Disgusting that people feel the need to profit *so* much from life-saving medicines.

10 years or less for drug patents. Let Medicare negotiate drug prices. Medicare for all, cradle to grave. Problem solved.

Before this drug existed, these patients just died of liver failure. Dead patients are always less expensive.

Yes it is.

you are so wrong here!!! Millions have contracted this disease through transfusions, poorly sterilized equipment, and contact with others' infected blood. In Europe there have been many scandals regarding sale of infected blood. It is obvious that you read little. Gilead bought the patent and whole small pharmaceutical company... they invented nothing in this case! read up

"Of course there is the occasional screw up by a hospital/medical center."

I quoted the CDC elsewhere noting that transfusions and transplants were not screened for Hep C prior to 1992, and the disease can exist for decades. That suggests infection resulting from something other than personal behavior is more than "occasional."

"The stats on the are easily available."

So present them instead of expecting someone else to look it up when you're the one making the claim.

I thought this knowledge was common to most people so I did not cite anything. So, just going to the CDC:
How is Hepatitis C spread?Hepatitis C is usually spread when blood from a person infected with the Hepatitis C virus enters the body of someone who is not infected. Today, most people become infected with the Hepatitis C virus by sharing needles or other equipment to inject drugs. Before 1992, when widespread screening of the blood supply began in the United States, Hepatitis C was also commonly spread through blood transfusions and organ transplants.

A simple and elementary readying confirms what I said. Of course if you go back 25 years, your argument has some, but little credibility. For the "millions" of cases you speak of, millions would have to have become infected in the hospital...which is clearly not the case. Bad behavior, almost exclusively, is the cause. Why should anyone pay for the bad life choices that another makes...all through free will.

I quoted some of that earlier. Not sure why you think it helps your argument to quote it back to me.

"Of course if you go back 25 years ..."

Many of the people infected prior to 1992 ago are still alive and dealing with chronic Hep C. The question is: of the 2.7 million with chronic Hep C currently in the U.S., what percentage became infected in that way? I don't know, and I bet you don't know either, but if you DO know, then present the actual statistics about it, and if you DON'T know, then don't pretend otherwise.

"For the "millions" of cases you speak of ..."

D H made that claim, not me. Not sure why you're confusing us.

Clearly most practitioners, as myself, accept that Hepatitis C can be transmitted by sexual contact.

Yeah, I noted that in another comment elsewhere. But my guess is that he'd characterize that as "bad life choices" too.

Interesting to note that Bernie Sanders returned a campaign contribution from this outfit.

I'm sure everyone realizes it took (B)Billions of dollars and 20 years of research to find this treatment...All with the chance that even having spent the Billions....that nothing could come of the research will all money being lost. With that chance of Total Loss....a healthy profit is more than reasonable. Frankly, Hep C is usually, but not always the result of bad behavior (drugs, unsafe sex, needles)...all the illegal and immoral stuff).... on the infected ones part. Should society pay for the results of bad behavior.

its a third the price of the next best alternative

when you have a system where the government pays for things this will always happen. If the government promised to buy anyone who wanted one a $20 hamburger would anyone sell a $5 hamburger?

Perhaps the US could spend less on needless wars, and then money for lifesaving treatments would not be an issue?

We blew a Trillion Dollars in Iraq;

and the Congress won't pay for the First Responders Healthcare.

#WorstResponders

would that excuse getting ripped off?

NEW YORK — Turing Pharmaceuticals, the drug company that jacked up the price of a drug used by AIDS and cancer patients by more than 5,000%, is facing an antitrust probe by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

The drug company raised the price of Daraprim, a 62-year old drug no longer under patent protection, to $750 a tablet from $13.50.

And it was $1 when it was owned by the previous 'drug' company.

If that ain't the mafia, nothing is.

If only we had a regulatory body in this country (U.S.) that would buy medicine from drug companies and then distribute it through a single payer health system. Why, I imagine the savings would be enormous!

Furthering this fantasy, imagine if we had a regulatory body that would charge drug companies a medicine's true worth after all the research done by the CDC and NIH (you know, those government entities) instead of the current practice of doing the research then practically giving away the new drugs to the already insanely wealthy drug companies.

Imagine living in a country whose regulatory branch wasn't so beholden to corporate interests.

the net result of your plan is that no new miracle drugs will be produced

So the theory goes, yet the company agreed to charge 46,000 for a course of the drug in Europe, and only $900 for the treatment in places like Egypt and India.
The US provides plenty of tax benefits to these companies, and the companies benefit from basic research for free, fully funded by the US tax payer, through government research grants. Then when they make a discovery, the rest of the world gets a discount, while the US picks up the cost for company profits.

"Then when they make a discovery, the rest of the world gets a discount, while the US picks up the cost for company profits."

This is the problem in a nut shell. The world essentially ride on the coattails of a tab paid by the US. nonetheless, someone must pick up the tab if the discoveries are to made and a useable product is to be brought to market.

Not that it matter but this is also the reason why our defense budget is so high, as we play world police the rest of the world can effectively eliminate their defense spending

Not that it matter but this is also the reason why our defense budget is so high, as we play world police the rest of the world can effectively eliminate their defense spending

Sorry but you've no clue to what you're talking about here. Type less. Read more.

Germany and Japan are two examples. Also see the term "nuclear umbrella." That ought to get you started on your own reading.

Japan who pays for 75 percent in "host" fees in addition to environmental clean-up of Okinawa, purchasing of US hardware including fighter jets and on and on? That Japan? Should I get into South Korea and what they pay the US for US Forces Korea?

Do get a clue.

You think Japan and South Korea pay the cost of US military protection? So if we packed up left, they could protect themselves at no additional cost?

No I don't "think" a huge chunk of USFJ's and USFK 's operational budgets are picked up by the natives. I KNOW they are. The military does issue reports to admit this. You can also see this written in clauses of respective SOFA agreements.

So if we packed up left, they could protect themselves at no additional cost?

Of course they're capable of defending themselves without the US especially now. The question to both Japan and ROK is how much will it cost them to do so when they'll then be required to restart their nuclear programs and the cost of upkeep versus how much it would cost to simply pay the US for that nuclear umbrella. Thus far, despite their heavy contribution to house US forces on their soil, they consider it to be cheaper to simply pay the US and remain strong allies.

Your question, however, has nothing to do with the topic I was addressing. Again, US citizens are not "subsiding" the security of the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Germans and so forth. It's completely delusion that you all think this and it's actually really offensive to the citizens of these countries.

Why doesn't much of Europe meet its NATO defense spending obligations?

So now you're admitting the NATO nations do indeed have a "spending obligation" and are no longer trying to defend TAXCPA's assertion that "we play world police the rest of the world can effectively eliminate their defense spending?"

Which is it?

"Effectively eliminate" is a gross exaggeration. I would agree to "greatly subsidized." Taiwan is perhaps the clearest example. And when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was mainly the US that enforced Kuwait's independence. For better or worse, the US carries the burden of enforcing the global security order.

Even greatly subsidized is greatly exaggerated. How many jobs are kept intact in every state because countries like Taiwan - during Obama's tenure alone, we sold them something like $12 billion worth of military hardware - almost exclusively buy US hardware?

Indeed, we intervened on behalf of Kuwait because...wait for it....THEY HAD OIL...at a time the US was heavily reliant on Middle East oil. Only Americans refuse to see any of this and insist that we "subsidize global security and keep you all safe" or some other offensive nonsense.

I never said it was charity. Europe imports a lot of oil too, but when it comes time to protect their interests, only the US has the capability. They even required US assistance in the Balkans. You are a little too emotionally invested, so I'll leave you to your opinions. We've been on this sidetrack long enough.

Actually, you referenced Japan as an example to TAXCPA's claim that "we play world police the rest of the world can effectively eliminate their defense spending." So indeed you did say they were a charity case, and haven't been able to admit that you've no idea what you're talking about when I informed you that Japan contributes up to 75% of USFJ's operational budget.

Let this be a learning lesson to you. As I told TAXCPA, read more type less...especially silly clauses like "That ought to get you started on your own reading." It'll save you from a series of backtracking and propping up strawmen.

I've read all the links you've provided. ;-)

You're looking for charity? The info is not hard to find. Try Asahi shimbun or Japan Focus, Korea Times and on and on. Up to you to remain uninformed and type away for the sake of typing away.

Let me show you how it's done.
https://www.foreignaffairs....

Wrong again. Your link has nothing to do with the issue being discussed: Omoiyari Yosan.

Feel free to keep flagging while you're at it.

"One particularly galling issue for the Japanese is the matter of "host
nation support," or "the sympathy budget," which amounts to between $3
billion and $4 billion per year."

Did you miss that part? You do seem particularly galled. I'll grant the
Japanese contribute more than most of the countries protected by the US.
The overall point remains. In matters of security and prescription
drugs, the US bears the burden. I'm not flagging your comments, but I can see why the moderators removed the last two.

Did you miss that part? You do seem particularly galled.

I'm not galled at all and no, I didn't miss it because I didn't feel like registering to read your link and signing in. That's not how it's done, sport.

The overall point remains. In matters of security and prescription drugs, the US bears the burden.

Of course it does despite being proven wrong.

Really
feel free to explain how I am incorrect

Not all people put profits first. Have some faith, many miracle drugs were produced before big pharma. Look at polio. Humanitarian work is prevalent throughout history despite the cynics and linear thinkers.

altruism is inconsistent, capitalism is a far more dependable system for advancement

If you are single minded, I suppose.

what single mindedness name an alternative system that has consitantly delivered such results

No it isn't. Capitalism is far more likely to produce snake oil than to produce a miracle cure. But you can bet it will market the snake oil as a miracle.

Altruism will produce miracles and give them to those in need. It won't produce offal and call it gold.