Privatise the NHS

[Fop 1]

Capitalism just means that there is not one person in charge of ensuring that you get your coffee, tea, milk, sugar, paper, cigarettes, porn mag, pizza, sandwich, cinema ticket, beer, petrol, whore (typical day). Saying it doesnt exist anymore is just crazy.

I'm not sure you can really call the current banking system capitalism, although the banks are still trying to act like it. I just wonder how heavy handed things well end up getting (which ties back into the political and economic future of the NHS).

[Guest alex]

Following on from something Spongebob said in the other thread. It's very easy to be cynical and smug and label corporation X,Y or Z as evil capitalists or whatever. Actually having coming up with a workable alternative isn't so easy.

[Guest alex]

Capitalism just means that there is not one person in charge of ensuring that you get your coffee, tea, milk, sugar, paper, cigarettes, porn mag, pizza, sandwich, cinema ticket, beer, petrol, whore (typical day). Saying it doesnt exist anymore is just crazy.

I'm not sure you can really call the current banking system capitalism, although the banks are still trying to act like it. I just wonder how heavy handed things well end up getting (which ties back into the political and economic future of the NHS).

There is no economy is that is purely capitalist as that would require little or no government intervention. Capitalism is still the overriding nature of practically every economy throughout the world though. Even (and perhaps especially) China.

[Happy Face 29]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

You seem to think that these drugs are available and therefore could be distributed free of charge. They only exist because the company devotes billions in researching them. No one would invest any money in research if there was no profit. The profit margin is average for a corporation.

 

GSK donated a drug to the third world for 11 years and the upshot was it has virtually eradicated lymphatic fliarisis.

 

http://www.gsk.com/filariasis/

 

It is able to do that by making profits elsewhere. It also distributes HIV medicines at the cost of production in participating African countries. The conditions for this is that they dont end up in hospitals in London as corruption means they are exported by unscrupulous actors in the African healthcare system. If they can guarantee that Africans with HIV receive the drug, then its supplied at cost. They also go beyond that

 

http://www.gsk.com/community/positiveactio...yprogrammes.htm

 

The mindset change over the last 5 years is that it appears to be that the companies with the resources to do something about the problems that exist are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

Making money for 'the man' and being actively involved in selling widgets or IT services is far less impactful on global health problems than working within the sector.

 

Ultimately, its all about 10 years exclusivity. After the patent expiry, everyone can come in and sell them at whatever price they want. Its funny that many of the worlds HIV drugs have been off-patent for years now and yet the HIV problem still exists. Actually, its not funny and neither are narrow-minded anti-corporationist views that are best left on campus and not in the real world.

 

Poverty kills poor people not pharma companies.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

[Fop 1]

Following on from something Spongebob said in the other thread. It's very easy to be cynical and smug and label corporation X,Y or Z as evil capitalists or whatever. Actually having coming up with a workable alternative isn't so easy.

Same thing with Western democracy, or a fair health system for the UK.

 

 

Capitalism just means that there is not one person in charge of ensuring that you get your coffee, tea, milk, sugar, paper, cigarettes, porn mag, pizza, sandwich, cinema ticket, beer, petrol, whore (typical day). Saying it doesnt exist anymore is just crazy.

I'm not sure you can really call the current banking system capitalism, although the banks are still trying to act like it. I just wonder how heavy handed things well end up getting (which ties back into the political and economic future of the NHS).

There is no economy is that is purely capitalist as that would require little or no government intervention. Capitalism is still the overriding nature of practically every economy throughout the world though. Even (and perhaps especially) China.

Well that's been the issue with the banks that has caused this, mostly because all politicians were to enamoured by the cash. But there's effectively no free market at the moment, even at places like Barclays which are paying through the nose to the middle-east to avoid UK government hand outs.

[Fop 1]

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

Efficiency.

[Renton 21983]

Following on from something Spongebob said in the other thread. It's very easy to be cynical and smug and label corporation X,Y or Z as evil capitalists or whatever. Actually having coming up with a workable alternative isn't so easy.

 

As I said, Chez hit the nail on the head re: idealism, it's best left at college. Most people as they grow older accept this - the world becomes less black and white but full of shades off grey. But for some people the opposite happens - whether it is to the left or right. These are the buggers you have to watch out for.

[Happy Face 29]

Capitalism just means that there is not one person in charge of ensuring that you get your coffee, tea, milk, sugar, paper, cigarettes, porn mag, pizza, sandwich, cinema ticket, beer, petrol, whore (typical day). Saying it doesnt exist anymore is just crazy.

I'm not sure you can really call the current banking system capitalism, although the banks are still trying to act like it. I just wonder how heavy handed things well end up getting (which ties back into the political and economic future of the NHS).

There is no economy is that is purely capitalist as that would require little or no government intervention. Capitalism is still the overriding nature of practically every economy throughout the world though. Even (and perhaps especially) China.

 

Exactly.

 

The US tried their best to impose their pure capitalist dogma on several countries. Of course the poverty always grows to such an extent all out revolt amongst the poor is inevitable.

[Fop 1]

Following on from something Spongebob said in the other thread. It's very easy to be cynical and smug and label corporation X,Y or Z as evil capitalists or whatever. Actually having coming up with a workable alternative isn't so easy.

 

As I said, Chez hit the nail on the head re: idealism, it's best left at college. Most people as they grow older accept this - the world becomes less black and white but full of shades off grey. But for some people the opposite happens - whether it is to the left or right. These are the buggers you have to watch out for.

A world without dreamers is a grey one indeed.

[ChezGiven 0]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

[Happy Face 29]

Following on from something Spongebob said in the other thread. It's very easy to be cynical and smug and label corporation X,Y or Z as evil capitalists or whatever. Actually having coming up with a workable alternative isn't so easy.

 

As I said, Chez hit the nail on the head re: idealism, it's best left at college. Most people as they grow older accept this - the world becomes less black and white but full of shades off grey. But for some people the opposite happens - whether it is to the left or right. These are the buggers you have to watch out for.

 

 

Says the man who thinks you're either a shining beacon of capitalist purity or a dirty red bastard that once to take our freedom.

[manc-mag 1]

We've already established that Renton is a dirty red bastard.

[Guest alex]

Following on from something Spongebob said in the other thread. It's very easy to be cynical and smug and label corporation X,Y or Z as evil capitalists or whatever. Actually having coming up with a workable alternative isn't so easy.

 

As I said, Chez hit the nail on the head re: idealism, it's best left at college. Most people as they grow older accept this - the world becomes less black and white but full of shades off grey. But for some people the opposite happens - whether it is to the left or right. These are the buggers you have to watch out for.

A world without dreamers is a grey one indeed.

Livin' Joy had it right.

[ChezGiven 0]

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

So now you want to subsidise GSK to ensure they retain their staff?

 

Dont put anyone with your views in charge of anything!!

[Fop 1]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

 

 

There's a lot more $$$'s in treating HIV than there is in curing it, at least for the foreseeable future.

[Happy Face 29]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

 

I've never said I don't want a pharmaceutical industry. What I don't want is for them to be able to privately sell their wares at a price they dictate, based on maximum profit, rather than closer to a genuine profit that makes it cost effective.

 

There'll never be an HIV vaccine man, you boys don't make vaccines any more, you make treatments to inspire brand loyalty.

 

Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal, and you think that inequity should be perpetuated by the wealthiest?

[Guest alex]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

[ChezGiven 0]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

 

 

There's a lot more $$$'s in treating HIV than there is in curing it, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

Wrong, the company that finds this vaccine will can expect to add around $200bn to its value overnight.

 

You see my little inexperienced fopster, bless you, you have no business experience and therefore forget/dont realise that its not just Africa that is in the market for a vaccine, its 6 billion people across the globe. Like all vaccines, they work on the basis of universal coverage.

 

Charge $100 a shot - thats $600bn in potential revenue.

[Happy Face 29]

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

So now you want to subsidise GSK to ensure they retain their staff?

 

Dont put anyone with your views in charge of anything!!

 

No I don't. GSK should have a union that's allowed to go on strike to protest lay offs when profits are growing year on year.

 

I know profits have dropped recently, but I'm talking about over the past decade decade.

[ChezGiven 0]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

 

I've never said I don't want a pharmaceutical industry. What I don't want is for them to be able to privately sell their wares at a price they dictate, based on maximum profit, rather than closer to a genuine profit that makes it cost effective.

 

There'll never be an HIV vaccine man, you boys don't make vaccines any more, you make treatments to inspire brand loyalty.

 

Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal, and you think that inequity should be perpetuated by the wealthiest?

 

No and you are also wrong about the vaccine, have a business lesson above.

[manc-mag 1]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

 

 

There's a lot more $$$'s in treating HIV than there is in curing it, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

Wrong, the company that finds this vaccine will can expect to add around $200bn to its value overnight.

 

You see my little inexperienced fopster, bless you, you have no business experience and therefore forget/dont realise that its not just Africa that is in the market for a vaccine, its 6 billion people across the globe. Like all vaccines, they work on the basis of universal coverage.

 

Charge $100 a shot - thats $600bn in potential revenue.

 

'Ouch!' tbf.

 

[Fop 1]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

 

 

There's a lot more $$$'s in treating HIV than there is in curing it, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

Wrong, the company that finds this vaccine will can expect to add around $200bn to its value overnight.

 

You see my little inexperienced fopster, bless you, you have no business experience and therefore forget/dont realise that its not just Africa that is in the market for a vaccine, its 6 billion people across the globe. Like all vaccines, they work on the basis of universal coverage.

 

Charge $100 a shot - thats $600bn in potential revenue.

 

 

So that would be like the Cervical cancer vaccine then?

[ChezGiven 0]

Gardasil just won the Prix Galien fopsy.

[manc-mag 1]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

Again, not really, because people don't die without Google.

 

I'm willing to accept that a pharmaceutical company can make profits, but it should be regulated stringently.

 

What creates the poverty that kills?

 

Could it be a parent forced to leave work to care for a partner without health insurance, and getting into massive debt paying for what basic treatment they can afford?

 

Maybe being laid off by GSK, as thousands have been in the last few years, while their profits jumped from $4.5Bn to over $7Bn and their top directors doubled their own salaries.

 

More people would die without a pharma industry. Do you want one or not? If you want one, you'll need to incentivise them to invest. You seem to think the medicines exist first, then the industry. As you cant get your head round that, i'm not surprised you think the way you do. I would too. Except the medicines dont exist, there is still no HIV vaccine.

 

As for the next point, i've seen some stuff in my time but attributing 3rd world poverty to GSK is quite something.

 

Poverty isnt created, wealth is created. Poverty is the default setting for the planet. Poverty exists because wealth creation is unequal.

 

 

There's a lot more $$$'s in treating HIV than there is in curing it, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

Wrong, the company that finds this vaccine will can expect to add around $200bn to its value overnight.

 

You see my little inexperienced fopster, bless you, you have no business experience and therefore forget/dont realise that its not just Africa that is in the market for a vaccine, its 6 billion people across the globe. Like all vaccines, they work on the basis of universal coverage.

 

Charge $100 a shot - thats $600bn in potential revenue.

 

 

So that would be like the Cervical cancer vaccine then?

 

Fingers in ears time. Like clockwork this.

[Fop 1]

There's an inherent danger in capitalism whereby companies will do things in order to make a profit which may lead to the scenario you give Fop - i.e. HIV treatment being more profitable than a cure. Think what it would be like if there was no profit in either though.

 

There'd be no Bill Gates.

 

 

It depends on the issue though as well, with certain things it is obviously not an easy, quick (or cheap) task to "cure", and so more hay than is needed is made while the sun shines (so long as there is no immediate risk of cloudy weather or someone else obscuring your sun).