Comment by zwetan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zwetan | Hacker News Reader

in France, in UK, and probably rest of Europe people with Type 1 and 2 diabetes are taken in charge 100%

that means whatever amount of insulin you need, you get it for free

and it's not only the insulin, it's also all the rest: test strips, glycemic reader, etc.

I'm pretty sure the article is wrong about

"had Type 2 diabetes for over 30 years. She takes several injections of insulin each day."

this more describe Type 1 situation

anyway, I'm pretty sure the price of insulin went up also in Europe, except the government paid the bill, not the patient, a bit more civilised but still the problem stay the same:

big pharma corporation are abusing the situation and make money from it, it is disgusting and criminal

first, about the patent and why there is no generic insulin, read http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/841669

second, most people are uneducated about diabetes, they think it concern only fat people or other countries, and other BS like that

nope, it is worldwide major public health problem, many studies show the amount of people with diabetes rising , for ex

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/health/research/global-dia...

"reported a 45 percent rise in the prevalence of diabetes worldwide from 1990 to 2013"

finally, why it is disgusting and criminal for pharma corp to make ppl pay for insulin ?

it as simple as that: if you don't take insulin you die, period.

It's not curable, there is no alternative diet, nothing, zilch, nada

and those big pharma corporation they made a business to profit from that, and when profit is not high enough, simple, raise the price.

Type 2 diabetics often progress to insulin treatment as their pancreas becomes exhausted and ceases proper function.

The low insulin sensitivity in type 2 means the pancreas produces large amounts of insulin in a futile attempt to reduce blood sugar. Initial treatments focus on insulin sensitizing agents to try and assist the natural insulin to be effective. Despite the amazing capabilities of the body, it eventually becomes too much and people have to start insulin replacement therapy at that point.

no problem, it's like the honey moon period for a type 1 patient

I was saying "maybe", in general I see type 2 ppl who are just on pills and have no need to take insulin, but yeah the diabetes can progress in different way, no problem with that

If you've had type 2 diabetes for more than 30 years, you may well be on insulin by now. Also, blaming big pharma for making people pay for insulin makes no sense. You can argue that they're charging too much, certainly, or that government should step in to pay for it. But arguing that they shouldn't make a profit? That's like blaming farmers for making a profit from farming. We all need food to live, but it's not their job to give me free food.

did you read the article about the patent and how insulin been discovered ?

here some quotes

"Insulin's Canadian discoverers sold the patent to their university for $1, stating that profit was not their goal."

"Discoverers Didn't Intend Insulin to Become a Profitable Monopoly"

so yeah I blame big pharma

they took over a cheap patent, made some modification and abused the patent system on a non-curable illness that affect more and more people

and when the profit is not enough, they raise the price

what's your arguments again ?

that they are entitled to makea profit ?

when they did not discovered or produced the original patent ?

are you saying that seriously ?

Is the currently produced insulin by 'big pharma' as you term them, significantly different from the original formulation?

If it is, then it cannot be termed abuse of the patent system.

If it is not, then our current situation can be termed a side-effect of a broken patent system.

Yet all that is orthogonal to the above poster. Even if pharmaceutical companies were only using the original formulation, they would still be entitled to make a profit under any capitalist mode of thought.

Simply because something is required for life is no barrier to morally or economically, for allowing someone to profit from it.

Granted, anything that is required for life will be tightly regulated by the government. For instance, I'd think its impossible for farmers to collude to withhold their produce and simply starve a country.

  this more describe Type 1 situation

This is why the preferred terms now are IDDM / NIDDM, for (Non) Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com