|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
They give the impression that they don't care. The focus seems to me to be on
profit and dividends.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
>Before Indian companies rolled out generic versions priced at $1 a day, AIDS
medication cost about $10,000 per person per year.
I'm with India on this. Each country has its own responsibility for balancing
antitrust law against encouraging the useful arts. The U.S., in its early years,
simply didn't give copyright protection to books UNLESS they were printed,
TIMELY, IN the U.S.--none of that "regional release schedule garbage"
was tolerated. And with good reason and with altogether good results. Now the
U.S. doesn't need that anymore (it thinks)--and perhaps India will want to
develop its own medical research industry some future day. Their call.
But why does Huffington Post have to be so dishonest with figures even when
they're RIGHT? Is dishonesty more important to them than every other possible
consideration?
The statement compares $1 to $10,000 -- why? wouldn't it be more useful to
convert the units than to force every reader to do the math? Well, yes, UNLESS
you were hoping that some readers wouldn't do the math and get a wrong
impression.
But the right impression is shocking enough--$1 a day versus $300 a day--if in
fact even that's a fair comparison. Now I wonder if the Huffing Posters are
comparing the cost of only one medicine, when the daily cost involved several,
or dozens, of different medicines? Once that question is raised, I do notice
that they don't mention the name of the medicine, to make any kind of fact
checking more difficult.
I dunno what will happen come the revolution. But I know that journalists die
too. And I have a theory about what happens then, involving mendacity, lakes,
and combustible materials.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|