Just fucking do it
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
349 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19242 readers
2778 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's what they're doing! They are announcing a new executive department regulation about implementation of a specific law. You have to propose the regulation first. A public comment period and other mandatory things have to follow. The regulation they're proposing is that they will also consider high drug prices and gouging by pharmaceuticals in their decision making on whether to over ride patent rights. Previously this was not a regulation, so they can not do it right now. Once the regulation is in place, then they can start taking specific actions on drug companies. If they just start doing shit willy nilly without going through the process of new regulations, it'll just get struck down by the courts in a nanosecond. That's why a lot of the dumb horrible crap trump tried to do got struck down well before Biden even took office.
Uh, good. This should be the norm. It is all of us that pay for the research but then the profit is privatized. That should not be a thing.
Privatize profits, socialize losses.
If it’s developed with taxpayer dollars, it should not be patented by a corporation. I don’t care what it is we’re talking about. Taxpayer money is supposed to go to improving the lives of Americans, not enriching corporations.
The only argument I can see is maybe if the grant (whatever it is called) only covers for partial, so like if the government adds in $10k, then that shouldn't be the same as them funding the whole thing (this number is not exact I got no idea on true amounts). So some leeway but they shouldn't get a full patent if taxpayers money is used on it for sure.
Though then you'll get some creative accounting to show the government spent less percentage than thought and all that so it sucks but something needs to make sure taxpayers get what they paid for.
Almost ALL drug research is based on what is called fundamental research, which is basic research that at first glance does not seem to lead to any practical application. E.g., one group might discover an unusual protein side chain, another group then found that this side chain is inhibited by a certain molecule and another traced the metabolic pathway. These are usually done by postgrad students at universities all around the world and funded by their own governments via research grants. Almost always, these grants are paid by the country's tax payers.
Here's the kicker. To get noticed and to get promotions, these researchers have to PAY publishing companies to publish their findings in journals, after which the publisher owns the copyright to it and put up an obscene paywall.
Then, pharmaceutical companies skim these publications, usually combining the findings of 100s of articles as their starting point to develop new drugs. E.g. that protein side chain mentioned earlier turned out to be a target for anticancer drugs. Without these basic findings, big pharma don't even know where to start. Essentially, governments and tax payers around the world subsidize the basic research of big pharma only for these companies to charge obscene prices and region lock the drugs.
This is good news.
Drugs developed with taxpayer dollars should be free.
Alternative idea: If a pharmaceutical company uses government funds to develop a drug, the patent is limited to 5 years and the government sets the price.
It should be a cost-plus model. They should definitely be able to make back money invested, plus some, to encourage further development.
Good
I would amazed if this could happen in America.
Dude, they're going to do it anyways. Regulate them.
why should the people not get what they pay for?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is putting pharmaceutical companies on notice, warning them that if the price of certain drugs is too high, the government might cancel their patent protection and allow rivals to make their own versions.
Under a plan announced Thursday, the government would consider overriding the patent for high-priced drugs that have been developed with the help of taxpayer money and letting competitors make them in hopes of driving down the cost.
It’s the latest health policy pitch from a White House gearing up to make its efforts to tackle drug prices a central theme in next year’s reelection campaign.
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, has in recent years lobbied the Health and Human Services agency to do so with certain drugs.
“This would be yet another loss for American patients who rely on public-private sector collaboration to advance new treatments and cures,” PhRMA spokesperson Megan Van Etten said.
When the public invests heavily in a private company’s drug, it’s fair to question whether they should have to pay high prices for it, said William Pierce, a former HHS official during President George W. Bush’s administration.
The original article contains 548 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I read as, "Bidens life is in danger, stay tuned."