The first polio vaccine was the inactivated polio vaccine. It was developed by Jonas Salk and came into use in 1955.[1] The oral polio vaccine was developed by Albert Sabin and came into commercial use in 1961.[1][5] They are on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the most important medication needed in a basic health system.[6] The wholesale cost in the developing world is about 0.25 USD per dose for the oral form as of 2014.[7] In the United States it costs between 25 and 50 USD for the inactivated form.
Right.. we had this discussion several weeks ago on another thread. There is no doubt that the US market subsidizes the developing world in pharmacology. If the world spent .25 cents (including the US) for medicines, they would not be developed. Is it wrong? Is it bad? Who's to say. We pay $35 which most Americans (on or off insurance can afford) and a horrible disease is eradicated.
Investments in pharmacology happen due to the profit motive. The profits are realized in the US, first and foremost. The world benefits.
The first polio vaccine was the inactivated polio vaccine. It was developed by Jonas Salk and came into use in 1955.[1] The oral polio vaccine was developed by Albert Sabin and came into commercial use in 1961.[1][5] They are on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the most important medication needed in a basic health system.[6] The wholesale cost in the developing world is about 0.25 USD per dose for the oral form as of 2014.[7] In the United States it costs between 25 and 50 USD for the inactivated form.
Right.. we had this discussion several weeks ago on another thread. There is no doubt that the US market subsidizes the developing world in pharmacology. If the world spent .25 cents (including the US) for medicines, they would not be developed. Is it wrong? Is it bad? Who's to say. We pay $35 which most Americans (on or off insurance can afford) and a horrible disease is eradicated.
Investments in pharmacology happen due to the profit motive. The profits are realized in the US, first and foremost. The world benefits.
That's the system alright? but why? You don't think people would still be motivated to help others with research, if corporations were not as grotesquely profitable? I think the human sprit is bigger than that... as far back as the days that we were cave dwellers we had a medicine man.. a healers..country doctors that made enough to live in a community...etc. etc.. We created many wondrous things without profit being the motivation.. more Salk's are out there. We created all kinds of things in America before profit was the main goal. Yes, profit will always be there..but we also need to balance it with the needs of our society... we don't need more Billionaires
Somewhat like the band we all love so much.. They could easily be more profitable, but that's obviously not what's most important to them.
Post edited by myoung321 on
"The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
All it really comes down to is that EVERYBODY who puts in an honest day's work, 5 days a week, should be able to support themselves. EVERYBODY who has a full-time job, no matter what it is, should be able to reasonably afford a decent home that isn't falling apart or packed to the rafters, food, toiletries, medicine, utilities (including internet), clothes, some form of transportation (hopefully public transit when possible), and have just a little for entertainment too, so that life is worth living. And two people doing this should reasonably be able to afford to have one or two kids and support them. That should be the minimum standard (and it only gets better from there, depending on the work being done of course). I really don't think that is too much to expect for North Americans who have full time jobs and are fairly contributing to society by working and paying taxes.
I agree 100%
I forgot to list healthcare, but let's say that's a given!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The first polio vaccine was the inactivated polio vaccine. It was developed by Jonas Salk and came into use in 1955.[1] The oral polio vaccine was developed by Albert Sabin and came into commercial use in 1961.[1][5] They are on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the most important medication needed in a basic health system.[6] The wholesale cost in the developing world is about 0.25 USD per dose for the oral form as of 2014.[7] In the United States it costs between 25 and 50 USD for the inactivated form.
Right.. we had this discussion several weeks ago on another thread. There is no doubt that the US market subsidizes the developing world in pharmacology. If the world spent .25 cents (including the US) for medicines, they would not be developed. Is it wrong? Is it bad? Who's to say. We pay $35 which most Americans (on or off insurance can afford) and a horrible disease is eradicated.
Investments in pharmacology happen due to the profit motive. The profits are realized in the US, first and foremost. The world benefits.
That's the system alright? but why? You don't think people would still be motivated to help others with research, if corporations were not as grotesquely profitable? I think the human sprit is bigger than that... as far back as the days that we were cave dwellers we had a medicine man.. a healers..country doctors that made enough to live in a community...etc. etc.. We created many wondrous things without profit being the motivation.. more Salk's are out there. We created all kinds of things in America before profit was the main goal. Yes, profit will always be there..but we also need to balance it with the needs of our society... we don't need more Billionaires
Somewhat like the band we all love so much.. They could easily be more profitable, but that's obviously not what's most important to them.
I don't know.. maybe, maybe not. I do know that you need $ to draw the best and the brightest into your field of work. This is why our best become doctors. Conversely, although there are wonderful teachers out there, I think we lose some excellent talent to other fields because the pay isn't appropriate to the value they bring to society. That probably has something to do with the fact they are government workers. I wouldn't want the research or medical field watered down like the education field is today. In fact, I would be happy to pay more in local taxes if I knew it went straight to teachers' income.
I know dozens of doctors and scientists and I can honestly say that not one is profit motivated. They genuinely enjoy the work. Obviously purely anecdotal.
I know dozens of doctors and scientists and I can honestly say that not one is profit motivated. They genuinely enjoy the work. Obviously purely anecdotal.
But they are probably well compensated. The question is whether they would have gone through the years of schooling, debt, etc. if there wasn't a payoff? In other words, would they have chosen that field if it made 50k a year, but needed 8 years of school plus two years of residency? Or would they have got a series 7 license and traded on wall street with 25% of the cost?
I have known plenty of doctors who are profit driven (and ego driven) myself, at least to the point where they choose a high-paying specialty just for the money. Also, a lot of doctors move from Canada to the US because they can earn more, even though Canada desperately needs them to stay and they can still make a nice living here. I think money does indeed have something to do with it for a large number of doctors. There are some who are more altrusitic though... those are the same ones who do shit like volunteer at clinics in low income neighborhoods and go to Africa and the middle East with Doctors Without Borders. They certainly do exist. We probably need a lot more like that though. Scientists, yeah, I haven't met non--medical doctor scientists who are into it for the money, actually. They want to support themselves, but mostly it's about discovery, networking. and getting credit for their work.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I know dozens of doctors and scientists and I can honestly say that not one is profit motivated. They genuinely enjoy the work. Obviously purely anecdotal.
But they are probably well compensated. The question is whether they would have gone through the years of schooling, debt, etc. if there wasn't a payoff? In other words, would they have chosen that field if it made 50k a year, but needed 8 years of school plus two years of residency? Or would they have got a series 7 license and traded on wall street with 25% of the cost?
The doctors are well compensated (as they should be) but the scientists....not so much. The scientists are constantly writing grant proposals for funding, it's part of the game. My wife for example has been going to post secondary "school" for around 13 years (I know that's a long time). She will be defending for her PHD in December. Sometimes she wishes she would have chosen the path of doctor just because it would have been quicker and more money, but she loves the research too much.....and neither of us are driven by money.
I know dozens of doctors and scientists and I can honestly say that not one is profit motivated. They genuinely enjoy the work. Obviously purely anecdotal.
But they are probably well compensated. The question is whether they would have gone through the years of schooling, debt, etc. if there wasn't a payoff? In other words, would they have chosen that field if it made 50k a year, but needed 8 years of school plus two years of residency? Or would they have got a series 7 license and traded on wall street with 25% of the cost?
The doctors are well compensated (as they should be) but the scientists....not so much. The scientists are constantly writing grant proposals for funding, it's part of the game. My wife for example has been going to post secondary "school" for around 13 years (I know that's a long time). She will be defending for her PHD in December. Sometimes she wishes she would have chosen the path of doctor just because it would have been quicker and more money, but she loves the research too much.....and neither of us are driven by money.
True.. I was speaking of physicians, pharmD's, and bio-medical type scientists that work in the private industry and are well compensated. Is your wife in medicine or a different type field>?
I know dozens of doctors and scientists and I can honestly say that not one is profit motivated. They genuinely enjoy the work. Obviously purely anecdotal.
But they are probably well compensated. The question is whether they would have gone through the years of schooling, debt, etc. if there wasn't a payoff? In other words, would they have chosen that field if it made 50k a year, but needed 8 years of school plus two years of residency? Or would they have got a series 7 license and traded on wall street with 25% of the cost?
The doctors are well compensated (as they should be) but the scientists....not so much. The scientists are constantly writing grant proposals for funding, it's part of the game. My wife for example has been going to post secondary "school" for around 13 years (I know that's a long time). She will be defending for her PHD in December. Sometimes she wishes she would have chosen the path of doctor just because it would have been quicker and more money, but she loves the research too much.....and neither of us are driven by money.
True.. I was speaking of physicians, pharmD's, and bio-medical type scientists that work in the private industry and are well compensated. Is your wife in medicine or a different type field>?
She did her masters in parasitology, PHD in immunology (the benefits of parasites in the gut because of our immune systems response) and her post doc apparently will be involving neurology with a mixture of the two former. She could cross over into private industry and make pretty good cash with her expertise but that's kind of like giving up on the dream for a scientist.
Comments
Investments in pharmacology happen due to the profit motive. The profits are realized in the US, first and foremost. The world benefits.
Somewhat like the band we all love so much.. They could easily be more profitable, but that's obviously not what's most important to them.
Scientists, yeah, I haven't met non--medical doctor scientists who are into it for the money, actually. They want to support themselves, but mostly it's about discovery, networking. and getting credit for their work.
She knows a lot of shit.