decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
But the US doesn't even supply basic preventative medicine. | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
US vs. Rwanda
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 07:43 PM EDT
When someone points to Rwanda their key point is "more Rwandans got basic health care than Americans." Sure Catholic Charities could step up and fill the void here at home, rather than the void in say, Malawi. Is that their charter? What does even the suggestion say of us?

For instance.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • US vs. Rwanda - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT
    • US vs. Rwanda - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 01:38 PM EDT
US vs. Rwanda
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 09:01 PM EDT
What i can't understand is how drugs are developed with huge tax dollars
(R&D concessions) being piped to the drug companies themselves, yet when a
drug is finally released to market, a $0.10 tablet costs the earth. (and the
drug companies use international trade agreements to change state laws and
increase drug costs for that countries population).

Really i'd love to see some real data on the where the development cost for a
drug actually comes from as i suspect much/most of it comes from the state yet
much/most of the profit goes to private corporations.

If indeed much/most of the development costs come from the state, this would
support a mandate for much cheaper drugs which would raise the bar of basic
health care accordingly and thus provide a better return for all the state
invested R&D tax concessions.

It may be that a focus on basic health care is the correct approach. Technology
should the be used to raise the bar but not the cost.

We all want to live long and prosper but to try and cheat death is a loosing
game, and we all loose at the end. But the current game just makes the drug
companies very very rich in the process (which is aided funded by the state) and
one has to wonder whether the current system of drug development is indeed a
fair one.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

US vs. Rwanda
Authored by: mpellatt on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 02:42 AM EDT
Indeed.

My wife has recently had a procedure where the surgeon made use of a product called Strattice (google it and you'l soon work out the condition she (hopefully) had).

Here we know little of the cost of the treatments we have, but it's clear from the USA-based support fora that this product costs many thousands of dollars. I guess, if you have early breast cancer diagnosed in Ruanda (how ??) then reconstruction is unlikely to be an option.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

But the US doesn't even supply basic preventative medicine.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT
So, you know.... why hot?

And Catholic Charities doesn't WANT to supply basic preventative medicine,
because that might involve not forcing women to die in pregnancy, and the
Catholic Church is all about forcing women to die in pregnancy. So that's not
really an option either....

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )