Why A Deadly Virus Spreading Rapidly In Prisons Has America Looking To Netflix For The Answer
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
NekoShey
Honestly, I don't know how so many people can see this issue as black and white like many in the comments here do. This is a pretty complex situation, both logistically and ethically. Villanizing the company for wanting to make profit is ignorant of the reality that we don't live in in altruistic world. I mean, if you've ever decided to own something you didn't need, or spent your time doing what you wanted to do instead of volunteering for a good cause, then you know why first hand. Humanity isn't always about helping others, and being selfless 100% of the time -- that would actually be pretty miserable for everyone. People have a right to want more than they need, and that includes those who research vital medical science. But at the same time, the company probably doesn't need to charge as much as they do. Or even if they did, it begs the conundrum of a question of what benefits humanity more: using the profit made to fund the potential of future medical research that may further improve / cure something else? Or curing all the people that we can right now, but hindering our progress on research? Furthermore, there's also the question of one's own personal morality: is it better to have someone that produces fast results, but for non-altruistic reasons? Or someone that produces slow results, but for wholly altruistic reasons? I really don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this kind of thing. Both sides have beneficial and harmful aspects, so it's really up to one's own personal opinion.
reply
Honestly, I don't know how so many people can see this issue as black and white like many in the comments here do. This is a pretty complex situation, both logistically and ethically. Villanizing the company for wanting to make profit is ignorant of the reality that we don't live in in altruistic world. I mean, if you've ever decided to own something you didn't need, or spent your time doing what you wanted to do instead of volunteering for a good cause, then you know why first hand. Humanity isn't always about helping others, and being selfless 100% of the time -- that would actually be pretty miserable for everyone. People have a right to want more than they need, and that includes those who research vital medical science. But at the same time, the company probably doesn't need to charge as much as they do. Or even if they did, it begs the conundrum of a question of what benefits humanity more: using the profit made to fund the potential of future medical research that may further improve / cure something else? Or curing all the people that we can right now, but hindering our progress on research? Furthermore, there's also the question of one's own personal morality: is it better to have someone that produces fast results, but for non-altruistic reasons? Or someone that produces slow results, but for wholly altruistic reasons? I really don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this kind of thing. Both sides have beneficial and harmful aspects, so it's really up to one's own personal opinion.
reply
Corey Slade
So, I used to work as a Program Specialist for Gilead's Hep C Patient Assistance Program. While I have no argument that the prices are not absurd, it's an important part of the picture to know that if you make under 100, 000/year, have no insurance, and are currently in the US (no residency or green card or anything like that required, just an address, you can apply for the Patient Assistance Program, and you will receive the medications completely free of charge. If you do have insurance then they will help you jump through the hoops to get Prior Authorizations approved, and then provide copay coupons worth around 32, 000 (x2) and if that doesn't cover your co-pays then they will help you get additional assistance from a few non-profit charities that will cover the rest. And if you don't qualify because you make too much money, they'll help you find a new insurance plan that will cover it. Now, all that being said, this program does not cover anyone who is incarcerated, specifically because the government will pay for it and that policy is clearly there to put pressure on the government to create programs like the Netflix style one they mentioned here. It is readily apparent that the government isn't paying for those patients, so more often than not they are applying for the program after they are released, but that leaves countless people slipping through the cracks. I'm glad the various state governments are stepping up, but it really never should have been an issue in the first place.
reply
So, I used to work as a Program Specialist for Gilead's Hep C Patient Assistance Program. While I have no argument that the prices are not absurd, it's an important part of the picture to know that if you make under 100, 000/year, have no insurance, and are currently in the US (no residency or green card or anything like that required, just an address, you can apply for the Patient Assistance Program, and you will receive the medications completely free of charge. If you do have insurance then they will help you jump through the hoops to get Prior Authorizations approved, and then provide copay coupons worth around 32, 000 (x2) and if that doesn't cover your co-pays then they will help you get additional assistance from a few non-profit charities that will cover the rest. And if you don't qualify because you make too much money, they'll help you find a new insurance plan that will cover it. Now, all that being said, this program does not cover anyone who is incarcerated, specifically because the government will pay for it and that policy is clearly there to put pressure on the government to create programs like the Netflix style one they mentioned here. It is readily apparent that the government isn't paying for those patients, so more often than not they are applying for the program after they are released, but that leaves countless people slipping through the cracks. I'm glad the various state governments are stepping up, but it really never should have been an issue in the first place.
reply
Call Me Mom
Just because something exists does not mean that every individual who needs it is entitled to receive it. The point of a business is to make money. When you say that making money is evil because someone is making money by providing a good or service that is valuable, and imply that they should give it away for free, you aren't helping anyone. This company developed a CURE for a deadly disease. How many years of research went into that cure? How many clinical trials and investigations and government hoops did they have to jump through to get that cure approved? That wasn't free. Good medical researchers are pricey. Maybe the ones we should be demonizing is us. Stop companies from having stockholders who need to be paid so that actual owners could make decisions on pricing without factoring in their duty to the stockholders. Oh wait, then they might not have the money to develop such cures. Hmmmm, gosh, looks like the way to go is the way we have gone.
reply
Just because something exists does not mean that every individual who needs it is entitled to receive it. The point of a business is to make money. When you say that making money is evil because someone is making money by providing a good or service that is valuable, and imply that they should give it away for free, you aren't helping anyone. This company developed a CURE for a deadly disease. How many years of research went into that cure? How many clinical trials and investigations and government hoops did they have to jump through to get that cure approved? That wasn't free. Good medical researchers are pricey. Maybe the ones we should be demonizing is us. Stop companies from having stockholders who need to be paid so that actual owners could make decisions on pricing without factoring in their duty to the stockholders. Oh wait, then they might not have the money to develop such cures. Hmmmm, gosh, looks like the way to go is the way we have gone.
reply
fuzzybeatle
Im an R&D chemist at a pharma company, and I just want to throw out there that companies put in BILLIONS of dollars into R&D. The odds of a drug even making it from research to market are slim. Many times companies but billions in and the drug doesnt make it. There is an incredible amount of work that goes into it. Of course from a pharma perspective they need to make the money back that they lost. Now I agree that there comes a point where its straight up greed. Its unfortunate that the US is placed with the burden of subsidizing R&D while other countries pay little to nothing. But theres a point where the govt needs to step in and negotiate prices, or insurances need to step in. Or maybe other countries need to pay more. Or maybe the US needs to put restrictions on marketing, since some pharma companies spend even more on marketing than R&D. All in all its much more complicated than just straight up greed but greed is definitely there.
reply
Im an R&D chemist at a pharma company, and I just want to throw out there that companies put in BILLIONS of dollars into R&D. The odds of a drug even making it from research to market are slim. Many times companies but billions in and the drug doesnt make it. There is an incredible amount of work that goes into it. Of course from a pharma perspective they need to make the money back that they lost. Now I agree that there comes a point where its straight up greed. Its unfortunate that the US is placed with the burden of subsidizing R&D while other countries pay little to nothing. But theres a point where the govt needs to step in and negotiate prices, or insurances need to step in. Or maybe other countries need to pay more. Or maybe the US needs to put restrictions on marketing, since some pharma companies spend even more on marketing than R&D. All in all its much more complicated than just straight up greed but greed is definitely there.
reply
Julian De La Calzada
Julian De La CalzadaPhil, I usually hit the like button on every one of your videos, but I couldn't this time. What you said at the end of video was EXTREMELY misleading. Gilead is NOT limiting access to the drug heartlessly. They priced the drug in a logical and fair manner based on the alternative of not treating or sub-optimally treating Hep C and the fact that their drug is a CURE. Simply put, it costs billions of dollars and up to 10 years to get a single drug approved as prescription drug in the US (and that's after a drug has been discovered. That's just one drug And those costs don't include all the failed R&D a pharma company has experienced. A cure is CURE and I think it's absolutely fair for a drug company to recoup its costs and make some profit. That being said I think Gilead should absolutely make deals with state and local governments to provide the drug cheaper to inmates so I truly hope that's their next move.
reply
Julian De La CalzadaPhil, I usually hit the like button on every one of your videos, but I couldn't this time. What you said at the end of video was EXTREMELY misleading. Gilead is NOT limiting access to the drug heartlessly. They priced the drug in a logical and fair manner based on the alternative of not treating or sub-optimally treating Hep C and the fact that their drug is a CURE. Simply put, it costs billions of dollars and up to 10 years to get a single drug approved as prescription drug in the US (and that's after a drug has been discovered. That's just one drug And those costs don't include all the failed R&D a pharma company has experienced. A cure is CURE and I think it's absolutely fair for a drug company to recoup its costs and make some profit. That being said I think Gilead should absolutely make deals with state and local governments to provide the drug cheaper to inmates so I truly hope that's their next move.
reply
Daenerys Stormborn
My mother (who has never been a prisoner) had Hep C. She had it for over 20 years. She was cured about 10 years ago with interferon (once daily shots in the stomach. It was the most harrowing year we've been through, as it caused her to have extreme depression and suicidal thoughts. Almost weekly I would have to go to her, or have her come to my house because she would talk about driving her car off the road, or something similar. Thankfully, even though they doctors gave her a 20-40% chance of being cured (because hers was one of the more resistant types, she was cured, and the damage to her liver has reversed. I was incredibly excited when I read that there were new, better, and more effective treatments now, as I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what we did.
reply
My mother (who has never been a prisoner) had Hep C. She had it for over 20 years. She was cured about 10 years ago with interferon (once daily shots in the stomach. It was the most harrowing year we've been through, as it caused her to have extreme depression and suicidal thoughts. Almost weekly I would have to go to her, or have her come to my house because she would talk about driving her car off the road, or something similar. Thankfully, even though they doctors gave her a 20-40% chance of being cured (because hers was one of the more resistant types, she was cured, and the damage to her liver has reversed. I was incredibly excited when I read that there were new, better, and more effective treatments now, as I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what we did.
reply
SynonymandIcecream
It was stated that an Egyptian could not buy the drug on the black market. Nor could the government allow it to be on the black market. So couldn't possibly be that an Egyptian who has the drug legally goes to another country and either hands it over or sells it to another country to make a false version or a fake composite of the same drug just name it differently and sell it for a cheaper amount? Didn't we already have this problem with one guy holding a drug hostage for people that needed it? I know in that case it was because he was a chronic disease and you can't really necessarily cure it. But, wasn't he charged for over expense on a drug which you could get somewhere else for cheaper when he blew it out of proportion on the expense.
reply
It was stated that an Egyptian could not buy the drug on the black market. Nor could the government allow it to be on the black market. So couldn't possibly be that an Egyptian who has the drug legally goes to another country and either hands it over or sells it to another country to make a false version or a fake composite of the same drug just name it differently and sell it for a cheaper amount? Didn't we already have this problem with one guy holding a drug hostage for people that needed it? I know in that case it was because he was a chronic disease and you can't really necessarily cure it. But, wasn't he charged for over expense on a drug which you could get somewhere else for cheaper when he blew it out of proportion on the expense.
reply
SilverOwl13
One of my uncles was a prison guard and he ended up getting exposed to Hep. C infected blood whilst breaking up a fight between inmates. His treatment and cure were paid for, but it had done so much damage to his liver by then that he required a full liver transplant, so he has to take expensive anti-rejection meds. My other uncle was an inmate and drug addict, he died from acute Hep. C. My aunt got Hep. C from her job in a hospital when a needle was improperly disposed of and ended up in the laundry, where she was stuck with the needle as she was putting the laundry in the machines (or, at least this is what she claims, but my trust of her has deteriorated over the years. She's fine, but she still has the disease.
reply
One of my uncles was a prison guard and he ended up getting exposed to Hep. C infected blood whilst breaking up a fight between inmates. His treatment and cure were paid for, but it had done so much damage to his liver by then that he required a full liver transplant, so he has to take expensive anti-rejection meds. My other uncle was an inmate and drug addict, he died from acute Hep. C. My aunt got Hep. C from her job in a hospital when a needle was improperly disposed of and ended up in the laundry, where she was stuck with the needle as she was putting the laundry in the machines (or, at least this is what she claims, but my trust of her has deteriorated over the years. She's fine, but she still has the disease.
reply
Joshua Taylor
The solution is to protect property rights and let companies and people make money on things they invent. The US government should protect US companies property and step in when other countrys deny patents and allow our citizens and corporations to be robbed because they dont want to pay for medicine that would not even be there if not for the US and its industry. Eventually these patents expire and allow access for the masses. You may think its compassion to help Jack get his hep C treatment by stealing the profits from big Pharma, not realizing your condemning Jill to death Ten years down the road because that same Pharma company didnt have the funds to research cures for her disease.
reply
The solution is to protect property rights and let companies and people make money on things they invent. The US government should protect US companies property and step in when other countrys deny patents and allow our citizens and corporations to be robbed because they dont want to pay for medicine that would not even be there if not for the US and its industry. Eventually these patents expire and allow access for the masses. You may think its compassion to help Jack get his hep C treatment by stealing the profits from big Pharma, not realizing your condemning Jill to death Ten years down the road because that same Pharma company didnt have the funds to research cures for her disease.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
19:58
13:47
14:24
17:20
16:13