Living overseas, uninsured.. Treatment options?

[Inchlingblue]

they are too breaking US law - US patent laws.

Stealing someone's product, producing it yourself, and selling it in another country doesn't make the theft legal.

They are not breaking US patent laws if India is not a party to patent treaties. They are operating legally.

[RapidRod]

No, but when it comes to lifesaving medicine the cost should be what it takes to manufacture and ship the drug to you, not to be gouged for as much as you're able to pay.  I've already stated earlier in this thread how I feel about all this I was just pointing out that while it may be against US law, this company isn't operating in the US and it also isn't even putting a dent in Gilead's profits.

But if someone in Indiia needs some cash and steals your money then you shouldn't have a problem with it. It's okay to do that because you have the money they don't have and you more than likely. can work a little harder to replace what was taken.

[phildinftlaudy]

While I agree with US patent laws, they are just that - US patent laws - just like other countries have laws that we don't have here and we don't follow them, some countries don't acknowledge some of our laws.  The other point would be to change the patent laws in regards to life saving medications and put a cap on how much the price can be marked up (much like Rent Stabilization in NYC).  Is it fair to charge $55+ a pill for something that I have to take to stay alive?  Also, not saying that everyone who posted against the breaking of the patent laws is doing this but, it would be interesting to see how many of those who have taken such a strong stand against the "breaking of patent laws" have broken laws (i.e. smoking weed where illegal, speeding, theft of cable tv, sodomy [in states where it may have been at the time illegal] -- funny how the "breaking of laws" is subjective and dependent on which side of the fence one is on --- and I am saying this with myself in mind as well.  Our definition of many things tends to change depending on the circumstances that we find ourselves in - real or perceived.  (How was that to liven up an already lively conversation?)   

[Hellraiser]

But if someone in Indiia needs some cash and steals your money then you shouldn't have a problem with it. It's okay to do that because you have the money they don't have and you more than likely. can work a little harder to replace what was taken.

I'm a socialist at heart Rod, If say that person >Needed< the money for food or whatever I wouldn't sweat it unless I too needed the money for food, shelter, meds, etc...Actual theft for no reason other than material gain is something I would have a problem with.  Does that make you feel better?

[azprince]

I'm a socialist at heart Rod, 

I would like to greet your socialist heart; saying that I feel sad that people cant understand the logic that people who believe in social justice talk with ,  it seems as if we are from two different worlds; one more willing to listen to the concerns of human beings regardless of the interests of capitalists companies that are well protected in the law  and another group concerned about the ordinary individual who is suffering from the greed of rich firms... each only sees his group and defends them...
I hope everyone here is democratic enough to not be upset with me giving my opinion 

[LordBerners]

they are too breaking US law - US patent laws.

Stealing someone's product, producing it yourself, and selling it in another country doesn't make the theft legal.

Well actually it does, because law is just a thing imposed by a government, and the government in India is a different one from the one in the US.  Happily the latter does not quite dominate the entire globe (though nearly, obviously). 

I think it is worthwhile to remember that 'ownership' in the first place is a privilege granted by a government - it isn't some naturally existing situation.  For example the resources of society are marshaled under the control of a 'corporation' for the benefit of said corporation - brainy people are under the employ of said corporation and must produce products and profits for said corporation.. the products they produce are 'owned' because the State privileges the controllers of said corporation to control them.  The commoners must work to pay the corporation.  It is all in practice very similar to feudalism or aristocracy, and its all about power and control - all guaranteed by force (the state).  To pretend that this is a valid, 'natural', or 'free' arrangement and a different State-imposed arrangement is invalid (such as socialism), is baseless.  Property rights have no 'natural' or inherent validity - they are just a contingency of power.

Sorry for the digression.

To put it more practically - the profits of the barons of the drug industry are guaranteed precisely by their control of the US government.  If they want to exact the same sorts of profits in India, or Thailand, or Brazil, they must also control those governments.  Amazingly, they don't, for the moment.  But I think we need not lose too much sleep over their privilege, as they've got the biggest jurisdiction firmly in their pocket.

[Dachshund]

I'm a socialist at heart Rod, If say that person >Needed< the money for food or whatever I wouldn't sweat it unless I too needed the money for food, shelter, meds, etc...Actual theft for no reason other than material gain is something I would have a problem with.  Does that make you feel better?

Rod has no problem with socialism when it comes to Medicaid.

[RapidRod]

Rod has no problem with socialism when it comes to Medicaid.

Just keep yourself working.

[mecch]

This thread has completely changed its topic

[Dachshund]

Just keep yourself working.

Never fear comrade.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

                                                           Karl Marx

[RapidRod]

Never fear comrade.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

                                                           Karl Marx

Maybe one day I'll meet you and thank you personally. 

[natthai]

they are too breaking US law - US patent laws.

Stealing someone's product, producing it yourself, and selling it in another country doesn't make the theft legal.

There is a lot of confusion here over patents and what constitutes stealing or a violation. Several members mentioned very specifically that Cipla was stealing and breaking laws and this is patently untrue.

I hate to disagree with some of the members directly but I have recently studied up on this issue as my bf is a Thai pharmacist working for a US Pharmaceutical company and this is a big issue here now.

Legally there are no laws being broken here. Legally there is no stealing of US patents. US Patent law has clauses in it that address specific considerations. One such trade clause is called "Compulsory licensing". Specifically, it is an IP (intellectual property) agreement that allows poorer countries to produce lifesaving medicines where their native populations could not otherwise afford them. This is codified in WTO (World Trade Organization) IP agreements of which Thailand, India and the US are signatories. This is not a general principle as many posters are assuming, it is a specific and well defined trade treaty.

Thailand and India have recently invoked their legal right to compulsory licensing of certain ARVs. The US is very unhappy about this, the US Pharmaceutical industry is VERY unhappy about this. I have seen documents from one company discussing this issue at length. The US has put India and Thailand on "watch lists" and revoked their most favored trade partner status over the issue. These are repercussions that they are also legally allowed to take according to the same WTO agreements however, technically and legally, no laws were broken, nationally or internationally and no patents were broken.

If they were you can be very sure that the US would be enforcing international law to the fullest extent but the fact is that this specific clause does exist, developing countries can evoke it without violation any international laws or treaties (if they are brave enough).

Now of course you can debate about the consequences and morality of the issue but the fact is that at least in Thailand, as a result of Compulsory Licensing, the price of branded ARVs came down by several orders of magnitude as the companies had to compete against the the less expensive generics.

Not being American, what I find amusing is that Americans living abroad still have to pay income taxes to the US Federal government! This of course makes a lot of sense since they are of course benefiting and from and using all of those services that those taxes pay for... 

Here are two links that deal with the treaties directly:

General Patent law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license

Specific WTO treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights