5 ms·

The Pharma industry does need to be relatively strictly regulated - for instance see the issues over withholding and bias in clinical research: https://en.wiki

The Pharma industry does need to be relatively strictly regulated - for instance see the issues over withholding and bias in clinical research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllTrials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllTrials But, nationalizing the industry is impossible. We don't spend anywhere near enough on medical research for it to be possible. The UK government for instance spends about £500m a year on all medical research, even if you redirected all that money into clinical trials, you would be lucky to produce a handful of drugs each year.

emodendroket 11y ago
Why would you assume that in a situation where the entire pharmaceutical industry was nationalized there would not be any more revenue going to those programs? Presumably 1) a government who chose to nationalize them would also direct more tax dollars toward them 2) at least some of the revenue pharmaceutical companies are seeing now would go to government manufacturers instead. This is academic, perhaps, given the likelihood of it happening.
- monocasa 11y ago
  Honestly I think single payer healthcare in the US gets you 95% of the way there. At that point the government is in control of most of the revenue to the pharmaceutical companies leaving them in a much better negotiating position. It even makes sense to then bring some of the pharmaceutical production "in house" to cut costs since you're de facto paying for all of the pharmaceutical research anyway.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    Medicare would even be in a pretty good negotiating position now if it weren't barred by statute from doing negotiations.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Mind boggling, this. There's zero rational explanation other than government-sponsored profiteering, and yet still this is a thing.
jonlucc 11y ago
I, for one, would not at all like it to be subject to government shut downs, annual budget cuts to pay for wars, etc.

emodendroket 11y ago

Why would you assume that in a situation where the entire pharmaceutical industry was nationalized there would not be any more revenue going to those programs? Presumably 1) a government who chose to nationalize them would also direct more tax dollars toward them 2) at least some of the revenue pharmaceutical companies are seeing now would go to government manufacturers instead. This is academic, perhaps, given the likelihood of it happening.

monocasa 11y ago
Honestly I think single payer healthcare in the US gets you 95% of the way there. At that point the government is in control of most of the revenue to the pharmaceutical companies leaving them in a much better negotiating position. It even makes sense to then bring some of the pharmaceutical production "in house" to cut costs since you're de facto paying for all of the pharmaceutical research anyway.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  Medicare would even be in a pretty good negotiating position now if it weren't barred by statute from doing negotiations.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Mind boggling, this. There's zero rational explanation other than government-sponsored profiteering, and yet still this is a thing.

jonlucc 11y ago

I, for one, would not at all like it to be subject to government shut downs, annual budget cuts to pay for wars, etc.