Humira just reformulated to make the drug "more comfortable". The reformulation tacks on additional years of exclusivity. It's a logical move by the company but we should question why the rules are set to incentivize such behavior.

@saint3106

4 жыл бұрын

Nathan Sheth An episode of House [MD] hinged on him selling a medical device's/drug's(?) "upgrade" to doctors at an event. An episode that talks a lot about the topic. He ends up doing the right thing (calls out the company on stage), which of course leads to season-long+ drama :P

@Fair_Gravity

4 жыл бұрын

Is this what happened to Remicade? ( Or something similar)

@nathansheth8986

4 жыл бұрын

@@Fair_Gravity I'm not sure if Remicade went through a similar reformulation. I know when it came off patent in 2015 there were a number of biosimilars that came to market. I believe the NHS in UK approved those biosimilars and therefore there was a lot of savings. Unlike Humira (both are TNF inhibitors) Remicade is an IV drip so the administration is different. There is some lore surrounding Remicade's IV delivery as being driven by the marketing department as a way for doctor's to generate revenue but I'm not sure how true that is.

@Fair_Gravity

4 жыл бұрын

@@nathansheth8986 Thank you for explaining that. I know (as of 2017) Remicade was 9% of Johnson & Johnson's profits. Which is huge, considering everything J&J makes. From tires to baby food. I know the patient was about to expire... But they somehow renewed it here in the US. I wasn't too sure how they were able to accomplish that.

@nathansheth8986

4 жыл бұрын

@@Fair_Gravity I don't think they disclose the profitability of Remicade. From what I can tell (and I haven't gone through JNJ's reports in a while) Remicade was running about $6 billion in revenue before biosimilar competition. As of 2018 I believe Remicade sales were about $1 billion lower. Total JNJ revenue is about $80bn. So from a % of total revenue, Remicade is about 6%. Profitability becomes harder to attribute because I doubt JNJ discloses the gross margin for each product (it would be a gift to all competitors). I think Humira is around $20 billion in revenue per year.

If no one enters the market after exclusivity time has passed, this should be considered a monopoly and government price-controlled like other monopolies such as utilities.

@jimlovesgina

2 жыл бұрын

I disagree. Just choosing to enter a market and being the only player does not warrant bringing in the hammer of government. Your "solution" would likely drive out any drug production once the patents expire. You are clearly a moron.

Thats why you tarvel elsewhere for all your medicine... You get to vacation, get inmerse on a foreign culture, bring back all your medicine plus more than youll ever need of the basic stuff. And still is way cheaper than practically throwing your money on a USA pharmacy.

@jeanku

4 жыл бұрын

@@Agtsmirnoff you just want to argue, but that's ok. 1. They do expire but after years 2. And if this happens its just another great excuse to plan your next trip outside the country and inmerse yourself even more on foreign cultures and more importantly getting medicine and above all still cheaper if you just buy them inside the states.

@AfroBolshevik

4 жыл бұрын

@@Agtsmirnoff But he does correctly state that whether you do it here or there it can expire nonetheless

Why is healthcare a business in the first place?

The pharmaceutical companies lobbied for more regulation because this effectively shuts out any competition. The government is happy to oblige and now we have the expensive approval process and high prices. This relationship between your government and pharmaceutical companies doesn't change depending on which political party is in control.

@santinisantini3217

2 жыл бұрын

So is it real capitalism

That was very interesting!

Would a video on price caps and/or direct to consumer prescription drug ads be in the future?

Sounds like a lot of these problems can be resolved by doing medical research with government agencies funded by taxes. As a government charter there is no impetus for profit, so pricing can be based solely on cost of development and manufacture without the overhead of profit. Products of tax-funded research would also be public domain by default so if some private company thinks they can make it for less, or can use it as a basis for something new, they can do so without dealing with patents.

@netsquall

4 жыл бұрын

Private research firms using government grants, usually. Direct public research is rarer.

@Smidge204

4 жыл бұрын

@@netsquall But that's the point; When you have a private company involved, then you have an impetus for profit and not the benefit of society. Private enterprise and human welfare are nearly exclusive to each other. When all is said and done, government funding of private research is just subsidizing private profits at the public's expense.

Here's a somewhat counter-intuitive option: Instead of preventing them from raising prices, prevent them from lowering it more than a small % each year. The way these monopolies screw over people is by first raising the price. Then when a competitor tries to enter the market, they drop it to such a low price that the competitor can't make back their investment and goes bankrupt. Then they raise the price again. In order to do that, they need the ability to both raise and lower prices at any time. Preventing them from raising the price can lead to shortages when their costs starts going up, but preventing them from lowering the price has no such problems. A competitor can safely enter the market, knowing the monopoly cannot suddenly try to undercut them. This leads to more competition and lower prices overall. In fact, the monopolies aren't stupid and they can foresee these competitors coming in, so they wouldn't raise their price in the first place. Better take a small cut in the profit than to allow someone to steal the market.

Maybe I just don't fully understand the situation but; I don't get how it's okay to do these terrible things for life saving medicine. I feel like if a medicine can literally save a human life, these types of practices shouldn't be allowed, BY LAW! If you allow this kind of behavior for the sake of money, you're saying that human life has a price tag...that's not okay. Things like viagra or other non-critical drugs, I'm more okay with. Life saving though? That needs to be readily available, not matter what.

@jonwhite8815

4 жыл бұрын

America is teeming with rabid capitalist ideologues and propagandists. That's how these obscene injustices are justified. "But muh free market!!" they'll cry. Anyone that proposes a common sense idea like: "hey, maybe people shouldn't die just because they can't afford their insulin, especially in the richest country in the world," is attacked as a communist. Vote for Bernie if you want Medicare for all.

@jimlovesgina

2 жыл бұрын

So, what is the price of a life when these drugs are unavailable? A drug only gets developed in a socialist shit-hole that you advocate when people are essentially slaves. Why should I spend my time and money developing something that saves lives if only to be forced to give it away for free? I guess we can depend on the altruistic benevolent government for all of our life-saving products and services. This explains why US health care is on its way to becoming third world. People like you exist and vote stupidly.

@TheApplianceDirect

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimlovesgina In theory someone else in the US would be returning the favor by also developing a drug that can potentially save your life or someone you love, and would give it to you for free. I mean, that is my understanding of the logic of why an altruistic system is good for everyone.

@rya1701

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimlovesgina do you know what a research grant is

Great video, but the outro audio balance is completely off.

Have you looked at pricing of generic versus name brand? I used to take Skelaxin. My insurance required generic when available. For some reason the generic costed more than the name brand! Yep! Crazy!

How does charging user fees speed up approvals? Please explain.

Because industry owns legislators.

@connecticutaggie

4 жыл бұрын

This is not exactly true. Often the industry just knows how to motivate the legislators and their constituents. Sometimes this is by highlighting the jobs and taxes the industry brings to their state.

@badreanna

4 жыл бұрын

There's lawsuits about companies colluding with eachother to raise prices too so they can keep screwing consumers www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-generic-drug-price-fixing-lawsuit-20190624-story.html

@DanielVargas-yx8ff

4 жыл бұрын

@@connecticutaggie is that the moral justification that the legislature's use to not feel too bad?

@connecticutaggie

4 жыл бұрын

@@badreanna There is no doubt that companies are way more interested in their investors than consumers. My comments was regarding the companies "owning" legislators.

@badreanna

4 жыл бұрын

@@connecticutaggie oh yeah, you're good! I'm just spreading word of the lawsuit. I'm seeing lots of these types of suits in many different industries popping up lately.

Why is it so hard to lower prices? Government. Government grants drug monopolies. Government sets competitive barriers, national and international. Government restricts barriers to entry into the market. Government works for the interests of large established pharma companies and against the interests of the people.

@netsquall

4 жыл бұрын

Look up inelastic demand. It defies your desperate anti-regulatory claims.

Heakth is an inelastic good, which means demand doesn't follow prices, it stays mostly the same. And thoses drugs without generics are a captive market: You often cannot afford not to have the drug (think Insulin). TL;DR: They charge high prices because they can, and you still have to pay. When could be done in the US? Maybe look at every other country, pick what works and what doesn't. But for now, the status quo mean that insulin is 10x times the price in the US compared to Canada. ( www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/insulin-prices-united-states-canada-caravan-1.5195399 )

Maybe for biologics we could add something to say the NIH, where they develop, produce and sell their own versions, but being a part of the government, it would be much easier to limit the price of these drugs to something that actually is only intended to recoup development costs.

@jimlovesgina

2 жыл бұрын

Which never works. Development costs includes labor. The government pharmaceutical company will unionize and drive up the price. Instead of a private company effectively managed to survive in the mostly free market, you get a bloated bureaucracy incompetently managed and plagued with cost overruns. It is amazing how many socialist ass-hats just don't pay attention or bother with observing history. "Let the government run it! It will be just like the DMV! Snow-cones and cotton-candy for everybody!"

I think that if a drug company sets an abusive price they should have their patent and marketing rights seized for the public good and auctioned off to any other capable company willing to produce the drug for a reasonable price.

Healthcare is essential and too important to rely on free market competition to make prices lower. Most of the developed world outside the US have realized this.

@dosadoodle

4 жыл бұрын

I think the issue is that we need a _well-regulated_ free market. A completely free market means anyone can do just about anything they want. The most basic regulation is enforcement of contracts, which is well-established. Other regulation might forbid certain practices that discourage competition (anti-competitive practices). Market forces are a powerful mechanism, so I wouldn't want to throw that away ... instead tweak the rules to force a more competitive market. As an example of a regulation for healthcare, hospitals should not be able to give discounts on prices to insurance companies -- a hospital should be required to offer the exact rate that an individual pays to all licensed insurance companies. This would remove the enormous cost of insurance companies to negotiate for lower rates. This also allows a smaller insurance company to get the same deals as all the big insurance companies, leading to more fluid competition in the market. In a similar vein but in a completely different industry, big banks should be charged a "too big to fail" premium for FDIC insurance (which is required to run a bank in the US). This helps cover a fraction of the risk to the FDIC going broke, since the FDIC does not actually have enough money to cover the deposits should just one of the big banks fail. This higher cost on big banks would ultimately lead to smaller banks having lower costs, making them more competitive. This would, over time, shrink the size of the largest banks and lead to less systemic risk in the financial system. Embrace a competitive market, enforced through an appropriately-regulated free market. :)

@Dschinghiss

4 жыл бұрын

there is no free market when it comes to drugs because the import of drugs is forbidden by law thanks to the Pharma Lobby. If there is a drug without a genericum and a single company has the license for that drug then they can charge whatever the fuck they want, because where else are you gonna get it ?

As a business owner. It's insane to think that they get market exclusivity for minor changes that lasts decades. If I have to constantly sell my innovations at competitive prices because my field changes. So should they. Maybe I should hire a lobbyist 🤔 (jk, I don't have enough money, nor would I feel comfortable doing that)

There comes a time, as societies advance in our modern age, when you have to question the level of capitalism permitted and how it is used. For example, I'm not against medical companies running things as they like, but, rather than selling the drugs to the people, I think they should be selling them to governments (including the US government), who negotiates on behalf of the citizens who will need and receive the drugs. In essence, I think we should take a page from other single-payer systems, and make the drug companies (worldwide) compete to supply the drugs Americans need at the best prices. I guarantee you that, if the costs of drug prices, came out of the budget politicians use to reward their bribes (i.e. campaign donations), they'd put a curb on the price hikes. That said, this is only a bandaid on the real problem. As society grows increasingly complex, I find myself wondering if capitalism as we know it can survive. There's only so far you can push the predatory tendencies of capitalism to exploit the people before it starts consuming itself and producing ever diminishing returns. (Sure, companies are making record-breaking profits, but the economy the very money they've made relies on is starting to collapse in response, which could wipe out the worth of that money in the end.) I wonder if the real solution is that governments have to run by the actual voice of the people they govern and will have to do more to protect the basic rights (life, including medical coverage, liberty, including basic rights, and the pursuit of happiness, including freedom from wage-slavery-level exploitation). Without changes to the very nature of society, I suspect any changes will be a case of 'too little too late'.

6:25 hold up Did he actually say shortages. Even though earlier he talked about the introduction of generics lowering prices because of competition? Aren't these contradictory?

@mme.veronica735

4 жыл бұрын

If lower prices but don't increase supply fast enough the more people will buy it than can be supplied. New producers increase the supply allowing everyone to buy it

@MrRishik123

4 жыл бұрын

@@mme.veronica735 Bingo :P Which is why that last point at 6:25 makes very little sense. Any shortages would be temporary or artificially induced such as a cap on manufacturing per day etc. Honestly don't understand why they even tried to make that point as if it wasn't easily solved by the other things they talked about such as the shortening of exclusive manufacturing rights and so on.

@Seamalicous

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrRishik123 even short term shortages can have significant negative outcomes, and cause patients not to seek out the medicine

@MrRishik123

4 жыл бұрын

@@Seamalicous First of all. If you aren't on the medication in the first place, according to your logic, they were going to die anyway. Stuff like humira. What happens if there is a "shortage". People have worse symptoms for a few weeks. But when we are talking about arthritis, do you legitimately think that an honest company wouldn't just ramp up manufacturing of that drug? There wouldn't be a shortage in the first place unless it was artificially created. Since most medications have very regular demands the chance of a shortage is infinitesimally small if you allow imports from places like canada and europe and even india too. If all insurers suddenly covered humira do you think there would be a shortage of it? You had to have realised that right? We arent talking about random rare antibiotics since as he said, they already have generics available and stuff. So if a shortage of the branded stuff occurs, people would just import the generics from overseas. Currently US laws dont allow imports if the patent is held and being used in the USA. They address the issues of patents surrounding them and stuff needs modification for stuff like this in the video. If there is a shortage overseas of stuff like antibiotics, then we are talking about the apocalypse dude. Like a superbug across multiple continents. Not stuff like humira. Any shortages could easily be filled by overseas imports of most drugs. Especially if generics are allowed overseas.

@KenrickBrown75

4 жыл бұрын

By "lowering drug prices", he probably means using regulations to establish price controls on drugs. Effective price ceilings almost always create shortages.

Thanks for explaining this issue in a level-headed, fact-based way. Learned a lot!

Surely the FDA has counterparts in at least some other developed countries who can be trusted to approve drugs. I think the biggest single step that could be taken would be to rely on those institutions in addition to the FDA, and allow importation of drugs from those countries. The idea that all drugs have to be made here is absurd.

Those weird videos that America cannot do what other countries can. The shining city on a hill.

@jimlovesgina

2 жыл бұрын

Other countries pay much higher taxes. I think it is great that you want to help others. Why do you want to force me to help others? Why should I have to hand over my labor for things you approve of? This is the problem with democracy. You get a bunch of morons voting to enslave everyone. "I like slavery! Where is the voting booth?"

@victor_venema

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimlovesgina How is talking about a problem in America the same as forcing you to do something? Are you against freedom of speech for other people? Why you have to hand over 10% more of our hard earned money to private waste, fraud and abuse in the health care sector? I guess because not dying is a higher priority and given the systemic corruption in America there is no affordable option like in function democracies. I would recommend that you read about what a disgusting and violent system slavery actually is. So that you do not humiliate yourself in public with such ignorant statements.

We could remove the profit motive. It's immoral to profit off someone else's illness.

@ratdude747

4 жыл бұрын

But , for the most part, then nobody would develop new drugs. Unless you're also proposing exclusively Gov't funded research.

@jonwhite8815

4 жыл бұрын

@@ratdude747 Except for all those times new drugs were developed without the profit motive.

@krellend20

4 жыл бұрын

@@ratdude747 Almost all research already is government funded.

There is nothing we can do to help this says only country where this is a problem

Jesus. Americans. Get universal healthcare.

@netsquall

4 жыл бұрын

Funny thing about that? Canada has universal healthcare, but it does NOT cover most prescription drugs. Some things are covered, like cancer therapies, but a LOT are not.

if all drug purchases were done through medicare wouldn't that aggregate demand and lower prices?

@connecticutaggie

4 жыл бұрын

This would likely make it worse. Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices.

@francescofontana9707

4 жыл бұрын

how do they price if they're not allowed to negotiate O.o

@connecticutaggie

4 жыл бұрын

I don't have an answer on that for you. I have heard the comment many times; but, I am sure it is not that simple. I did find a politifact post that indicates it is a correct statement; but, I can't find a good description of why and how prices get set. www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/jan/17/tammy-baldwin/tammy-baldwin-federal-government-prohibited-negoti/

Drug research directly funded by taxpayers is my vote. Basically create a government agency which does research on new drugs and studies on their uses directly fund that agency by taxpayers and then let any formulas or whatever be shared among any drug company who wants to make it for anything discovered that way. It would be a high budget item so likely increase taxes but I think it's by far the simplest and most effective solution I've thought about.

@DanielVargas-yx8ff

4 жыл бұрын

But how will ruch people be able to make even MORE Money!?!?

We need more regulation of everything in healthcare. Doctors, Dentist, Surgeons, Hospitals the whole healthcare system in the US is overpriced. Doctors, hospital ceos, and insurance companies are going to kick and scream because we need to slash their salaries. Theres no way insurance and medicare/ medicaid can keep up with these insane prices. It sending our taxes threw the roof not to mention its unethical selling people bandages for thousands of dollars.

@rodrigomenezes6434

4 жыл бұрын

Scarcity.

@Frilleon

4 жыл бұрын

Regulation leads to more corruption and government protection. Less regulation leads to more competition and supply which leads to higher quality and lower prices

@weregretohio7728

4 жыл бұрын

​@@Frilleon Seems like we're doing well on the corruption front without that regulation everyone seems to want... we think competition will happen, but capitalism is so easily exploited. Then we end up with $300 insulin and Martin Shkreli.

@Frilleon

4 жыл бұрын

@@weregretohio7728 "without that regulation" our government is as large and regulatory in every industry as it's ever been, including the medical field

This is what happens when you let the free market have control over something where real competition is sometimes impossible. Capitalism should be a tool not an end in itself. When the tool your using doesn't do the job well and keeps cutting you maybe think of using a different tool?

None of this drivel explains why insulin is 10x more expensive in the US than in Canada.

@thewerepyreking

4 жыл бұрын

Are you able to order insulin from foreign countries? If you aren't able to order it for cheaper because of laws, then that's why. idk

@DinarAndFriends

4 жыл бұрын

@@thewerepyreking Obviously that doesn't explain the price difference.

@thewerepyreking

4 жыл бұрын

Actually, it completely does describe the possibility of a price differential if you're simply unable to directly purchase as if you were a candian citizen.

@DinarAndFriends

4 жыл бұрын

@@thewerepyreking Obviously companies can import insulin. What individuals can do wouldn't shift the price very much, because the amount they can import is limited and it's impractical unless they live close to the border. Many Americans don't even know where Canada is.

@jwhatever7610

4 жыл бұрын

@@DinarAndFriends the prices for drugs in Canada is cheaper because of our health care system. They basically come up with fair price for the drug company to charge

Out of stock = increased prices = greed. This is why so many turn to China for help. I can only imagine how many execution-style deaths would occur to big pharma executives once this is realized by patients and parents of patients who need these meds affordable - not line someone’s pockets. Do yourself a favor and seek other countries for your meds / plenty of reputable manufacturers with full stock.

I got an idea. A government corporation whose sole purpose is the mass manufacturing of generic drugs en masse and sells those drugs worldwide AT COST. Absolutely no extensions to exclusivity windows. As the window nears opening, the Federal Medical Manufacturing Corp subpoenas all required documents and reports necessary to replicate entire industrial manufacturing methods and manufacturing systems and they get to work with the goal of manufacturing enough of a drug for the medical needs of the entire planet on day 1. The day the exclusivity window ends is the day the manufacturing lines start operating and distributing. The Original manufacturer can either lower their price to cost or leave the market, its their choice and they are free to do as they wish. Meanwhile, enough of drugs continued to be manufactured and distributed at cost to any hospital or pharmacy that wish to purchase them. No shortages, no market shenanigans, no quotas. The Corp simply maintains constant production of all drugs based on statistical requirements of the planetary population. In the cases of obvious price gouging, individuals should have the ability to sue a pharma company and seek the automatic removal of exclusivity as a standard punishment for gouging the public. Determination of gouging would be accomplished by a civil jury and in a public courtroom where the pharma company lawyers would have to explain to a jury why the little $1.50 pill costs $7800 a dose... in front of a live camera. Further, in the event that the pharma settles the lawsuit, it has to be public, and any agreement on the price of a drug applies to ALL patients needing that drugs. i.e. if you sue a pharma company and they panic and agree to sell you their life-saving thing for cheap, that cheap price is now the price they have to offer to ALL buyers.

so youre saying....the problem.....is capitalism

Make drugs free. People should not have to pay to not die because of sickness.

@jonwhite8815

4 жыл бұрын

#BERNIE2020 #Medicare4All

@aaa303

4 жыл бұрын

But then the problem, as he explained, is that no one would be incentivized to research and develop new drugs if they can't profit off them (and especially if they can't even recoup their costs).

@Sophi023

4 жыл бұрын

@@aaa303 They should be given incentive then by the government for the welfare of everyone.

@DanielVargas-yx8ff

4 жыл бұрын

@@aaa303 then the goverment can start its own medical company to research.

There is one simple solution to pricing. People could stop being greedy bastards. Simple, but not likely or actionable.

capitalism there i saved you 7 minutes

@stuiesmb

4 жыл бұрын

Tamryn Cheetah #2edgy4me

@teetahh

4 жыл бұрын

@@stuiesmb i'm not wrong

Capitalism shouldn’t be allowed to mess with people’s health

Why is it so hard to lower drug prices in the USA? = because Americans don't pay taxes to help their fellow human beings, if you're sick that's your problem. welcome to capitalism everyone. No but for real if you wanna solve this problem you need to set up the USA government as the primary competitor to drug companies, and it's investors would be the american people themselves. that level of competition is going to bring prices WAAAAAAAAAAY THE FUCK DOWN. Sincerely, UK, Canada, AUS.

@BenTajer89

4 жыл бұрын

I have a simple solution, Give the workers the means of production!

The government should not be protecting this buisness

"most agree more regulation" stop... Lol 🤣

@Kyle-pj2vc

3 жыл бұрын

@Mplay1983 Either way drug companies run a business and take risks so it's the world we live in. People's opinions shouldn't dictate what drug prices are.

Drugs are expensive for 2 reasons- government is already involved and the 3rd party payment system. When the ACA went into effect drug prices skyrocketed... just the opposite of what an "affordable care act" was meant for.

Greed. Capitalism. Lobbyists.

Yes drug prices in the US seem unfair; but, the problem (as you mentioned) is complicated. Here are some other reasons it is complicated:

@connecticutaggie

4 жыл бұрын

1) Most drug companies see the US as their primary market and use that market to meet their investment goals (cover development costs and profits). When they release, they do the math and set the price they expect will provide that return for the targeted timeline. If during that time, they want to open a market outside the US, they will set the price they feel is required to be successful in that market (most likely lower than the US price). The US price is, however, still tied to their investment goals; so, there is no way they are going to drop that. Combine that with the fact that most drug companies are publicly traded, that is further exacerbated as they have pretty much bough their investors based on the target US income. These even continues to be a problem when the drug reaches the end of its original investment window and (in theory) all the development costs have been covered. Announcing you are going to drop the price of a popular drug is committing stock price suicide.

@connecticutaggie

4 жыл бұрын

2) A LOT (maybe most) of US drugs aren't actually made in the US. They are made by oversees contract manufacturers. When these same manufacturers want to bring those same drugs (same everything but packaging) back into the US under a different brand, they are often blocked because their drug didn't get the approval - it was the original US drug company that has the approval. Even though they are the the same exact drug, made with the same materials, using the same process, they have to get approval, the costs and tima associated with that, and all the roadblocks and tricks the original drug company can come up with. The only difference is the packaging and the branding. This is driven by #1. This further threatened because if they spend all that time and money and get in, then the original company drops their price to match and their sale plummet.

@netsquall

4 жыл бұрын

@@connecticutaggie This was addressed by the video actually.

Correction: No CAPITALIST company would develop a drug that they can't sell. A socialist society would develop it simply cause it is needed.

@Docpeetee

4 жыл бұрын

sogghartha a socialist society wouldn’t be able to develop the drug

@pietersteenkamp5241

4 жыл бұрын

@@Docpeetee Most drug research in the USA is done in the public sector significant on your dime. The same is true for technology after which these things are given to private corporations so they can make profits.

@weregretohio7728

4 жыл бұрын

Eat the rich.

@MrRishik123

4 жыл бұрын

@@pietersteenkamp5241 Its almost as if the space program and all the technology we gained from that didnt happen according to those so called "muh free market" tards. The tech we gained from the almost trillion dollars spent on the moon missions and the economic growth is incredible and probably un-quantifiable. Last i checked businesses dont take risks unless they know its feesible. They were never going to go to the moon unless it was already proven possible by the losses paid for by the US government. The same shit applies to the future of medicine. Stuff like gene editing and the potential to cure all disease is looming over the horizon and people want to put that shit behind a paywall. Actual scum. We should be doing it because we purely can. Same way we eradicated smallpox. Not for any ulterior motive than we as humans need to move past our biological limitations.

@MrRishik123

4 жыл бұрын

@@Docpeetee 75% of new drugs are researched by tax payers bro. litterally socialism. So you are wrong here www.pnas.org/content/115/10/2329 Educate yourself my child.

I love this debate. Pay the price of the drug or don't use it. If the company didn't invest (like with antibiotics, which are likely to be our BIGGEST medical downfall) it wouldn't exist and you would still be without the drug. If governments want to control pricing, they should make bulk purchases, they do in Canada. Interfering in business NEVER ends well.

Capitalism. That's why.

@lohphat

4 жыл бұрын

This isn’t capitalism, it’s a cartel racket.

@jonwhite8815

4 жыл бұрын

@@lohphat In other words...capitalism.

There's some cool examples here but you're missing the actual problem. Capitalism. Duh.

One simple trick: Crush capitalism!

I don't agree that more regulation is needed. You guys should actually talk to some smart free market folks.