the pay later plan, but this generation doesn't pay for it, future generations do, and with fewer workers, taxation must rise or no new aircraft carriersQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You have hit the nail on the head.Quote:
someone has to pay for big plans, and that can only be achieved by taxation, not just taxation of the rich and corporations, but on every worker, otherwise debt at astronomical levels.
Don't worry JL, they can always repudiate the national debtQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Who do you expect to pay for big plans - like aircraft carriers? I hope this isn't news to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I don't expect anyone to pay for aircraft carriers, they are so last century, as to big plans, only spend your income and stop borrowing for political purposesQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
They still have a role to play in a world that continues to rely on the big stick of the American military.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Deficit spending is a tried and true method of financing. Individuals do it and so do nations. The question is when does it become counter-productive?Quote:
as to big plans, only spend your income and stop borrowing for political purposes
Look at it this way. John's interest payments on his debt exceed his income. He cannot adequately service his debt. He is forced into bankruptcy and loses everything.
On the other hand, US interest payments are a trifling fraction of US income.
There's more to it (lots more!) but that's the basic equation to begin with in relation to spending and borrowing.
U.S. debt is currently 15X greater than its national "income", speaking of annual tax revenues. By any standard that is an equation fit for disaster. On a personal level, it would be equivalent to a man with an annual income of 60K having debt of 900K. We are presently surviving due to interest rates held low by the same government that is 30 tril in debt, but that will not be the case forever, and when it changes, disaster will be at the front door.
Even worse, we have allowed our current crop of corrupt, dishonest pols to discover the political wonderland of being able to impress us with their charitable qualities by spending money that they didn't even have to tax us to raise. So we get the benefits without the pain, or at least we do for the present time. In the future? Not so much. It is beyond amazing to me how gullible the American electorate can be in voting for dems and repubs alike who have no integrity.
and yet you vote for them because you have no viable alternative, what a sham, what a shameQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:28 PM. |