It’s hardly sarcasm. It doesn’t work as optimally as it could due to capitalist interference, but we need reform and not to smash it all and allow the pharmaceutical/food companies to self-regulate as is regularly proposed.
1 Like
Even wiki’s definition of Socialism is “Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.”
Which I feel is much different than social programs like welfare, SS, etc. Social programs aren’t the same as government controlled production and economy.
IMHO people wanting a more European model needs to rebrand it under a different banner. Because socialism to me is still poisoned by the Maos and Stalins - vs the less goose-steppy modern version.
Perhaps this is semantics, but it is easy for me to argue against the US taking control of say firearm manufacturing or car manufacturing, vs setting up social safety nets for people.
You’re conflating a single dictionary definition with the practice of Socialism.
You may want to fixate on that particular aspect because you feel afraid of some sort of slippery slope to full Communism, but all social programs are socialist/collectivist. And that’s okay.
3 Likes
That would be nice, but I vote for a crematorium. While he’s still alive.
Yeah - but words have meaning.
When people use the word Socialism for an attack they are thinking of the “round them up in camps and take over their farms” kind, not benign Scandinavians.
IMHO - they need to rebrand what they want.
The problem in this case is that it’s “tightly controlled.” That sounds like a generic phrase, but it has a specific meaning in clinical trials-- basically you don’t go down to the drugstore and just buy this stuff, you (or actually, your doctor) has to essential beg for the right to prescribe it. That conveniently puts any future clinical trials under the control of this scumbag.
But nearly no one arguing positive about topics like universal healthcare or social security uses socialism as buzzword. How can we rebrand “useful regulation” when the opposing side is happily using socialism-as-in-Stalin’s-Russia as ultimate argument?
1 Like
Let’s break that down.
“social ownership and/or social control”
Defence
Roads
Libraries
Police
Fire
Postal
Garbage
Schooling
Sewerage
Courts
Beaches
Museums
(To mention only a few from the link I provided earlier)
All fall under Social ownership and control. i.e. paid for by the taxpayer.
“as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system”
In other words, the will to bring those services under taxpayer funding.
It’s not different at all. That’s exactly what it is. Government is tax-funded, and those taxes are allocated to the various services.
Production includes roads, vehicles to service those roads, military hardware, public buildings, sewerage plants, street lighting etc. etc etc.
The factories that produce those things may not be owned by Government (in fact there’s often Public/Government owned shares in them), but they are still subject to regulation by it.
But as you say
Which is exactly the sort of wrong-headed misgivings many Americans still seem to have with ‘the Red Scare’. It’s up to you to educate yourselves on the true meaning of things rather than simply rely on some idiotic hangup from the Cold War.
It’s not a re-branding that’s needed, it’s education and freedom from outdated propaganda.
7 Likes
American laws give drugs companies exclusive rights to sell their drugs at any price they like. If the TTIP trade deal goes ahead, US drug laws would effectively apply here in Britain. And the money from the NHS would go that guy, and not to medical research. Plus kickbacks to the various Euro MPs who keep trying to smuggle this through, of course.
2 Likes
Perhaps @Mister44 is confusing socialist governments with governments that lack legitimacy. A proper state is a tool, not an adversary.
4 Likes
I think that’s probably a commonly confused point, not helped by right-wing pundits constantly pushing the idea.
1 Like
Words have context that changes meaning. Funny, that!
That’s why selectively quoting definitions will lead you astray.
1 Like
Except this drug company was in luck because nearly all the R&D was done by publicly funded universities (as is the case with most new drugs). And given that, just how many movie star houses for a lifetime supply of the drug seems like fair compensation to you for something that costs pennies to make?
2 Likes
Yup. They’re charging obscene rent for something that costs them basically nothing, and using people’s lives as leverage.
I’m pretty sure none of us would feel too bad if it were reported in the news tomorrow that Martin Shkreli was found dead with his body parts and organs separated into jars in his own kitchen refrigerator. His entire business plan is “what’s your life worth to you? Is it worth everything you got? More?”
2 Likes
People forget that thalidomide was never approved in the U.S., in large part because of the FDA.
1 Like
It was approved in 1998, under unusually strict conditions.
Apparently, it’s also found in semen, so male patients have to agree to use condoms. Female patients must agree to use two simultaneous forms of birth control.
2 Likes
I actually knew that, I guess I just meant as a morning sickness pill.
D. –
I understand your point - and (IMHO) it is true that the climate change is a bigger threat than some greedy little bastard.
Be that as it may…is there not some reason to believe that the behavior, thought & ethical pattern that led this hedge fund dick to profiteer on this drug - to be the same callous & short-sighted pattern that quickened (if not caused) climate change?
Climate change continues - of course it does. But the general doom will take a lot of time - and the doom can be lessened - we hope. If we stop attending to everyday business - such as this ‘greedy guy’ - climate change will be the least of our problems. There are a lot dicks like him out there and they need to be reigned in & their energies better focused. Even if we are doomed - shouldn’t we at least make ourselves as comfortable as possible?
But wait…there’s a bit more…
A brick wall is built one brick at a time…a forest fire is extinguished one acre at a time. The acceleration of climate change was caused by many, many, people behaving like dicks.
So - lasso one dick at a time. But seriously - do I not make a good point about climate change being a pretty long process & even though it’s bad - we still need to take care of everyday, relatively mundane stuff so we still have a nice place to live in the meantime. Kinda like during WW2 we still enforced traffic, larceny, assault & murder laws even though there was a genuine horrific threat over-there? Same goes for the atomic bomb threat.
~cdh
In this pace it will be one smaller city and an atomic bomb. Or at least a fuel-air explosive of the MOAB class. That’s what the WMDs are for.
We need cheap easy instrumentation for the labs. A $500 MS-GC, a $50 ion mobility spectrometer, a $30 Raman, things like that.
Then microreactors, built around such analytical instrumentation for process control and quality assurance.
With costs like these, we wouldn’t need big-ass high-money research/uni institutions anymore, the barrier to entry would fall to the level people could technically make their own meds, and the system would be finally forced to be overhauled.
Napsterize medicine.
2 Likes
file under “far from perfect” : )
