https://www.politico.com/news/2023/1...tents-00130452
Printable View
The lawsuits will probably get to the Supreme Court and get resolved long after Biden leaves office.
If the government wants to reap financial windfall (or discounts) from basic government research, it should put those conditions upfront. These people don't get basic economics.
By "these people" you mean the corporate officers in pharma companies, like Shkreli?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
They made their bed, Dread, and it hasn't been about the true costs of funding pharma research for a while. It's about competition with the vertically-integrating insurance companies for the juiciest marrow
I'm honestly surprised they're going for it. I don't think this admin would pursue something like this unless they have an acceptable fallback plan, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Here's the thing. They're not actually going for it. This is just threatening. "I'mma reach for this here stick if you don't behave. Don't test me, I'mma do it. It's in my reach. All I gotta do is grab it if you don't behave. Boy, it'll smart so bad if you make me do it. See how big that stick is? I can grab it any time I want if you test me. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Do you really think Shkreli really has anything to do with government research?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Not a bit. Shkreli's companies never developed any new drugs, they just acquired drugs others developed. Shkreli's business model with the two pharma companies he started was to buy an uncommon drug, keep supply restricted and jack up the price. He talked a good game about developing drugs for rare diseases and conditions but that's all it was. He was always a financial gouger and a conman. If any of those acquired rights had been developed with federal funding help, they'd be perfect candidates for march-in rights because the patent-holder is not fully following through on bringing their patent to the public.
Okay, but we both know that's not what the Biden admin is really targeting. They want to use march-in rights as a cudgel to secure favorable pricing.
Wait, I thought you wanted to cut government spending? Or is that only when poor people bear the brunt of the cut?
If by "secure favorable pricing" you mean "stop the reign of horrific profiteering and price-gouging, far in excess of cost of development and production" then yes. It was schemes like Shkreli's, and the ridiculously inflated prices for insulin that prompting Congress to enact direct price controls, that led us here, Dread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught