If you develop drugs using tax payer money, then that has to be paid back in some way. Either as a percentage of profits (based on percentage invested), paying back the investment (with interest) or an agreement on a cheaper price. Or something else.
Pharma has had it’s cake and eating it for far too long.
Nothing that is being suggested is unreasonable here.
Wild you don’t even suggest the patent to be open, like researchers have to do when they are taxpayer funded.
Why is it ‘wild’? I said or something else which I think covers it.
By that premise it’s ‘wild’ you didn’t suggest the other thousand things they can do.
Maybe we’re both just trying to talk about a better way of doing it without being experts.
I think he meant it’s wild we’ve been conditioned to not even think about government takeover of publicly funded assets. Like it still feels like the nuclear option even to Americans who believe they are socialists. Not that your comment was insufficient. I understand why you would feel defensive, the Internet can be a mean place.
If it’s a drug that is completely government funded then it should be open. If the drug company has some skin in the game than allowing them to profit from the patent is not unreasonable if, and I mean if, the government gets something like a share of the profits or the ability to manufacture the drug as if they had a built in license. Just free money is corporate welfare. And we know what the right think of welfare.
“The White House is threatening”
That line is so telling. The media arm of corporate America spinning hard. Like a child getting told no and telling everyone that getting refused a third PS5 is abusive.
white house threatening that it might actually protect its citizens from corporations
About time…
They are threatening to fix a problem no other civilised country has? How about actually fixing it? Right, that would be “doing something”, kryptonite of every american politician.
“checks and balances” theoretically protects us from tyranny.
Also allows cronies to protect their own interests by blocking any proposed changes.
Yes and no. Yes, normally you do have a series of institutions overseeing different parts of the government and making sure it acts within the laws but in USA this system is simply broken. In normal countries constitution is the ultimate guarantee and the judiciary 'check’s if laws are in accordance with it. The judiciary functions as a independent branch with judges being selected by other judges to the most important roles. In USA supreme court judges are directly selected by the president which totally invalidates the entire system. At the same time, in every other country, it’s assumed that party with the majority in the parliament simply has the mandate to govern and (surprise) does govern. They use this majority to do reforms and pass laws. In USA not only the system is designed in a way that does not let the party with majority support actually control the government (electoral college, the senate, election cycle), they also came up with fictional mechanisms to further weaken the ruling party (filibuster). As a result the ‘checks and balances’ make sure that no true reforms are possible while weakening the judicial oversight and constitutional rights. Worst system you could think of.
