I didn't say remove patent, but what the hell good is a patent if you are only allowed to collect revenue that takes 7 years just to recoup R&D cost? That's just the break even point for one expense. Factor in the other expenses and you are easily looking at over 10 years just to break even, never mind make an actual profit. There isn't a business in he world that would take on that venture day after day.
I didn't propose a regulation that would delay recovery of costs and stifle profits. I proposed an alternative that would reward the initial patent holder and allow competition to set the market price after the inventor collects its reward.
I know you didn't say remove patent. That was the point . You failed to acknowledge the government is already involved. It isn't a matter of keep govt. out, it is a matter of the appropriate level of regulation.
Annual revenue for a drug should be limited to 15% of a drugs total R&D cost. They can make plenty of money with this restriction.
Fine if 15% is to low make it 35%, but instead of 20 year patent, they now have a 5 year patent.
You'd vastly limit the breadth of research that goes on and therefore drastically reduce discovery and innovation. Very counterproductive.
I wonder how much longer the moon landing would have taken if this had been the model.
Fine if 15% is to low make it 35%, but instead of 20 year patent, they now have a 5 year patent.
Then the government needs to get rid of these private drug companies and sell the drugs it self.
Ah fuck that. We went to the Moon and to Mars on the federal dime.
Then take it away from private industry altogether and have the federal government fund the research and development. Take out the profit motive altogether. It would be much more cost effective for the American people.
It would also vastly reduce the advancement of health care in this country. The profit motive is a reason for advancement. Whether you like it or not. Putting that in the hands of the federal govt will bring politics into advancement. I know the left whined about the federal ban on stem cell research. You realize while the federal govt was playing politics private industry was moving ahead with research? Now lets apply that to every proposed advancement. Sounds like it should end well for us. But hey, at least we wont have to pay for expensive drugs if they are never created!
It would also vastly reduce the advancement of health care in this country. The profit motive is a reason for advancement. Whether you like it or not. Putting that in the hands of the federal govt will bring politics into advancement. I know the left whined about the federal ban on stem cell research. You realize while the federal govt was playing politics private industry was moving ahead with research? Now lets apply that to every proposed advancement. Sounds like it should end well for us. But hey, at least we wont have to pay for expensive drugs if they are never created!
this is one of the problems with some forms of public (socalized) medicine... politicians making decisions about what drugs to treat patients with based on drug cost rather than effectiveness, how many heart surgeries to do this year... let's reduce the number of prostate cancer surgeries by 6% this year... etc.
in my mind if you could eliminate politicians ability to make control medical decisions you move much closer to an acceptable socalized system. the above system is very real and very unaceptable in my mind.
Something important to note is that the Feds are already massively subsidizing our drug industry, just in the dumbest way possible. (Not negotiating on prices using Medicare)
I am all for the profit motive, but I'm also all for removing that subsidy. If we are going to subsidize drug companies it should be for things we as a society choose.
This "income inequality" thing is still talked about and I don't understand it.
How much should a corporation make?
How much should a person make?
How much should a person get paid not to work?
I don't necessarily agree with all this, but that's a remarkably cogent, concise and simple answer. Kudos.How much should a corporation make?
Whatever it can, without government intervention - few to little local tax incentives and certainly no subsidies - this is a business. Either it knows how to operate properly or it doesn't.
How much should a person make?
~23% more than what they are currently making; http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/11/us-usa-mayors-jobs-idUSKBN0GB1T920140811
How much should a person get paid not to work?
If they are sick, hurt or disabled - an amount that covers their needs as best as possible.
If a nation gives its government the power of the North Korean government, that nation will inevitably become North Korea. And it will richly deserve it.I posted limits on wealth already, companies should be fined for compensation over 5 million a year, a 200% fine for each dollar of compensation over 5 million annually. Self employed people should have a 25% fine for each dollar of self employed income over 5 million. This is in addition to income tax.
Income tax also needs to be raised to 50% at 1 million.
No needs to make millions a year, and no one should be allowed to.
That's certainly a valid point, but it's worth pointing out that most drugs developed are simply me-too competitor drugs to grab a piece of the market, and while in principle I support free market competition, in practice free market competition begins to fail for prescription drugs and indeed, in general when health care gets to the point of diagnostic machines or drug development running in the tens to hundreds of million dollars.people buying other drugs that those companies make.
i know of one company that lost almost 3 billion dollars and nearly a decade of work wwhen they had 3 trials fail in a single 365 day span.
they need big profits because cutting edge medical research costs (especially clinical trials) are ungodly
-----
SNIP
There is probably more equality in NK than the U.S.