Shouldn't Obama be for cheaper cancer drugs and others?

armchair_warrior

These generic drug companies say they are on the verge of selling cheaper copies of such huge sellers as Herceptin for breast cancer, Avastin for colon cancer, Rituxan for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Enbrel for rheumatoid arthritis. Their entry into the market in the next year — made possible by hundreds of millions of dollars invested in biotechnology plants — could not only transform the care of patients in much of the world but also ignite a counterattack by major pharmaceutical companies and diplomats from richer countries.

Already, the Obama administration has been trying to stop an effort by poorer nations to strike a new international bargain that would allow them to get around patent rights and import cheaper Indian and Chinese knock-off drugs for cancer and other diseases, as they did to fight AIDS. The debate turns on whether diseases like cancer can be characterized as emergencies, or “epidemics.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/health/policy/19drug.html?hp

I understand he has indstury to protect, Btw i hate his RIAA,guys working for him, they been cracking down hard on alot of people. seems to hire the whole lot of them. The worst in years. I wonder if he hired any drug company lawyers. Like he did with the RIAA.

whynot_31

How does one simultaneously protect the incentives to develop drugs, without denying their availability to impoverished people?

P.S. Rent Medicine is Too Damn High!

boygabriel

We're a smart, industrious country. I bet we could figure it out.

armchair_warrior

Oh the drug companies learn along time ago, cures for anything doesn't make you money, but drugs that prolong you living makes money.

It's more of a ethical dilemma vs anything else. money vs saving lives.

But companies are there to make money. Don't hold anything against them.

That's why I don't care for copy rights etc....

whynot_31

We do not run the big pharm companies, nor is the government willing to take on the risk of developing drugs and other treatments.

...Our pathetic government is often unable to complete projects that will extend beyond one election cycle, much less developing drugs over take decades to develop.

I think we need to face the reality that not everyone will be able to afford all treatments, and that government is not going to pay the difference between what they can afford and what a treatment costs. Fancy drugs and treatments, and end of life care might be something we need to exclude from government benefits. The problem comes in defining what is "fancy" and what is "end of life".

Without this conversation, we can continue to believe that we can and should repeal the law of scarcity.