Wait, isn't that communist thinking?
The Public Shouldn't Pay for Drugs Twice
- Thread starter VicBee
- Start date
That whole article is communist thinking. LOL And besides communism is not bad. What's bad is some organizations abuse communism to use it as an excuse to impose authoritarian rules on people, destroying the welfare of the people.
sure but it really isn't complicated, the government funds it because the government wants it and so what? The government is a customer, the performer gets to charge what they generally want but there IS a negotiation and contract. Subsidies fail a lot too, the government is a terrible decision maker sometimes.
Where it is complicated is exactly where you have it wrong, patent rights. If something is truly inveted by a government employee in a government lab, then it is 100% government patent rights and the government does get royalties while licensing out manufacture. When the government funds a private entity to do research, the data rights can be all over the place from completely open to the public to all patent rights belong to private entity, it is negotiated. You have to pay more for open data. Lost in all this is why does the government do all this in the first place, why not just keep it 100% government? because that experiment has been done and private free enterprise is better at just about everything from innovation to production, so whenever there is an emergency this is why the government turns to Moderna and not their own NIH which has labs and scientists.
no they don't run counter to capitalism. It is the government and people like you who destroy the free market by demanding that any latest and greatest procedure or drug be a 'right' to people without money. Also people can say no, they do it all the time.
Are you actually going to claim that North Korea and Venezuela have better medical care? How many times must people suffer under this crap before people like you shut up?
You've adopted a common technique of argument in which you decide for someone else what they are like and what they think, when in fact you have little idea of either what they think or what they are like. They have just stated to you something they think, and you have ignored it. You have stated that they are like someone "who destroy(s) the free market" by making a demand; yet they demanded nothing. It would be an understatement to say, "you could do better."
Last edited:
Patents are mentioned in this thread, so I thought I would interject something about patents that isn't widely known. In the United States, only individuals can obtain patents. Neither the government nor any business or university can receive a patent. Patents are always issued in the inventors name. As a condition of employment, employees are usually required to assign rights to their employer for any patent they obtain if the employer's resources were used to enable the obtaining of the patent. Some employers have even tried to claim rights to patents obtained by their employees regardless of whether the employers resources were involved!
Leo Szilard, for example, is the official inventor (patent applied for in1934) of the nuclear fission reactor; not the U.S. Government. This patent is a core, concept patent (the most valuable kind) underlying the atomic bomb. It was Szilard who recognized the potential to make a fission bomb, and it was Szilard who got Einstein to write the Government disclosing the possibility of creating an atomic bomb. Most likely the bomb itself is patented, but that patent, if it exists, it is still secret and would most likely be kept in a vault at the patent office to this day. (Nearly all patents are in the public domain.) It is known there were over 2000 patents applications filed by scientists and engineers in conjunction with the Manhattan project. Most of those are in the public domain today. Szilard later sued the Government over patent infringement, not having to do with the bomb but with his nuclear fission patent and its infringement associated with reactor development.
Leo Szilard, for example, is the official inventor (patent applied for in1934) of the nuclear fission reactor; not the U.S. Government. This patent is a core, concept patent (the most valuable kind) underlying the atomic bomb. It was Szilard who recognized the potential to make a fission bomb, and it was Szilard who got Einstein to write the Government disclosing the possibility of creating an atomic bomb. Most likely the bomb itself is patented, but that patent, if it exists, it is still secret and would most likely be kept in a vault at the patent office to this day. (Nearly all patents are in the public domain.) It is known there were over 2000 patents applications filed by scientists and engineers in conjunction with the Manhattan project. Most of those are in the public domain today. Szilard later sued the Government over patent infringement, not having to do with the bomb but with his nuclear fission patent and its infringement associated with reactor development.
Last edited:
you have adopted the common technique of saying nothing, I saw what you said, no strawman
I knew that, I didn't say it because what exactly is the point? there is zero useful new information here with regard to the topic at hand