325
HIV ‘vaccine’ could be made for just $40 a year for every patient
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
325 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32341 readers
357 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Accounting for 30% profit seems reasonable to me.
Yet they're selling it for 1000x the price.
I understand they need to recoup research costs, but...
I have no other words.
Except they don't even need to do that, because, as is with most pharmaceuticals, the research was almost fully funded by the taxpayer.
And the 30% profit is for a generic product, so the research has already been done.
So yeah, 30% profit is of course much better than 3000%, but both are still obscene profiteering off of a lifesaving product paid for by, and then essentially withheld for ransom from, the general public.
cough I believe if 40$ means 30% profit, then the cost to produce it is 28$. With the current price of it being 42,250$, this means the profit rate is 42,250$/28$*100%=150,892%.
In words, one hundred fifty thousand percent.
It's insane. Even if I am wrong and it's 3000% or 30,000% profit on a product funded by tax-payer money, it's insane and should be criminal.
Yeah, I wasn't really paying that much attention, and went off of OP reply's 30 x 1000 and then missed out a zero lol
But yeah, it only gets more despicable the more accurate the numbers are..
This is the reason I hate when people use the "recoup" argument. If anyone takes any free money to do research, then that isn't an expense to that company. If I start my own thing, and use my own money to cure cancer, then I get to set the price to recoup my own losses. If the citizens paid for it through taxes or donations, then it should be cost + % profit. 30% is very fair.
Making profit off of medication (or any other basic survival need, for that matter, and especially if they're publicly funded) is and always will be immoral.
This is a tough area for me. I think someone should be able to make a living researching and creating drugs. If that's all a company does they have to make money somehow. Admittedly, I have not put much thought past that, so there may be a simple solution. Research grants and other funding can pay salaries for a time, but that's a static income. Idk, I'm interested in how this would work without some amount of markup.
Unless profits means everything past salaries and stuff, then I do mostly agree. However I think there has to be allowance for cash on hand and further investment in infrastructure and all those other fun things needed to run and grow a business.
the problem is privatization for things that doesn't even make sense to privatize. if the cost of discovery is too high for a private entity then why are they the ones to supply it? they aren't actually doing anything but taking the foam from the top of what everyone else have collectively created. it's like the privatization of energy, a natural monopoly that literally runs into negative value through surplus. or the privatization of mandatory services that cannot be sustained at cost such as nation wide mail delivery. if it doesn't make sense the right choice is the only choice yet here we are lol.
The research cost recovery line they often yap about is bullshit itself though. The overwhelming majority of pharma research like the one involved here is subsidized through taxpayer dollars already, and they get tax incentives and write offs for failed research. If we had a sane, working government we could nationalize all life saving medications funded by public money while still allowing the inventors to enjoy some (reasonable) economic benefits from the research