Question about distribution

[Bilan]

So, I was talking to a friend of mine at a party not long ago, and he claims to be a Libertarian (in the capitalist sense), and he asked me a question of which, I did not really know how to answer (and one he didn't have an answer for, from a capitalist position, of which he could argue for without sounding like a prick [his words]).

The question was along the lines of, how can medicine and research into medicine be carried out if only a minority of the population needs it, whilst the majorities needs are being served.
For example, say 1% of the population had AIDS, and a much larger amount had Cancer, but such amount that all the research labs (and so on) were being used to try and eradicate cancer.
He said, Capitalism has an easy solution which is telling that 1% to fuck off (something he didn't particularly like).
How can socialists over come such an issue?

[lvleph]

Well, medical advances are made by Doctors, in many cases, because they are interested in the research. It is just like any other science. People are interested in something so they study it. Scientists don't expect to get rich off their work, but that is not why we do it. Also, since things are not profit driven it shouldn't be so hard to obtain the resources to research what one feels like researching. In many cases a scientist is interested in something, but cannot obtain money to research it so they move on to something else until they can obtain the money.

[blackstone]

Diego Abad de Santillan, in his work After the Revolution, notes, "There will be no private doctors, since the entire profession will be at the service of all. They will be incorporated, however, along with dentists, pharmacists, etc., in respective Councils and form similar organizations as in other branches. The Council of Sanitation will create schools and research institutions, and will also take care of public health in the cities and in the country."

A revolution in which society is reorganized where the people are in control must remedy issues regarding distribution. It can do so by providing an alternative economy. One where there is equal distribution of health services and resources being made to the whole population of a given community.

A participatory economy, for example,allows each person a say in what is produced, what means are used, and how outputs are allocated, all in proportion to the degree he or she is affected by those decisions.

What does that mean in practice? That means that the 1% of the population suffering from AIDS have a say in how many resources are allocated towards Health care or health services and what drugs and care are being produced just like the part of the population suffering from Cancer. So while in your friends scenario,the 1% are ignored, in ours, 1%'s needs are directly influencing how resources are being allocated in the Health sphere. Meaning, they will get medicine just like the Cancer patients and research will be done to eradicate HIV just as research will be done to eradicate Cancer.

But, consumer bargaining power is not the only reason why products are made to the population, but also the prices. High prices are rooted in many reasons, one is patents.

When Brazil started ignoring patents and manufacturing generic (non-brand) drugs themselves, the price of anti-HIV cocktail therapy plummeted from $10,000 to only $300 a year, over 80%, slashing the number of deaths from the illness.

Big Pharma vs generics

Cost of daily dose of patented vs generic fluconazole *, June *000(7)

Guatemala $27.60
(Pfizer patent)
USA $12.20
(pfizer patent)
Spain $10.57
(Pfizer patent)
Kenva $10.50
(Pfizer patent)
South Africa $8.25
(Pfizer patent)
India $ .64
(Cipla generic)
Thailand $ .29
(Biolab generic)
The price in Guatemala is $27.60(Pfizer patent) but in Thailand, a generic brand is .29!

Capitalists drive for profit tells the 1% to fuck off, since products in a libertarian communist society or libertarian socialist societ produces goods for need not for profit, we produce in regard to those needs.

[Bilan]

Thanks very much for clearing that up.