So once again, we have a politician looking to usurp power because the government is not doing its job. I would much rather she had spent her time as VP working policy changes so that the Patent office does not approve extensions that should not be extended. Of course we all know that our wonderful congress and executive branch are really looking out for us and not just lining their pockets with pharma donations.
I definitely think prices for drugs should be more affordable. I'm wondering if part of the problem is that the US is the home of companies that are able to research and come up with the drugs and therefore the R&D costs are paid for by this country while other countries just get the medicine without having to have the companies pay taxes and costs associated with the development of said drugs. But I don't know if that's an issue or not.
You nailed it. Other nations are able to spin generics at a fraction of the cost of what it took to develop the drug in the first place. IP theft, more or less. Nobody mentions that when they tell you how great Canada and Scandanavia's healthcare systems are.
Your post makes me wonder .... how much does the US give to other countries in foreign aid and related programs every year? Isn't the US consumer paying more for the same drugs (that can be) sold elsewhere for less just another form of foreign aid paid directly to the individuals who need those drugs? Why is it such a big deal to a liberal, as they are all about giving to other countries.
It absolutely blows my mind that there are people in this country that actually support the idea that these companies should be allowed to fleece US citizens while charging everybody else a more reasonable price. That isn't free market capitalism. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
Well, thank God there's only one overall repulsive person running in this election. Otherwise I would have to call the quoted statement projection beyond description.
That's another topic. This is dealing with government confiscation of patents. That certainly isn't free market capitalism.
Yes, because the Feds confiscated said "federal money" from the private sector. Without the private sector, there are no federal funds. Do I really have to point out to you that money was the people's money from the start? And yet it doesn't matter, because as gaterz pointed out, the stipulations of these grants guarantee ownership of the patents to the inventor, not the federal government.
Of course it's all people's money to start. Otherwise, no. The government taking money from people, giving it to certain companies to help them develop products for sale ... you think that's free market capitalism? Meanwhile, so Harris's plan, as I understand it, is to require pharma to charge the Americans the average price they charge people in other countries. So, the question is: What if the drug companies don't do that?
We’re in hyper-partisan lie season. Both sides are gonna blowup everything the other says, fear-porn it to death, and hope something scares one of the 3 people out there who still haven’t made up their minds. This thread is Exhibit A.
The government can attach conditions to monies it gives out. This is nothing new. And considering the cost of healthcare, and the fact that not being able to afford treatment effects a person's health, the government telling companies to play by its rules for new drugs is a positive. If the private companies don't like it, they can always not take the government handout. But they will. Especially when something like 80% of compounds never make it to trials, let alone as a drug on the market. Drug research is extremely expensive, and government subsidies help offset the high failure cost. The government ensuring the benefits can be applied to all is bad because....?
Free market capitalism wouldn't involve a federal income tax, if we are going to play by the most purified version of free market capitalism rules. And if you cap what pharma companies can charge for ALL drugs here in the States, it will be the same outcome as her food price controls idea. There will develop (very quickly, I might add) a dearth of available medications to American citizens. Pharmaceutical companies will no longer be incentivized to create new breakthrough medicines and the overall level of healthcare in this country would be horrid. Why don't you socialists understand that price controls are not the answer? Why don't you understand that if you stifle innovation, things won't be as nice as you have them now? But again, I've allowed you to drift off topic. I suppose if the Feds wanted to be jerks, they could ban certain companies from selling a drug. But taking their patent?? That's a whole different ballgame. It's one thing to tell a company they cannot sell a product if they don't meet a price control. It's another to strip them of their patent. That's just psycho crazy talk. But I know you don't want to talk about Kamala's actual policies, because they are indeed nutty. Therefore, you want to steer this conversation in another direction. Why can't you just admit she's a psycho for suggesting that she would strip patents from drug companies if they don't meet her price control demands? Isn't that Castro / Chavez type ish?
