Maciamo and Bossel,
Thanks for the replies!
That's very interesting. But I didn't claim that the U.S. gave more money per capita (nor when compared to GDP) than did France or any other particular nation. I merely pointed out that a rather large chunk (about 1/4 to 1/3) of the money going to fight HIV/AIDS is coming from the U.S., with some $15 billion more to come. Clearly, as you pointed out, the French are likewise providing a great deal of money to the effort. And if the U.S. proceeds to give this $15 billion to fight HIV, will France follow suit and donate an appropriately large sum?
I don't know, nor would it bother me either way. Why?
Well, aside from the fact that France is a sovereign nation who can do as she pleases, I don't think that such a simple, linear comparsion paints an accurate picture. For example, while we know the French and U.S. GDPs, what are their respective gross national/federal tax receipts? Why would this be important? Because, as I understand it, the funds in question are coming from the tax coffers of both governments (except for some private donors, like Bill Gates, etc.). Thus, there is no reason to assume that GDP or per capita comparisons are sufficient if we want to accurately compare the amounts of money donated to fight HIV. We should perhaps first get some idea of what percentage of the available tax monies were donated.
Below are comparisons of French and U.S. tax rates. I know there must be a more recent table of the U.S. tax rates, but I don't think the rates have changed radically since 2001.
French tax rates in Euros, 2004, to the nearest .1% (
http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=727)
0% tax, 0 - 4,262
06.8% tax, 4,263 - 8,382 ($0 to ~$5,300)
19.1% tax, 8,383 - 14,753 (~$5,300 - $18,000)
28.3% tax, 14,754 - 23,888 (~$18,000 - $48,000)
37.4% tax, 23,889 - 38,868 (~$30,000 - $48,000)
42.6% tax, 38,869 - 47,932 (~$48,000 - $60,000)
48.1% tax, 47,932+ (~$60,000+)
(I used
this to calculate the Euro/Dollar comparisons.)
U.S. tax rates (Single), 2001 (
World Almanac & Book of Facts, 2002, World Almanac Books)
0% tax, $0 - $7,449
15.1% tax, $7,450 - $27,050
27.5% tax, $27,051 - $65,550
30.5% tax, $65,551 - $136,750
35.5% tax, $136,751 - $297,350
39.1% tax, $297,350+
So, though the U.S. has a larger population and a greater GDP, the tables above suggest that the proportion of this money going to the U.S. government may be considerably smaller than that going to the French government. So, can we now conclude that there is parity between the U.S. and French donations to HIV, or that the U.S. is providing more money than France? Of course not! This still paints a very simplistic picture. We would also need a way to tie this in with each nation's GDP, corporate tax rates, national budgets (perhaps the simplest comparison, but I couldn't find the information I was looking for), the focus of national policies on other programs or interests (defense, health care, etc.), and so on.
Even with all of that, the comparisons--and any conclusions drawn from them--would still be of dubious value, just as are so many other comparisons made between different countries or cultures. This illustrates the danger of trying to use generalized or limited statistics to draw comparisons, akin to calculating the average U.S. income while including fantastically wealthy people like Bill Gates in the equation. Any conclusions drawn are grossly distorted by the presence of outliers like Gates.
But, frankly, these comparisons don't really interest me, in any case.
The tit-for-tat discussion that has quickly evolved here was never my point and it could doubtless continue without end. Instead, I mean to point out that we don't know all of the facts of this issue, and that the facts we do "know" are in no small part tainted by the bias of politicians, pundits, and reporters, not to mention the bias we each bring to the table.
It may be that you are content to arrive at a conclusion about the nature of the U.S. policy about the use of generic HIV drugs, which is your perogative. But I am not, and I don't think that we're in possession of enough information to honestly do so. As some of the comments in this thread suggest, quick conclusions serve little purpose but to promote confirmation bias and the animus between otherwise well-intentioned people.
Likewise, I am not content to make conclusions about Chirac or the French government. Nonetheless, based on the New York Times article I posted above and the Washington Post article below, I have some doubt that the U.S. is doing anything which could be considered coercive or "outright immoral," nor that the U.S. government is necessarily pandering to the U.S. pharmaceutical industry (though that's certainly a distinct possibility that I'm unwilling to rule out).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60578-2004Jul18.html
The activists' second complaint about the U.S. AIDS program is that it is hostile to generic medicines. Until recently, this was true: Perhaps because of its ties to the big pharmaceutical companies that sell patented drugs, the administration has been scandalously slow to allow cheaper generic copies to be used in its programs. But in May the Bush team finally announced that generics were okay, subject only to a six-week review by the Food and Drug Administration to determine safety and efficacy.
The activists do not believe the FDA's change is for real, and their suspicions are reinforced by Cipla, a leading Indian producer of generic AIDS drugs. Cipla's charming joint managing director, Amar Lulla, explains to anyone who calls that he would love to get his drugs approved for distribution in U.S.-financed programs in the poor world but that the Bush administration's fine print is cluttered with obstacles.
On close inspection, however, these obstacles aren't serious. For example, Cipla's best known AIDS medicine is called Triomune; it combines three separate antiviral drugs in one pill, simplifying treatment. Lulla says the FDA has not explained whether he needs to demonstrate the safety of combining the drugs this way, in which case Cipla would have to conduct prohibitively expensive clinical trials. But if you go to
www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/hiv/hivguidance.html, you'll find the explanation that Lulla says he's waiting for. Attachment B lists three-drug cocktails that the FDA already accepts as safe, among them one combining stavudine, lamivudine and nevirapine, the three constituents of Cipla's Triomune.
Cipla also says it worries that if it files an FDA application, it may be sued by U.S. patent holders. But the FDA's rules allow Cipla to file a statement certifying that its pills are intended for sale outside the United States, a maneuver that would almost certainly eliminate the risk of being sued for U.S. patent infringement.
The article above is from a different point of view than has been presented here thus far; other parts of the article also discuss the abstinence/condoms issue. Yet it is still clearly biased (considerably more biased than the article in the NY Times, I might add) and seems to urge the reader towards a given conclusion, like so much of our news.
I can only speak for myself, but I will choose to refrain from arriving at such directed conclusions without attempting to first learn about and understand the details of such a complex issue.
Regards,
Dan