iceberg_is_on_fire
Wearing Lions gear when it wasn't cool
You gon rep me for helping you with school or what
I got you breh.
Bayer CEO: "We did not make this medicine for Indians…we made it for Westerners who can afford it"
- Thread starter Julius Skrrvin
- Start date
I got you breh.
Do you even know what R&D is?
You insinuated they compromise profit and revenue (a lot of which goes towards actually MAKING shyt ) with sacrificing life.
ill
Superstar
Ok, first of all, nothing is being "stolen". If you release a product then you put yourself at risk. If U.S. decides to have patent laws then go for it, no other sovereign nation should be forced to oblige to the same rules. Bayer refuses to lower the price and sell the product in India so, consequently, an Indian pharmaceutical company seizes the opportunity of supplying the market.
They are not stealing shyt, if you are a company with a net asset of ~18 billion euros then you've never been undercut or remotely close to the break-even point. All these ridiculous arguments of "We deserve all the market share due to our R&D expenditures" areas soon as you decide to manufacture the product outside your jurisdiction. You can't decide to be in an international capitalistic market and then demand socialistic solutions.
No ones asking these companies to put up $2billion, if they don't like it then get da fukk out, it's that easy.
EDIT: I'm not coming at you but I'm just frustrated after sitting in a PE meeting hearing similar arguments made by these uppity, arrogant, self-gratuitous senior managers.
Thats fair. India can do whatever they want as a sovereign nation and you do drive home a good point of manufacturing it overseas but not selling it there. All valid. As for the financial part of it, what would you say if it wasn't a multi-national $62 billion company? Like say it was a start-up and their life or death is based on their only one product?
Last edited:
ill
Superstar
Profit is a motivator. Do you work for free all the time? As I said in my original post, I can see both sides of it. It is great for humanity and I don't mean to take anything away from that aspect. I have issues with the health care system and thats who I really see at fault here. Its highly inflated and needs to be brought back down to levels that can accommodate many more people without breaking their banks. Now, if it wasn't such a large company but rather a mom & pop start-up, would you still argue that company is greedy? Say it was a start-up with only one product, their success relies on this product. They need it to be successful or they fail and lose all of their investment. If they don't see a profit at the end, why even bother creating the cure? It would mean they spend their own money, possibly millions/billions, only to see their product ripped off for cheap. What other tools can we employ to keep companies motivated to finding cures without incentivizing them with profits?
Type Username Here
Not a new member
I'm insinuating that you place recouping revenue above human lives, which is exactly what you and this company are doing. It's primitive.
Not all of these drugs are about "human life" but I love how the answer is ALWAYS that drug companies aren't out here trying to improve lives.
Theres a whole business plan ya'll don't get when it comes to pharma
The only option that would please you is to nationalize the industry.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
It is a motivator, but it isn't the only one. I have no problem with having financial compensation but only to a certain degree. At some point it becomes indecent and inhumane. Their profits are doubling [SOURCE]. That company is doing just fine.
If that mom-pop store was making gas to kill Jews, do you think it would be moral for their success to rely on people's lives? Do you think Bayer had a right to make profits on Zyklon B? Can you make the same defense for their profits and business survival then? Where do you draw your morality?
These things should be nationalized in my opinion and subsidized by governments, so I don't put all the blame on them. The US and other countries have NO problem nationalizing or confiscating defense designs/weapons/vehicles and the companies that make them seem to be doing well. I find our priorities a little fukked up.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
stifles innovation in the market
You might disagree with profit seeking, but the profit motives sequesters the best scientists and obtains the best equipment.
Its a trade off.
ill
Superstar
Yeah, I have no arguments about your view on Bayer. Keeping them in check is part of the solution in lowering HC costs IMO.
Did they have a right to make a profit? Yes. Was it morally right? No.
I don't know the company history or if they had repercussions because of their involvement so I can't really speak on that. I can only make the point that they weren't the ones gassing people. I look at it like the gun analogy. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Same can be applied to this situation IMO. The road you're going down is assuming the absolute worst. Most drugs are created for the betterment of mankind and not for its extermination.
I somewhat agree with this but again to me its a coin flip. Government pays scientists to come up with cures. Its ongoing and has been for decades. If the public subsidized sector can't create a solution, then we are left to the private sector finding that solution. The private sector operates to make a profit and if they think they can create a solution thats financially feasible and also beneficial for them, why would we stop them?
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Negative. All government agencies, non-profit, who lead the way in the development of vaccines, cures, and treatments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention
http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmrc/Pages/id_m.htm
http://mrmc.amedd.army.mil/index.cfm?pageid=medical_r_and_d.overview
There's more here in the US. I can post State-funded non-profit programs in European countries if you want more.
Once again...not true.
Very few of the serious innovations came out of ACTUAL government agencies. A lot of them are from private pharma and those that aren't were partially government funded but through independent academic institutions.
@Type Username Here Do you think every drug should be available for free? Do you want harsher controlls on private pharma profit motives?
What is your goal here?
What is your goal here?
Just answer the question.