Company hikes price 5,000% for cancer fighting drug

I don't believe most patent violators are doing that out of the kindness of their hearts. They steal a product, and then sell it for cheap to score cash.

If a patent violator sold the med discussed in this thread for peanuts, I would agree with you. Judging case by case is my preference.

 

so when the meds I buy on the black market turn out to be rat poison, who do I sue?

 

In cases where a distributor is already pricing their stuff reasonably breaking the patent would neither be economic nor meet the standards India is setting up for allowing this ignoring of patents, iirc.

Indian stuff is not exactly black market. Don't buy from the actual black market, though.

 

if its not black market then that implies there is a legal remedy. I don't see how there can be a legal remedy against a company that is already breaking international laws and I use them anyway, but I don't claim to be an expert on this subject.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_India#Patent

Seems like they added a lot of patent recognition in 2005 ... Apparently they'll still be producing generica, but on a lesser scale. I just hope it won't lead to skyrocketing prices by profit-hungry monopolists, like, well ... this example.

 

In Argentina's newspapers it says its an HIV drug not a Cancer drug

 

It is an antiparasitic often used to treat those with HIV of CA.


9-18-2015

A drug treating a common parasite that attacks people with weakened immune systems increased in cost 5,000% to $750 per pill.

At a time of heightened attention to the rising cost of prescription drugs, doctors who treat patients with AIDS and cancer are denouncing the new cost to treat a condition that can be life-threatening.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-complication-aids-cancer-daraprim/32563749/

 

there was a thing that went around where someone matched with the ceo guy on tindr and asked him about it- iirc he viewed it as more of a milking of the insurance companies than the users (also something about fewer people using this medication)


i tend to view it as a **** move, but i'd be surprised if it weren't blown out of proportion because it made a good headline

 

Wat

Wat

Wat Wat

"If you can't afford a luxury, why should you be able to afford basic things"

 

But she has an absurd view on where the problem lies ... The problem is being willing to pay for a status symbol, not being unwilling to pay for something life saving. I agree that the priorities of people are completely messed up, but that's pretty much because most people are status-hungry morons.

 

So let the status hungry morons decide between their life saving medicine and their iPhone

 

But what about those that can't afford either? That's the real problem, not those that could afford overpriced medicine anyway.

 

I can't speak to this specific situation, but when I was unemployed, before Obamacare, I was able to get an "uninsured discount" when I went to the doctor. I was paying about the same as a normal insurance deductible.

 

Who picks up the tab then? Fact is that the medical company is making profit off someone's back. I don't like this with consumer items either - they make their money off the exploitation of workers, mostly. Not much empathy for the people buying them, wasteful and shallow persons they are.

 

The tab goes to the insured patients. Why else would a couple Tylenol cost $30 at the hospital?

 

Eh, but the insured patients hand off the bill to the insurance, which hands it off to those that have insurance but don't need it, creating a pseudo-tax that doesn't benefit the public. At least if IÄm not terribly mistaken about the system.