Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
What does that mean? Because government is uniquely suited to experimental research, the kind that isn't tied directly to product development, which is indirectly a big subsidy for pharma if it ever leads to something.
You could change that by getting government into the drug/device business, which would come with its own set of problems, but I don't think you want to take it away.
|
In the first place, new drugs and devices are priced out of the reach of most Americans. I don't care about a new diabetes drug if the price (with Part D) is $475/mo. If I can't afford it, and most Americans can't afford it, it's just part of the oligarchy machine.
But what I mean is primarily getting rid of the system that allows Pharma to (a) charge Americans far more than they do the rest of the world for drugs and (b) eliminating the tax break pharma gets by applying Reg. 1.861-17, which allows Pharma to allocate almost all of its R&D expenditures to the US. That regulation allows the companies to shelter massive amounts of income in the US for drugs that are sold all over the world. If the expenses had to be allocated in accordance with sales, that alone would lead to a leveling in drug prices across the globe.
Quote:
|
But keep subsidies for small ag? That doesn't sound like it would work either.
|
I don't favor agricultural subsidies, period. But the notion that ADM and Cargill can get paid tens of millions to not grow food in a world where people go hungry is obscene.
Quote:
|
And very much not a libertarian.
|
I never said I was a libertarian. When I think libertarian, I think Ayn Rand and her followers, who I view as scum.
