this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
352 points (99.7% liked)

World News

32059 readers
740 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think access to certain drugs that deeply impact the public health should be capped in the name of national security. Vaccines for AIDS, Flu, COVID-19, H1-N1, HPV, etc. and things like insulin, should be freely available to the public. Let the firms make money off of the thousands of other meds they push.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In that scenario, why would drug companies bother to develop drugs that deeply impart public health? They already prioritize drugs for smaller numbers of rich people rather than drugs for larger numbers of poor people (e.g. antibiotics). If they can't make a large profit off of developing an AIDS vaccine, they're going to work on something like weight-loss drugs instead.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Carrot and stick. The carrot is money for R&D plus a guaranteed purchase of their stock at a fixed and profitable markup. The stick is a regulatory hellscape and guaranteed perpetual purgatory for their other meds if they don't play ball. Keep the gov happy, and the gov keeps you fat and rich. Drag your feet on critical care meds and risk your skinny pills not be sold in the main market for them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

A lot of that research isn't done by these companies. Further, their marketing budget is often huge, the research budget is often lower than that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you've just described every decent public health system in several countries, many of them not really rich, such as brazil.