Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
What a good piece of legislation can really make a difference for so many Americans. I'm excited to see this never be used and quietly get taken off the books in three years by Republicans.
Three years? That's optimistic...
Maaan i wish there was some more info on what the white house 'believes' is expensive, cuz whether this policy could be amazing or useless depends entirely upon that question mark
Leaving it vague allows the government more leeway, and companies less opportunities for "well, technically" gotchas from their scores of lawyers
Surely youre right, because the answer of whether they are too high is 'yes' for every drug sold in the us.
I guess I'm interested in how they are using it, if at all. If Biden plans on reducing 'scrips in time for the election it could help pump his numbers up i guess? I'm just spitballing, cuz i can't see how it's gonna be used. i am too cynical after all these years to believe the poor get any breaks.
Of you want to be cynical, I'll bet it's only used on companies with whom the administration makes behind the scenes deals with before going public with it. Financial or helping them look good, or offering future contracts
This only covers “Taxpayer funded drugs”. apparently.
That’s a huge portion of them. Taxpayers help out a lot at early levels of drug discovery with things like public universities and research grants.
Which is why research papers should be provided for free if they were funded with tax money.
Man that's a really important piece of information, it should be in the article title. The greediest companies are not the tax payer funded ones
A good analysis would be to determine what portion of the drug market would fall in this category. I imagine the amount of drug R&D done with some amount of federal dollars is pretty high.
If this policy has enough teeth to scare pharma corps, then it will probably change their behaviors. They could decide that they need to use minimal federal funding which could slow drug development. I wonder if this policy (or others) is meant to address this potential.
No, the greediest companies take all the tax payer funding and research they can before patenting it and pretending they made it, see moderna. Why pay for your research when you can get the taxpayers to do it?
They're going to seize insulin, right?
I'm always suspicious when the government goes against their masters.. ie donors sounds great though
[death-by-snu-snu-excited-scared-meme.gif]
The spirit is willing but the body is spongy and bruised