I don't care what any of you say about Trump, this is bats**t crazy stuff. Kamala proposing the government confiscate patents from private pharmaceutical developers if they "don't play by her rules." I'm not a huge big pharma fan myself, but understand you can't threaten pharmaceutical research companies with this sort of thing or the innovation will dry up quicker than a ham sandwich in the Mojave desert.
I think that's an iffy plan. what will the US do with the patents? but aren't you ignoring an important part of what she said?
The important part of what she said was a blunt threat to pharmaceutical research companies that she will "snatch their patent." It's one thing to institute drug price controls across the board, which is lunacy in of itself. But snatching patents? That's what the Soviet Union did. You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that if Harris wins, we have never had a president this far to the left. We're not talking about a California liberal here. We're talking about the next Fidel Castro, the next Hugo Chavez. Her ideology does not align with American free market capitalism.
Come on. She said she was talking about the meds where the federal govt paid for the R&D. Why ignore that?
Well, so much for private property rights under a “scarecrow and cowardly lion” administration. She’s a prat.
There's nothing to ignore about that. So if the government subsidizes inventions with taxpayer money, they should be able to confiscate the patent after the inventor spent all of the time and resources to procure that invention? I gather you don't think things through very well before you post them.
Although I cannot speak for her she was probably referring to the strategy that some pharmaceutical companies do to extend their patents, one example simply changing the dosage. For example if the original patent refers to 100 mg per dose, the company simply changes the dosage 125 mg although the actual chemical composition of the drug is unchanged. There are other stunts that the companies also employ and even if their decision is ultimately reversed in court they still get the benefit of exclusivity for several more years at the expense of patients. How Patent Extensions Keep Some Drug Costs High But companies have been abusing the patent system to extend their market monopolies, says Krishtel. A 2018 study from I-MAK found that companies amass patents on existing drugs, blocking competition: The top 12 grossing drugs in the U.S. had an average of 71 patents granted, which almost doubled the time these drugs are protected from generic competition. Many of the granted patents are for minor tweaks, such as combining two drugs into one or altering the dosage — changes that aren’t inventive, Krishtel argues, and thus undeserving of new patents. A 2018 study by Robin Feldman, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, found that 78 percent of new drug patents between 2005 and 2015 were for existing drugs.
I wonder if the scarecrow has considered the terms of the grants provided to private industry for such R&D .... and whether or not it can "snatch" patents from anyone? Heck, it's a lawyer (did she ever pass the bar exam?) and should understand that grants typically include terms defining patent ownership, etc. Further, has it even begun to consider how much R&D is funded via the R&D tax credit and how it would be able to "snatch" patents resulting from R&D efforts "paid for" with the R&D tax credit? The scarecrow is simply a buffoon.
O Orange One, please save us from Kamabla! She's not even as good-looking as you! I know you can do this, O Thou Who Hast Done Nothing Wrong! Ever! Amen. P.S. I'll send you some money right away, O Thou of Eternal Need!
So let me get this straight. Government helps funds drug research through taxpayer monies. Private firm invents potential lifesaving drug. But charges so much, that a significant segment of the population cannot afford to buy/use the lifesaving drug that their taxes helped pay to invent? How is this fair? It's not. It also may not be fair to the pharmaceutical company, but what is the value of a human life? It's not like someone wants a Cadillac and can only afford a Chevy or take public transit. Drugs and healthcare save and extend people's lives. The free market profit model doesn't work if/when the person who can't afford the product dies as a result, does it not?
I thought about it myself, but it fits, so as to highlight her overall repulsiveness as a person. There's another word for snatch, that would have described her pristinely.
