Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
2. We've been meddling in Columbia long before this drug, so I doubt that prompted withdrawing funds.
Mon May 16, 2016, 06:06 AM
May 2016

On the other hand, "compulsory licensing" is part of the reason why we pay more for drugs than poorer countries. There are other reasons too -- that need to be addressed.

"Compulsory licensing" makes sense unless we find a solution. It is also a reason one can't just look at agreements like the TPP and say that it will keep poor countries from getting access to drugs during a longer patent period. Yes, they can get access to some -- but not all -- drugs through "compulsory licensing," just like before the TPP.

Drug pricing/cost is a big issue for everyone that we need to get a handle on, without stifling innovation. Fortunately, most costly drugs do save money in other ways -- hospitalization, testing, other treatments, etc. -- and save/improve lives. And, most of the big drug companies have programs that attempt to help the poor get access to the drugs.

Personally, I'm fine with nationalizing all drug companies worldwide. Problem is, producing drugs is expensive and requires massive investment that most governments aren't willing to, or can't be depended on to, provide.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is This The Return Of U.S...»Reply #2