Kamala is going to snatch patents?

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.

 

Well, snatching patents makes more sense than trying to patent snatches.

 

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.

 

Willie Brown says "hello".

 

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.

 

Where are the resident magnets on this topic?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

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

 

Trump and Clinton already tried that.

 

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.

 

We gave them federal money in the first place. Is that free market capitalism?

 

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?

 

How can the government 'confiscate' a thing it grants conditionally? Are they entitlements now?

 

OP is a big pharma shill too. So predictable.

 

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....?