This is my second article on my experiences as a self employed person on a low income on the government’s abysmal Universal Credit (UC) ‘social security’ programme. When writing my first article, it was even a surprise to me just how many examples of incompetence I had experienced in only around 7 months as a claimant. Perhaps, then, I shouldn’t be surprised that in the following 6 months I’ve experienced so much more incompetence that it justifies writing a second article. The main issues I have faced are due to the process of transferring from the ‘Live Service’ which I was on in Sheffield, to the new and improved ‘Full Service’ here in Oldham. Additionally, as I’ve been self employed for over a year, I have been introduced to a new kind of sanction called the ‘Minimum Income Floor’ (MIF). Transferring from the ‘Live Service’ to the ‘Full Service’ A few days before moving house in September, I had a mandatory work coach meeting at the Job Centre. I used it to explain that ...
(Article originally written in 2015)
It seems to me that one of the worst things that could possibly be capitalist owned is the pharmaceutical industry.
“The global pharmaceuticals market is worth US$300 billion a year, a figure expected to rise to US$400 billion within three years. The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year” - WHO (link broken)
That’s $300 billion a year being made through the exploitation of people’s illness and need for medicine. The NHS, a supposedly publicly owned institution, is the only major customer of the pharmaceutical industry in the UK: and therefore is effectively private by proxy. When a doctor gives you a prescription they are effectively advertising the product of a private company, and putting money in that company’s pocket.
A publicly owned pharmaceutical industry would be better not only for the citizens of the UK, but for the entire world.
But how would this come about?
1) The government uses treasury funds to set up a publicly owned, not-for-profit company producing medicine that the NHS needs, as well as over-the-counter products such as paracetamol, anti-histamines and aspirin.The NHS will receive the products for free, but this will still save money; as the amount spent will only be the production costs of the medicine, and not the added profit margin. Over the counter products will be sold much more cheaply, and workers producing the medicine will be paid far better than their private counterparts.
2) This will encourage workers to seek employment in the public factories, and consumers to purchase the public medicine. In response, private companies will be forced to reduce their prices and increase their wages; simultaneously improving conditions for their workers, improving value for money for the consumer, and reducing their profitability.
3) The public pharmaceutical will have no interest in profit, however, and can continue to reduce prices while increasing wages, all the while building more factories and increasing production. Eventually the privately owned exploiters will shrink, as their desire for profit will make them unable to compete with a company that has no interest other than what is best for the people.
4) The publicly owned pharmaceutical industry will be further funded by overseas sales to other health services, allowing it to expand further.
As a not-for-profit, every penny made by this company would be reinvested into itself: paying good wages, providing good pensions, researching how to tackle diseases, and expanding its production; as opposed to a for-profit, which puts its share-holders first and foremost.
The NHS will no longer be a slave to pharmaceutical companies, and the ability to cure and vaccinate against illnesses will no longer be based on the perceived profitability of producing the cure or vaccine.
Supposedly the vaccine for Ebola should arrive in autumn; but this raises the question that if a vaccine can arrive by autumn, why didn’t it arrive last year, or the year before, and begin a programme of vaccination before the possibility of an epidemic arrived. The answer is simple: because the countries effected couldn’t afford to buy the vaccine, and now that western nations are at risk, the ears of the pharmaceutical industry are well and truly pricked up.
Our very survival as a species is in the hands of a few enormous businesses! When avian flu emerged in South-East Asia we were forced to spend tax-payer’s money on thousands of doses of tami-flu (the trade name for “Oseltamivir”) out of fear; meaning that a single company (ed. a company chaired by Donald Rumsfeld) profited greatly from a pandemic that failed to materialise. If we had our own public pharmaceutical company, we would be poised to respond to such risks immediately and cheaply, and, even outside the extreme scenario of a pandemic, to vary our production based on the current needs of the country.
With publicly owned pharma, vaccines and medicine could be produced as a standard part of international aid, and diseases could be wiped out much more effectively. While at the moment it is in fact profitable for diseases to continue to propagate.
Many people could be employed in this country in the production of medicine, and paid generously, while potentially saving money for the treasury and reducing the deficit.
“The global pharmaceuticals market is worth US$300 billion a year, a figure expected to rise to US$400 billion within three years. The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year” - WHO (link broken)
That’s $300 billion a year being made through the exploitation of people’s illness and need for medicine. The NHS, a supposedly publicly owned institution, is the only major customer of the pharmaceutical industry in the UK: and therefore is effectively private by proxy. When a doctor gives you a prescription they are effectively advertising the product of a private company, and putting money in that company’s pocket.
A publicly owned pharmaceutical industry would be better not only for the citizens of the UK, but for the entire world.
But how would this come about?
1) The government uses treasury funds to set up a publicly owned, not-for-profit company producing medicine that the NHS needs, as well as over-the-counter products such as paracetamol, anti-histamines and aspirin.The NHS will receive the products for free, but this will still save money; as the amount spent will only be the production costs of the medicine, and not the added profit margin. Over the counter products will be sold much more cheaply, and workers producing the medicine will be paid far better than their private counterparts.
2) This will encourage workers to seek employment in the public factories, and consumers to purchase the public medicine. In response, private companies will be forced to reduce their prices and increase their wages; simultaneously improving conditions for their workers, improving value for money for the consumer, and reducing their profitability.
3) The public pharmaceutical will have no interest in profit, however, and can continue to reduce prices while increasing wages, all the while building more factories and increasing production. Eventually the privately owned exploiters will shrink, as their desire for profit will make them unable to compete with a company that has no interest other than what is best for the people.
4) The publicly owned pharmaceutical industry will be further funded by overseas sales to other health services, allowing it to expand further.
As a not-for-profit, every penny made by this company would be reinvested into itself: paying good wages, providing good pensions, researching how to tackle diseases, and expanding its production; as opposed to a for-profit, which puts its share-holders first and foremost.
The NHS will no longer be a slave to pharmaceutical companies, and the ability to cure and vaccinate against illnesses will no longer be based on the perceived profitability of producing the cure or vaccine.
Supposedly the vaccine for Ebola should arrive in autumn; but this raises the question that if a vaccine can arrive by autumn, why didn’t it arrive last year, or the year before, and begin a programme of vaccination before the possibility of an epidemic arrived. The answer is simple: because the countries effected couldn’t afford to buy the vaccine, and now that western nations are at risk, the ears of the pharmaceutical industry are well and truly pricked up.
Our very survival as a species is in the hands of a few enormous businesses! When avian flu emerged in South-East Asia we were forced to spend tax-payer’s money on thousands of doses of tami-flu (the trade name for “Oseltamivir”) out of fear; meaning that a single company (ed. a company chaired by Donald Rumsfeld) profited greatly from a pandemic that failed to materialise. If we had our own public pharmaceutical company, we would be poised to respond to such risks immediately and cheaply, and, even outside the extreme scenario of a pandemic, to vary our production based on the current needs of the country.
With publicly owned pharma, vaccines and medicine could be produced as a standard part of international aid, and diseases could be wiped out much more effectively. While at the moment it is in fact profitable for diseases to continue to propagate.
Many people could be employed in this country in the production of medicine, and paid generously, while potentially saving money for the treasury and reducing the deficit.
Comments
Post a Comment