-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Harris Snatching Patents
- Thread starter Clizby Wampuscat
- Start date
Without profit though, how is the research funded?
Ya gotta consider the unintended consequences of
price fixing & confiscation.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The working class is frequently told just to do it and do it without complaining because there's someone who will do without complaining and do it for less. Profiting from medicine isn't as lucrative? This works both ways. Those who want to practice will have more room without those wanting to make money in the way. Now let's make it less expensive to practice medicine so we can run the shielded rotten apples out and get in people who want to work in the field and are a good fit for it.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's called grants and the reality money doesn't motive everyone, especially thise who want to help and heal.
Grants can be made with rights to the results.
Is this being done or not?
What of privately financed development of
drugs...does government have the right to
price & even confiscate? What results do
you envision? All the results, not just the
intended ones.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Wait, don't you support snatching foreskin off of infants?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No, that's called circumcision when parts of the genitals are snatched off children
How do you feel when you see the phrase "education business", or "childcare business"?I feel like vomiting every time I see the word "business" and the word "healthcare" in the same sentence.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't.
A very wise doctor told me once, "Whatever the father is, that would be my choice." Makes sense to me.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
With two heart attacks under my belt bouts of type 2 diabetes, I can safely say that I do not feel like a patient cared for , but more like I'm treated as a huge big walking gargantuan money bag.
In all other developed world countries, the govt directly negotiates with the drug companies to determine the prices of the prescription drugs. That is why the costs are lower. That is obviously the solution.
The high cost of prescription drugs: causes and solutions
Ideally, monopolies will be temporary because eventually generic competition should emerge as patents expire. Unfortunately, in cancers and chronic life-threatening diseases, this often does not happen. By the time a drug runs out of patent life, it is already considered obsolete (planned obsolescence) and is no longer the standard of care4. A “new and improved version” with a fresh patent life and monopoly protection has already taken the stage. In the case of biologic drugs, cumbersome manufacturing and biosimilar approval processes are additional barriers that greatly limit the number of competitors that can enter the market.
Clearly, all monopolies need to be regulated in order to protect citizens, and therefore most of the developed world uses some form of regulations to cap the launch prices of new prescription drugs. Unregulated monopolies pose major problems. Unregulated monopoly over an essential product can lead to unaffordable prices that threaten the life of citizens. This is the case in the United States, where there are no regulations to control prescription drug prices and no enforceable mechanisms for value-based pricing.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Insurance companies do it, I don't see why the government can't.
You can't compare education with healthcare.
Health is vital.
What court case stated this?
I see the patents in the case of life saving drugs being much like eminent domain laws where the government is authorized to take personal property for the sake of helping the community at large.
She? Herself? No, the government. And if there is a strong public interest in doing so.
The major flaw with conservative thinking these days is their idealism. There is such a commitment to ideals that the life and dignity of human beings get ignored or devalued. It's odd they call themselves the "pro-life" party and then turn their backs on the most crucial issues that make life better, and this includes healthcare access and affordable medication. You value the profits and patents of the drug compaines more than the humans who may suffer and die because medication is a product they can't afford. Republicans only mourn the dead because it's one less potential customer, not because our Capitalist system caused their death.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That's the goal of for profit healthcare. My doctor in Indiana got in trouble with one employer because they didn't want her spending time with her patients as they do. They had a problem with it, she went elsewhere and brought a lot of her patients with her.
But if it wasn't so expensive to get all the schooling and training and licensing we would probably get a much better quality of healthcare provider as the rich jerks who are just staying rich will have to compete against people who actually want to be their and help people (and one both sides it really shows who's there dor the patients and who's there for the paycheck).
McBell
Unbound
You can when talking about the business end of them.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Most Americans live in states with laws that have some kind of ban on price gouging, so what Harris proposes is not a radical new idea. Harris has not proposed price controls in the sense that Richard Nixon imposed them, although Republicans are spinning it that way for all they are worth. She has announced a priority of dealing with price gouging by major corporations that control enough of the market to raise prices without fearing competition. In places where they do face competition, they can afford to take losses that drive the competition out of business. That kind of market dominance has already been occurring because of market domination in the food industries.
Right now, the three largest supermarket chains in the US are Walmart, Albertsons, and Kroger. Kroger is in the process of trying to merge with Albertsons, and it looks like regulators may not have the courage to stop them. The merger is on hold temporarily for now, but it will definitely go through under Trump. If so, Kroger will pretty much set the prices for food in the Seattle area. Smaller competitors will raise prices to meet the rising tide, but they won't have the capacity to compete with Kroger stores. A lot of the Albertsons stores (which includes Safeway) will likely shut down, limiting consumer options for finding bargains. Antitrust laws should prevent this kind of thing, but they don't appear to have as much effect as they have in the past.
Right now, the three largest supermarket chains in the US are Walmart, Albertsons, and Kroger. Kroger is in the process of trying to merge with Albertsons, and it looks like regulators may not have the courage to stop them. The merger is on hold temporarily for now, but it will definitely go through under Trump. If so, Kroger will pretty much set the prices for food in the Seattle area. Smaller competitors will raise prices to meet the rising tide, but they won't have the capacity to compete with Kroger stores. A lot of the Albertsons stores (which includes Safeway) will likely shut down, limiting consumer options for finding bargains. Antitrust laws should prevent this kind of thing, but they don't appear to have as much effect as they have in the past.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
The government subsidizes research through grants, contracts, and tax writeoffs. When I worked in a major aerospace corporation, we had to follow regulations in terms of how the money could be spent, especially when it was for research and development, which were not supposed to go into paying for normal business processes and product development. When I first started work in by R&D job at the corporation, the government had audited and was suing the company for alleged misuse of such funds in our organization, on the grounds that the IR&D money was being misdirected in the past to pay for internal product development rather than innovative research projects. The IR&D "color" of money got larger tax breaks than other types. If you worked on a government contract, the government did conduct oversight on progress and retain certain ownership rights of the intellectual property. If the company funded a project without any government support, subsidy, or tax benefit, it completely owned the results of development. Otherwise, there were strings attached to what was produced. The rules were very complicated.
Then give me a logical explanation why in the USA prostitution is not recognized as a legal business.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Logical, there isn't one.