The Cost Of Treatment

3D Model of HIV VirusIt’s a pretty good time in the fight against AIDS. A recent study showed that a daily pill, Gilead Science’s Truvada, which already on pharmacy shelves as a HIV treatment could actually help prevent new HIV infections.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine was conducted on 2499 men at 11 sites in six countries: Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand and the United States.

Gilead Science's TruvadaDiligent use of the medication (90%+ daily usage) resulted in a 73% reduction in infection rates over the course of the year-long study. Quite surprisingly, even lackadaisical usage ( 50% daily usage) resulted in a 50% drop in infection rates among the men in the study.

It’s a fact of life, however, that such treatments and potential prophylactics come at a cost.

Associated Press via Yahoo News:

Because Truvada is already on the market, the CDC is rushing to develop guidelines for doctors who want to use it to prevent HIV, and urged people to wait until those are ready.

As a practical matter, price could limit use. The pills cost $5,000 to $14,000 a year in the United States, but roughly $140 a year in some poor countries where they are sold in generic form.

Whether insurers or government health programs should pay for them is one of the tough issues to be sorted out, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

So there’s a median cost of $10,000 per annum in America and $140 per annum in the Third World. That’s approximately a 7,150% variance in price between what Americans must pay for drug and what Third Worlders and/or the various institutions helping them in their fight against HIV / AIDS must pay!

Hellfire! In Uganda where’s there’s a shortage of Truvada, there’s a black market for the drug and, even at black market prices, the cost is only approximately $720 per annum ($2 / dose).

Why is there such a discrepancy and inequality in pricing for this drug? Why is it that Americans with HIV already have to pay such comparatively high prices for Truvada as a treatment?

Big Pharma’s Greed

Is the inequality of costs based upon the greed of the pharmaceutical companies? That’s a seductively easy answer, and one that anyone who studied healthcare costs during the battles over ObamaCare would have to say is not totally without merit.

Yet that would fully explain the degree of inequality in pricing. Given US foreign aid and American based NGOs continued widespread assistance to the Third World’s struggle against HIV /AIDS, one would reasonably expect higher prices than what are being experienced. “Charge all that the market will bear” is an axiom but the market would not, in truth, be the Third World; it would still be America in the form of our federal government and our various charities.

Eating The Rich

An alternative theory would be that the inequality in pricing is based upon some form of ethnoguiltism- and/or oikophobia-driven class warfare which causes our own people to be charged what seems to exorbitant amounts of money in order to subsidize the nearly free care provided to the the Third World.

This is not as easy or pat an answer as corporate greed, but it’s not, in any way shape or form, without merit. We’ve seen this neo-Socialist mindset many times before – in the details of the AGW movement, in ObamaCare itself, in most things billed as “Social Justice,” and in just about anything involving “spreading the wealth.”

Intellectual Miscegenation

A third and, to my mind, more probable hypothesis is, “Why Chose?” I find it likely that the reasons for this disparity between what Americans must pay for treatment vs. what the populace of  the Third World must pay is based upon some misborn hybridization – mongrelization really – of the first two possibilities.

Gilead Science, the makers of Truvada, and the other pharmaceutical companies are private sector firms and, hence, profit-driven. Their investors and shareholders are expecting and demanding positive returns on their investments from these companies. When you factor in the broad use of health insurance, it would be – or should be – expected that they would maximize their returns by charging Americans as much as they could manage to do.

At the same time they well might feel the moral and/or – yes, it could be both – public relations need to provide very low-cost medicine for the rest of the world’s poor.

This would cause an intrinsic conflict with their investors and stockholders who want and/or need these companies to focus on profits and market cap so as to maximize the  investors’ returns. Charity and profits rarely go hand in hand after all.

Therefor, somebody has to pay for this charity, and who better to pay than the American people? After all, we’re all wealthy and we all owe restitution and reparations to the Third World for that fact – or so those of a common mindset keep claiming.

My Thoughts On The Matter

I care about the reason why there’s such a discrepancy and inequality in the pricing of Truvada only insofar as discovering those reasons would be the first step towards correcting what I see as a problem. I don’t even care that much in particular about Truvada or any other of the antiretroviral drug cocktails used to combat HIV / AIDS; the disease doesn’t, despite it’s being an ongoing cause celebre,  affect near as many people – by whole orders of magnitude – than other, less “popular” diseases.

Yet, Truvada’s pricing model is indicative of the entirety of current medical science and technology, especially pharmaceutical science. Americans, rich and poor alike, pay far higher costs than what is charged to the Third World and that just doesn’t seem right.

NOTE: Don’t bother coming here and ranting about how it’s the fault of America’s for-profit health insurance industry; I’ve little tolerance for foolishness and even less for the fools themselves.

The costs of the medicines and procedures are the costs the medicines and procedures. Health insurance, whether it be private, public, or single-payer only spreads out those costs among a pool of payers; it doesn’t positively change the costs themselves.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Absolutely Not

I’m a big fan of vodka; it’s one of my preferred spirits. There is one brand, however, that despite its quality, reasonable price, and easy availability that I do not purchase nor allow my family to do so – not that they would in the first place. That is Absolut, which was once one of my staple brands of vodka. The reason for my boycott is clear and simple:

If in an “Absolut World” Atzlan has completed it Reconquista of the American Southwest, or even if they just thought that such an ad was appropriate to use in Mexico then they are the enemies of America.

Since I do not lend aid and comfort to the enemy, I do not purchase their products and encourage all other Americans to do the same.

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

— Edmund Burke
The Yale Book of Quotations

Treason takes many forms, not all of which are obvious. One of the worst and easiest to commit is lending tacit support to America’s foreign or domestic enemies by doing any form of business with them whatsoever or lending them any aid or support even by proxy.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down. 😉

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

Excuse Me, Felipe?

Felipe Calderon, Failed President of the Failed Nation of MexicoApparently Felipe Calderon, the largely ineffectual President of the failed state of Mexico is feeling his machismo in the wake of the accommodating response by President Obama and the Congressional Democrats to his recent jabbering rant in DC about Arizona’s new immigration laws.

Like so many Mexicans he seems to believe that the United States is Atzlan’s La Provincia del Norte.

The Mexican Embassy to the United States has released A statement of their demands and expectations for the use of our National Guard soldiery within our borders:

Washington D.C, May 25th, 2010

Regarding the Administration’s decision to send 1,200 National Guard servicemen to the US Southern border, the Government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional US resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt.

Additionally, the Government of Mexico expects that National Guard personnel will strengthen US operations in the fight against transnational organized crime that operates on both sides of our common border and that it will not, in accordance to its legal obligations, conduct activities directly linked to the enforcement of immigration laws.

Mexico is determined to continue working on its side of the border to enhance the security and well-being of border communities, and to deter and dismantle organized crime and its links to drug trafficking and human smuggling.

As part of our joint strategy in the fight against transnational organized crime, there are actions that our two governments have undertaken together, and there are other measures taken independently by Mexico and by the US within their respective territories. In this regard, the Mexican Government fully respects the sovereign decisions of the US Government, but underscores that joint responsibility must continue to underpin our joint efforts in rolling-back transnational organized crime operating on both sides of the border.

Firstly – it is rarely, if ever, a good idea for the government of one nation to attempt to dictate to another sovereign state how they will deploy and use their own troops within in their own borders to secure that border. This is especially true of any attempt to dictate such terms to a nation that can, at whim or will, raze your country to the ground and has certain empirical reasons for doing so already.

Secondly – The Mexican government has already failed. The cartels control more of the country than the government does and are filled with members of the Mexican army who decided that outright banditry and the drug trade were more profitable than the normal graft and corruption commonplace in Mexico. The Mexican government’s only hope of survival is US intervention. It’s just plain stupid to piss off the people who you need to save your filthy asses.

Third and finally – Felipe’s head is swelling up too big for his sombrero if he think he has right or privilege to speak to his betters in that fashion or to have his subordinates do so for him. He need to correct that failing pronto before an American decides to let the gas out of his head with .338 Lapua or .50 BMG round.

~*~

Mantenga sus ojos abiertos. Viaje ligero pero pesado de carga, y siempre dicho de otra bala en el enemigo una vez que estás abajo. 😉

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

Squawking The Squawk

President Obama, Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and Zelaya certainly seem to be birds of a feather. Or, at least, President Obama is good at squawking the squawk of a Socialist or Communist dictator.

Obama, Castro, Chavez, Ortega, - Birds of a Feather
Obama, Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and Zelaya – Birds of a Feather

On Tuesday, June 30, 2009, under the direction of President Obama, the United States co-sponsored legislation with Marxist regimes of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia in solidarity with- and support of the recently ousted Socialist leader and would-be Leftist dictator Manuel Zelaya of Honduras.

As reported by The Hill:

The U.S. co-sponsored a successful U.N. resolution supporting Honduras’s ousted leader Tuesday as Republicans began to speak out against the Obama administration’s condemnation of the overthrow.

Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested and forced into exile Sunday, addressed the U.N. General Assembly after the unanimous vote on the resolution sponsored in part by Bolivia, Mexico, Venezuela and the United States.

“The resolution that the United Nations has just adopted unanimously … expresses the indignation of the people of Honduras and the people worldwide,” said Zelaya, who began his speech by thanking Venezuela and Ecuador.

President Obama, meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on Monday, said the U.S. would “stand with democracy” in the face of the overthrow.

H/T to Gateway Pundit

Those were very stirring words spewing from Obama’s mouth. He’s standing with democracy in the face of a military coup. That sounds so American. It’s a shame for America that these words are, like most of what issues from Obama’s craw, lies and falsehoods.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |