BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement

Subject: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Amergin
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 11:22 AM

Saturday, 21 December, 2002, 13:21 GMT
US blocks cheap drugs agreement


The deal was agreed by 143 countries

The United States has blocked an international agreement to allow poor countries to buy cheap drugs.
One-hundred and forty-three countries stood on the same ground, we were hoping to make that unanimous



Sergio Marchi
Canada's negotiator

This means millions of poor people will still not have access to medicines for diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis.

US negotiators say the deal would allow too many drugs patents to be ignored.

Talks have now been rescheduled for February, but the international medical organisation, Medecins Sans Frontieres, told the BBC that there was little chance of them succeeding.

Hopes dashed

The talks, held at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, broke up early on Saturday.

"I have to say, there is no way to sugar-coat this bitter pill. We are disappointed," the Canadian representative, Sergio Marchi said.


Aids drugs are too expensive for many governments

"One-hundred and forty-three countries stood on the same ground, we were hoping to make that unanimous."

The principle of allowing developing countries access to cheap versions of drugs still protected by copyright had been agreed at WTO talks a year ago.

But it is not clear if that principle can be turned into a detailed agreement that all sides are happy with.

Under current rules, countries are required to respect drugs patents for 20 years.

Critics say this delays the production of much cheaper generic medicines, which are needed in developing countries because patients and health services cannot afford the more expensive versions.

The WTO talks are aimed at relaxing the rules on intellectual property rights to enable countries in need to import cheaper versions of essential drugs.

While the talks have dragged on through the year, the problem of HIV/Aids has grown worse.

Figures released by the United Nations last month showed that more than 40 million people are now living with the disease.

Consensus not possible

The United States said the proposed deal would mean that illnesses that are not infectious, such as diabetes and asthma, could also be treated with cheap, generic drugs.

This is not just a failure of the Geneva talks, but of two years of negotiations



Medecins Sans Frontieres

The US negotiator, Linnet Deily, said her country "could not meet the consensus on the issue".

In sub-Saharan Africa, nearly 30 million people are estimated to be infected with the HIV/Aids virus.

African negotiators say the fears expressed by the United States are unfounded.

"Any attempt to redefine this declaration will unravel the careful balance achieved on many issues," Kenyan negotiator Amina Chawahir Mohamed told the Geneva meeting, the AFP news agency reports.

The medical organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) told BBC News Online that it was now "time to find solutions outside the WTO".

"If there had been any flexibility to reach an agreement, the United States would have shown that flexibility.

"This is not just a failure of the Geneva talks, but of two years of negotiations," Ellen 'pHoen said.

She said individual countries should now go ahead and allow their own pharmaceutical industries to export to other countries that need cheaper drugs.

MSF argues that that is already allowed for under the 1994 agreement brokered by the World Trade Organisation.

Such moves would almost certainly trigger disputes with the US and major western drugs companies which the WTO would have to settle.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Maryrrf
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 11:27 AM

Well what do you expect from a country in which health care is only for the rich and healthy? I'm becoming more and more disgusted with our present government and although this doesn't surprise me it certainly infuriates me.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 11:39 AM

You all might want to see which industries financed Bush's stealing of the '00 Election...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 12:51 PM

It isn't just Bush. It is also Ted Kennedy, who along with our newly annointed Senate majority leader Dr. Frist, were co-sponsors of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. According to opensecrets.org (a website that tracks the buying and selling of our American government by tracking who sponsors/votes for what bills, how much money they receive from the special interests involved, etc.) Kennedy and Frist are among the top recipients of contributions from pharmaceutical manufacturers. The biotech industry considered the passage of this bill last summer their "victory of the year" because it also reauthorizes an FDA program that fast-tracks new drug applications. The program, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, allows drug manufacturers to pay a fee to the FDA in exchange for faster approval of new drugs.

That is why THE ENTIRE WORLD'S HEALTH is being compromised by this industry, not just a few African countries suffering the most from HIV/AIDs. However, while Ted Kennedy benefits from the industry's largesse, it is really only because of his power as THE senator who has (supposedly) championed health care in the US Congress, most of the money from the health care robbers goes to Republicans. Which is why the White House demanded Frist be the new majority leader--they have a prescription drug bill for the prescription drug industry they want to pass next year. Pharmaceutical manufacturers gave more than $19 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions in 1999-2000, 77 percent to Republicans. In 2001, the industry contributed $3.6 million, 74 percent to Republicans. Of course, the final figures aren't in yet for the most expensive mid-term elections in history in 2002.

Senator Frist can rightly be called Daddy Health Care Bucks, and we will soon be finding out why. If ever there was a reason for nationalizing the health care industry, it is the evilness (and I do mean evil) of the prescription drug cartel, holding the world's sick people hostage to their greed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: kendall
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 12:57 PM

Kennedy needed money from the drug companies? Hard to believe.
There has to be a special place in hell for the greedy bastards who worship the bottom line.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 01:11 PM

I wouldn't say that Kennedy needed the money from drug companies. I said he accepted money from drug companies. According to opensecrets.org, in 1999-2000, First received $73,707 from the industry and Kennedy took in $44,500.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: SINSULL
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 01:13 PM

What about the drug companies? If these same drugs can be made affordably by generic companies, why not put the blame where it rightfully lies? There is a discussion in another thread about boycotting a food company for pressing its lawsuit against Ethiopia. Why not boycott all the over the counter drugs made by the greedy drug companies and use generic whenever possible?

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 01:13 PM

Ahhhh, GUEST, ya' got the figures for how much drug company dough went to Bush compared to Gore?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 01:22 PM

Bobert, I think you are being a bit confrontational when there is no reason to be. You have a dangerous (IMO) tendency to speak in absolutist terms, and use far too much hyperbole when expressing your opinions.

Reread my post. I acknowledged that the prescription drug industry campaign donations, like most all of the big bucks campaign donors, now give the majority of their campaign contributions to the Republicans. But not all of it, and therein lies the key to how these industries (the energy industries do this too) continue to get away with buying off our government. They own the Republican Party, and strategically manipulate enough of the key Democrats (like Kennedy on health care issues), to ensure their agenda is the one that wins hands down, every time. To not acknowledge that, just because you like to demonize the Republicans and view them two dimensionally, as if they were solely responsible for all evil in the world, is a dangerous argument to make, and plays right into their hands. It makes the DougR and NicoleCs of this world seem credible, and their canned and spoon fed arguments seem plausible to the majority of people who are, largely by their own choice, blissfully ignorant to how the system works against them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 03:54 PM

However, while Ted Kennedy benefits from the industry's largesse, it is really only because of his power as THE senator who has (supposedly) championed health care in the US Congress, (that) most of the money from the health care robbers goes to Republicans. Explain? I don't understand how his 'power' leads to a Republican benefit.

And I gotta take exception to your lumping Nicole C in with a knee-jerk response to current politics. She, of all people, appears to scrupulously examine issues- I wish we had some like her in the senate and the house.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 05:37 PM

You can find a lot about those figures at this site, http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04, and by exploring the related pages. Since 1990 drug industry money has been heavily in favor of Republican candidates; in the Bush/Gore election it was over 70% in support of Bush and colleagues.

There is a lot more to know about the impact of industrial contributions, particularly at House and Senate levels, which is tabulated for you at this site.

A real public service.


A

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: DougR
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 05:50 PM

Thank you Ebbie for defending me against "bad" GUEST!

Oh, I just re-read your post! You didn't defend me! You left me out and just included Niclole C! Aw shucks. I'm disappointed, discouraged, and am I blue! Oh well. *SOB* (I cry easily).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 06:33 PM

Thanks, Amos! The point I was trying to make was the the drug companies gave a much larger amount to Bush than Gore. I'm not sure why GUEST thought I was being "confrontational" since I was just following his ot her lead. GUEST is getting a tad cranky and msiing more point than usual.

Sorry, Doug, that Ebbis didn't defend you BUT I'll guarentee we'll all come to your defense if anyone ever accuses you of being a "liberal". Ya' can take that to the bank.

But I am puzzled myself on how GUEST could lump Nicole in with you and Mary. You and Mary, sure. But Nicole? Go figure. Like I said, GUEST seems toi be working at break-neck speed here and isn't quite taking the time to read folks posts, or something...

But I'm sorry, Nicole. Tough getting thrown in the same cage with Mary and Dougie. Whew!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 08:02 PM

DougR, :)! I just want to get that knee to stop jerking...

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: DougR
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 11:39 PM

Ebbie, Bobert, concentrate ...put all negative thoughts aside ...all together now ..."Joy to the World!"

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Troll
Date: 22 Dec 02 - 05:59 AM

Before y'all start pontificating, go and check up on how much of YOUR pension fund, 4O1K, or mutual funk is invested in pharmaceuticals.
You could be supporting the monster.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 02 - 09:24 AM

I just checked, troll. Ummmmmm, like none since I don't have a 401K. Ya' see, 401k's are for folk who have discretionary income, which would have if I didn't have to pay $800 a month for health insurance that can be cancelled if I get sick. Yeah, 401K's are a foriegn concept to most of the working class who can't afford them.

But I'm real glad that you have one, troll...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: NicoleC
Date: 22 Dec 02 - 05:43 PM

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks, Ebbie. See, Doug? Liberals can be just as politically exclusionary about dealing with members who don't toe the party line as staunch Republicans. :)

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Troll
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 10:20 AM

I don't have one Bobert. I'm gratified to hear that you don't either. Guess you'll have to survive on Social Security. Unless you have a pension from your job.
In which case, why can't you get group health. That's what MY union did.
I still have it.
But no 4O1K. My daughter has one though. She works in a beauty parlor.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 10:31 AM

Well, it appears the myopic right/left Dem/Rep worldview is the only one people here have.

People of any persuasion/leanings can be reactionary, absolutist, alarmist, hyperbolic, etc. Even thoughtful people can be any of those things.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Kim C
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 12:11 PM

Bobert, I think most companies now, even small ones, have some sort of investment or retirement plan. I work for a non-profit with 25 employees, and we do. Likewise the place where Mister works, although he opted out of the program. For people who are self-employed, investment/retirement plans, like insurance, may be harder to come by - but the hardships of self-employment warrant their own thread. I have long believed that there are too many restrictions/roadblocks to self-employment, when self-employment needs to be ENCOURAGED. That's another story, though.

But about the drugs - pharmaceutical companies already spend tons of money in free samples and other handy-dandy promotional products. And who really needs another post-it pad, or cheap ballpoint, with a drug ad on it? They should think about rerouting those promotional dollars in a way that will help people who really need help.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 12:24 PM

Self employemnt is a bitch. Ya' pay more into Social Security and ya' can't get no breaks on hospitalization. I reckon if I had a big company it would be different but I'm the pop of my small mom-n-pop company. Yep, just me mostly and the wife teaches music privately so no group there either.

That's why there ain't no 401K! After scraping up what the IRS wants, paying $800 a month the Blue Cross/Blue Shield, business loans, morgage and living expenses there's a big *echo* in the bank account. I do have one investment property and if I don't get any frivelous lawsuits brought against me (small businessman's worst nightmare...) then I'll be okay, but remotely well off.

I would guess that there millions and millions of folks like me who will end up having to pay thru the nose for perscription drugs in our old age. For a lot of middle income Baby Boomers, this won't be our parent's style of retirement.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 12:26 PM

NOT remotely well off...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: kendall
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 01:13 PM

The advertising they spend money on is deductable on their taxes. What they don't pay, we do.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 01:44 PM

$800 a month for health insurance?!? :-O that just made my Canadian jaw go slack!!! Pardon my naivitee ...

Maybe the only way to beat it is to get around it somehow - like by investigating 'alternative' medicine (herbal remedies etc.) practicing healthier lifestyles AND boycotting those monster drug companies.

Even though health care is mostly 'free' in Canada, I haven't been to a doctor in about a dozen years. I've very little trust in modern 'health care'. In my experience, most doctors treat only the symptoms, not the CAUSES of illness - guaranteeing you'll be back again soon! And most drugs work like a sledgehammer - they have the desired effect (maybe!) PLUS many many undesirable ones. Then you need more drugs to combat the side-effects, and the chemical companies are laughing all the way to the bank...
   
I like what Louise Hay says in her book "You Can Heal Your Life" - that modern medicine deals with illness in one of two ways - MUTILATION (surgery) and POISONING (drugs). Not that these aren't necessary sometimes, but there ARE alternatives, and much we can do to avoid problems in the first place.

To your health! :-)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Kim C
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 01:46 PM

Kendall, do you know if the free samples they give away count as "advertising" and are tax-deductible as well?

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: DougR
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 02:08 PM

Kim: I don't think either are deductible. But the are expensible, which amounts to the same thing.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Kim C
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 03:39 PM

Well then..... wouldn't DONATIONS of products also be expensible or deductible?

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 03:58 PM

*day-liah*:

Thanks fir your contribution and you are correct. Yes, I do live a healthy life style. And I am no stranger at the local Health Store.

I presently take salmon oil to keep limbered up, garlic to keep the ticker tickin' away, lechitin, Vitiman E, C, Zinc, betacarotine suppliments. I don't eat red meat, I exercise (6'1", 180 lbs.), my colestoral is 208, blood pressure 120/78.

BUT, unlike Canada, if let's say you do eevrything right but either get real sick or badly injured and you don't have insurance, and you're not a member of the ruling class, you're going to most likely end up going bankrupt.

SO, ya' gotta try to protect what you've worked a life time for. It's kinda like paying *protection money* to the *Mob*...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Kim C
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 05:22 PM

Canada's system isn't perfect either:

Inquest ordered in wake of patient's suicide
Globe and Mail: Friday, November 8, 2002 - Print Edition, Page A9

Montreal -- Quebec Health Minister François Legault has ordered a coroner's inquest into the death of a severely depressed Quebec man who committed suicide after he went to an emergency ward and waited at least two hours without seeing a doctor. André Quintal, 53, was checked by a nurse at Sherbrooke's Hôtel-Dieu hospital Friday night, then left on a gurney for observation, but he later walked out of the hospital and jumped off a bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 06:28 PM

And let's not forget that Canadians pay the highest taxes in the world, I believe!

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 06:41 PM

We pay approximately 50% tax in the US. MOst of it is hidden such a the taxes that others pay in producing goods and serices. That figure has stayed pretty much the same for the past 3 decades. That's enough taxes to afford better health care and insurance for America's workers but the ruling class and GWB couldn't care less.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 06:51 PM

I wonder what will happen if someone DOES get infected with smallpox, and can't afford to go to the doctor, and it gets spread for the lack of medical care? Smallpox isn't contagious until you are *really* sick -- the point at which most people without medical care finally go to an overcrowded and understaffed emergency room, with a bunch of people sitting around for hours with weakened immune systems...

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 07:19 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, Nicole. Ol' Bobert does grind up as much gray matter as Iz got, *BUT* I never thought of that scenerio. Sounds to me like social Darwinism...

"Awwww, we're real sorry that all you folks is gonna die..."

BUT, who's gonna clean Boss Hog's toilet and take care of his 87 year old mother?

Danged, back to the drawing board. Yeah, kill off the peasants and thinks could get very,very inetresting... Like what are they gonna do? Bring in more folks from Salvadore? Hmmmmmmm? What happens when the folks from Salvadore figure it out?

Yeah, more smallpox or anthrax or, or...

(But, Bobert, at some point in time Boss Hog is gonna run out of folks to first...exploit, then... kill?)

Hey, I never said that the rich were smart. Just rich. Don't take no rocket scientist to be born...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 07:28 PM

Nicole that IS a scary thought, and a good argument for free public health care. A word of caution though, if I may - I've heard it said that if we only understood just how powerful our thoughts are, we would guard them MUCH more carefully.

Thoughts become beliefs, and beliefs become self-fulfilling prophecies. If people truly believe that they are going to 'catch' two colds every winter for example, they probably WILL 'catch' them. That's the power of suggestion, the power of our own minds - and strong emotions like fear amplify that power, making it more likely that our thoughts WILL manifest into physical reality.

I really like discussing this, but I'm guilty of thread-drift already (sorry!) so I'll stop now...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 07:36 PM

No, that's not what I meant. Poor medical care or lack of access to it can put everyone at risk. Money won't save you.

No matter how much money one has, when the emergency rooms are backed up because they are full of illnesses that can and should have been prevented with regular checkups or basic care, your care will suffer, too. And you can't fix overcrowded emergency rooms without addressing the reason that they're overcrowed is that it's the only place most poor people can afford to go for care when all else fails and they or their kids are very ill.

Decent access to medical care is very much a public concern. A smallpox outbreak is an extreme example, but diseases like measles and the flu and chickenpox cause deaths every year because of lack of basic medical care.

But it'll take a terrorist event like a smallpox epidemic to get most politicians to take a public health threat seriously. Caught early, smallpox can be fairly easily contained because it isn't contagious yet. But it won't be caught early, if it happens, because it'll be some poor schlepp on the subway that gets infected.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 07:42 PM

Caveat: provided of course, that the overworked intern at the emergency room could correctly diagnose smallpox in the first place. Not many working health professionals now have actually seen it -- we have the tools, but the experience is lacking.

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 02 - 09:13 PM

My father died two months ago at age 88 of cancer. Prior to his death he spend 4 days on a gurney in an emergency room. No rooms! And this was in one of the more affluent areas of the US and he was probably considered upper middle class. 4 days, dang it!

This was all I needed to see to know how the Dick Cheney's of the world look upon every one else's right to health care.

This ain't about clean living, meditation, oneness with God. It's about reality. It's about stuff happens to the most health conscious folk, like my dad was. And it's about when the chips are down, the health care sysytem in the US is here only for the upper 5%....

And let the rest eat cake....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Dec 02 - 08:58 AM

Bobert I'm so sorry to hear about your father. He had to spend his final days on a gurney in an emergency room? IMO that's heartbreaking and disgusting!

It used to be that dying - and birthing - were family affairs. People were born and died at home, surrounded by family and friends and aided by the local 'wise women' - the healers and herbalists. People were not taught to fear and avoid death at any cost. It was seen as a most natural, necessary - perhaps even welcome at times - part of life.

And until the spread of modern Christianity people believed in rebirth, too. There was no idea of 'Judgement', of 'Heaven' or 'Hell'. If you hadn't done so well this time around, well, you knew you always had another chance to make good. Sure takes alot of the dread of dying away!

Now I'm not saying we should go back to practicing 'medieval medicine' - that's ridiculous! But I think in some ways we were much more 'humane' in the way we handled death, and the dying, a long time ago. To spend your last moments in the familiarity of your own home, surrounded by loved ones sure beats spending them in a crowded emergency room IMO. It just doesn't profit the medical industry.

Thank you to Mudcat for this chance to express my thoughts!

Healthy blessings to you

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: US Blocks Cheap Drugs Agreement
From: Troll
Date: 24 Dec 02 - 07:57 PM

Bobert, I'm sorry to hear about your father. It's a pain that never really goes away.
Can you tell us why there were no beds available? Unless there was some kind of epidemic or it is a VERY small hospital, yours was a most unusual situation outside of inner city hospitals. They are always overcrowded. But a hospital in an affluent area? I don't understand.

troll