[Puffer Fish]

“I will snatch their patent so that we will take over,” the then-U.S. senator said, referring to the federal government. “Yes, yes we can do that, ... ”

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/08/18 ... s-1480743/

There are multiple news sources for this quote, so you can do an internet search if you don't like the source I posted.

Kamala seems to see herself as a would be Fidel Castro. I say that because in Cuba people are lucky to have access to basic medical drugs.

Harris, who seems like a straight up communist, is talking about drug companies. As if the profit motive does not motivate companies to do high risk expensive research that allows the development of drugs that allow many of us, myself included, to have a decent quality of life. And as if Medicare does not pay for many expensive drugs.

Strangely the Left had no issues with the Billions funneled to drug companies for Covid vaccinations. And now Bidenj/Harris provide 5 Billion for the next generation of Covid vaccine.
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/ ... covid.html

So what is it Kamala? Billions in taxpayer dollars for drug companies or free drugs?

What communism leads to:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/cub ... ng-rcna737

"Cubans, amid medicine scarcity, turn to herbal remedies and bartering
Cubans have set up groups on social media to barter medicines as the country suffers from acute shortages of basic medicines"

[Truth To Power]

Kamala seems to see herself as a would be Fidel Castro. I say that because in Cuba people are lucky to have access to basic medical drugs.

Not that I have any time for Marxists or even socialists, but the decades-long US naval blockade and economic embargo might have something to do with that....

As if the profit motive does not motivate companies to do high risk expensive research that allows the development of drugs that allow many of us, myself included, to have a decent quality of life. And as if Medicare does not pay for many expensive drugs.

The drug companies pay for almost none of the high-risk research. They spend far more on marketing than they do on research because patent monopolies make their drugs so profitable, and almost all the research they pay for is clinical trials, not the basic research that actually discovers new drugs. The reason clinical trials are so expensive in the USA is that the drug patent system has made patented drugs so astronomically profitable that pharma companies would eagerly push unsafe and ineffective patented drugs on people if there was not a very high standard for clinical proof of safety and efficacy. And even then, the drug patent system has so completely corrupted the medical research field that a huge fraction of peer-reviewed drug research papers are fraudulent and cannot be replicated.

Strangely the Left had no issues with the Billions funneled to drug companies for Covid vaccinations.

I don't consider myself to be on the left, as I think socialism is even worse than capitalism (some people might disagree that that means I'm not a leftist), and I had a HUGE issue with the billions shoveled into Big Pharma's pockets for COVID vaccines, especially as they got blanket immunity from lawsuits arising from vaccine damage liability.

So what is it Kamala? Billions in taxpayer dollars for drug companies or free drugs?

Neither: just abolish drug patents -- in fact, all patents. Problem solved.

What communism leads to:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/cub ... ng-rcna737

"Cubans, amid medicine scarcity, turn to herbal remedies and bartering
Cubans have set up groups on social media to barter medicines as the country suffers from acute shortages of basic medicines"

Communism and a decades-long US blockade and economic embargo...

India manages to make drugs available at a tiny fraction of the cost in the USA.

[Istanbuller]

She really thinks money grows on trees just like all other communists, socialists, social democrats, American liberals etc.

It was another word salad from her. She mentioned about opportunity economy and how her government will deeply intervene into the economy at the same time.

[Puffer Fish]

Communism and a decades-long US blockade and economic embargo...

Are you claiming the U.S. has been blocking medical supplies to Cuba?

You might want to more closely examine that claim before you just assume this is the explanation.


I assume by "embargo", you are referring to the "Cuban Democracy Act" (CDA), passed in 1992, which prevents U.S. foreign currency from entering Cuba.
The CDA does have exemption for medicine sales written into it (although some argue its requirements were not implemented properly). The CDA also prohibits foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations from selling to Cuba. The CDA also prevents ships that dock in Cuba from docking in U.S. ports for six months (which has the effect of increasing shipping costs and restricts shipping).

[Fasces]

IP protection is anti-free market
Shes more of a lib than you.

[Puffer Fish]

IP protection is anti-free market
Shes more of a lib than you.

The company only even has these protections because they spent hundreds of millions of dollars doing the research to develop the drugs, and pay for very expensive testing trials.
(Out of twenty different drugs being researched and trialed, maybe only one will turn out to be safe and effective, and a commercial success)

You are aware that patent protection only lasts 20 years?
(Often even less than that, because companies routinely obtain patent protection before regulatory approval, 2 years before sales start)


If the Communist Left doesn't like Intellectual Property protection, maybe they should pay for their own development of new drugs.

Anyway, this is one of the few areas I believe government would not be less efficient in than the private sector.

[Istanbuller]

Hope she talks more about her crazy economics ideas. It is better she talks about how she will punish Wall Street. It will bring more moderates to Trump camp.

[Puffer Fish]

Conservative Free Market supporters often accuse the Communist Left of wanting to steal away the hard work and investments from other people.
Well, this is such a case.

Would those drugs even now exist if the pharmaceutical companies had not recently spent all the money and energy developing them?

It seems many on the Left just want "something for nothing", feel it is fine to "take" from private companies, just because they are "big corporations" and have "lots of money" supposedly.

They believe wealth grows on trees, and they can just seize that wealth with no long-term consequences. In this case, intellectual wealth.

[Fasces]

You're the only one suuporting government backed monopolies here. You're the communist.

[Bill_Nye]

What about US subsidies for research with the patent holder being the US government?

[Truth To Power]

Are you claiming the U.S. has been blocking medical supplies to Cuba?

It has been blocking Cuba's access to the chemicals and equipment needed to manufacture its own medical supplies, forcing Cuba to pay the monopoly prices for patented drugs and devices.

You might want to more closely examine that claim before you just assume this is the explanation.

I didn't say it was "the" explanation, or even the most important factor, but it is a contributing factor.

I assume by "embargo", you are referring to the "Cuban Democracy Act" (CDA), passed in 1992, which prevents U.S. foreign currency from entering Cuba.

Among other embargoes.

The CDA does have exemption for medicine sales written into it (although some argue its requirements were not implemented properly). The CDA also prohibits foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations from selling to Cuba. The CDA also prevents ships that dock in Cuba from docking in U.S. ports for six months (which has the effect of increasing shipping costs and restricts shipping).

All of which deprive Cuba of access to economic opportunity that would otherwise be available.

[Truth To Power]

Conservative Free Market supporters often accuse the Communist Left of wanting to steal away the hard work and investments from other people.
Well, this is such a case.

Garbage. Monopoly rent seeking may be hard work, and it may be expensive, but it is not productive, and it certainly cannot be part of a free market.

Would those drugs even now exist if the pharmaceutical companies had not recently spent all the money and energy developing them?

Yes, and in fact better, cheaper, and safer unpatentable ones would almost certainly be available if research into them had not been suppressed by the drug patent system.

It seems many on the Left just want "something for nothing", feel it is fine to "take" from private companies, just because they are "big corporations" and have "lots of money" supposedly.

It is the monopoly privilege holder who takes something for nothing, and I will thank you to remember it.

They believe wealth grows on trees, and they can just seize that wealth with no long-term consequences. In this case, intellectual wealth.

There is no such thing as "intellectual wealth." What you call "wealth" is just the value of a government-issued and -enforced monopoly privilege that abrogates people's rights to liberty.

[Truth To Power]

Hope she talks more about her crazy economics ideas. It is better she talks about how she will punish Wall Street.

Declining to be robbed by someone is not "punishing" them.

It will bring more moderates to Trump camp.

I only address my arguments to people who are willing and able to think. That would not include anyone in the Trump camp.

[Truth To Power]

The company only even has these protections because they spent hundreds of millions of dollars doing the research to develop the drugs, and pay for very expensive testing trials.

Garbage. Patents are issued according to applications, not research results.

You are aware that patent protection only lasts 20 years?

They can be extended.

(Often even less than that, because companies routinely obtain patent protection before regulatory approval,

Proving you wrong.

If the Communist Left doesn't like Intellectual Property protection, maybe they should pay for their own development of new drugs.

Maybe if patent (and copyright) monopolists weren't stifling innovation and stealing a double-digit percent of GDP, a lot more and better and safer new drugs could be developed.

Anyway, this is one of the few areas I believe government would not be less efficient in than the private sector.

The drug patent monopoly system has caused wholesale fraud and corruption in medical research, and killed millions of people.

[Istanbuller]

Declining to be robbed by someone is not "punishing" them.

I only address my arguments to people who are willing and able to think. That would not include anyone in the Trump camp.

How are you robbed?

[Puffer Fish]

Declining to be robbed by someone is not "punishing" them.

I see. So if a corporation spends hundreds of millions to develop a new drug, you do not believe that corporation should be able to reap the profits if the drug is "too profitable".

Never mind that whenever one of these companies invests money into research for a new drug, there's a high chance that drug research will turn out to be a failure.

All you seem to be able to look it is the success. But you don't seem to realize that for every success, there are 10 other failures.

Don't you think it's going to make these companies more reluctant to invest money into research and testing if they are not able to reap the full profits from their rare success?

To repeat again: We're talking about newer drugs that a pharmaceutical company developed less than 20 years ago.

Do you think we'd even have those drugs if those corporations didn't develop them?

[Puffer Fish]

What about US subsidies for research with the patent holder being the US government?

For those who complain about pharmaceutical companies making "too much money" and drug prices being "too expensive", you'd think this would be the obvious solution.

Yet we don't seem to see Democrats on the Left in the U.S. pushing for, or actually pursuing this idea.
It's kind of interesting to ask why that has not happened.

Maybe for all the Left's talk about "government being more capable than private corporations", the Left is still overly reliant on private corporations?
Maybe simple stupidity and incompetence is the reason it hasn't happened?

[Truth To Power]

How are you robbed?

By having to pay a monopoly price for something that would be far less expensive in a free market.

[Truth To Power]

For those who complain about pharmaceutical companies making "too much money" and drug prices being "too expensive", you'd think this would be the obvious solution.

No, the obvious solution is a free market where all are at liberty to produce and sell.

Yet we don't seem to see Democrats on the Left in the U.S. pushing for, or actually pursuing this idea.
It's kind of interesting to ask why that has not happened.

Citizens United. Answered.

Maybe for all the Left's talk about "government being more capable than private corporations", the Left is still overly reliant on private corporations?

Effectively all politicians are overly reliant on donations from wealthy private interests.

Maybe simple stupidity and incompetence is the reason it hasn't happened?

Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity -- and never attribute to stupidity what is adequately explained by greed.

[Truth To Power]

I see. So if a corporation spends hundreds of millions to develop a new drug, you do not believe that corporation should be able to reap the profits if the drug is "too profitable".

No, I don't believe that the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to produce and sell the drug should be forcibly removed and made into the private property of the corporation.

Never mind that whenever one of these companies invests money into research for a new drug, there's a high chance that drug research will turn out to be a failure.

There is a high chance it will turn out to be a failure because the only criterion for investment of that money is patentability, not efficacy or safety.

All you seem to be able to look it is the success. But you don't seem to realize that for every success, there are 10 other failures.

No. All you seem to be able to look at is the narrow financial interests of the privileged, and don't seem to realize that monopoly privelege is known to be one of the least efficient ways to create an incentive.

The only reason we have patent and copyright monopolies at all is that when the US Constitution was written, monopoly privilege -- a patent monopoly on the cinnamon trade, a land patent, a patent entitling the holder to charge tolls on a natural river, etc. -- was the default mechanism for rewarding service to the king without having to raise taxes. Economics had not yet advanced to the point where the impoverishing effects of such monopolies on society were understood.

Don't you think it's going to make these companies more reluctant to invest money into research and testing if they are not able to reap the full profits from their rare success?

Maybe if spending on drug research and testing was based on drugs' potential efficacy and safety rather than only their patentability, the health and economic survival of patients would not be sacrificed to the narrow financial interests of drug company shareholders and executives.

To repeat again: We're talking about newer drugs that a pharmaceutical company developed less than 20 years ago.

To repeat again, why are we talking about those drugs rather than the cheaper, safer, and more effective ones whose development was suppressed because they are unpatentable?

Do you think we'd even have those drugs if those corporations didn't develop them?

If they were any good, we would definitely have them, as well as all the better ones that we don't have because their development was suppressed by the drug patent system.