4 ms·
Except: 1) Taxpayers paid $70.5 million 2) Remdesivir was discovered through a collaboration between Gilead and US Army. 3) Remdesivir received funding from D
by nabaraz 6y ago
Except:
1) Taxpayers paid $70.5 million
2) Remdesivir was discovered through a collaboration between Gilead and US Army.
3) Remdesivir received funding from DOD and CDC (for Ebola treatment)
- sdinsn 6y agoNote that the government giving companies money doesn't mean the government magically owns any rights to the medication.
- atomi 6y agoPerhaps that's something the taxpayers should demand?
- sdinsn 6y ago"The taxpayers"? I'm a tax payer, and I want no such thing. Speak only for yourself please.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoI'm another taxpayer. I support the the commenter above you.
- mam2 6y agoWhy not ?
- gtt 6y agoWell, some countries before tried to have a collective ownership of productive assets and it hasn't really worked out: it misaligns incentives all the way down.
- atomi 6y agoThis is an extremely vague retort. Are you proposing the government should have no attached requirements to qualify for subsidies? Are you flatly against all regulation when a particular company is given tax money? For what it's worth, the government can regulate any industry regardless of whether it is subsidized.
- phillipwills 6y agoBut it does reduce the cost of research and development coming out of the company's pocket. That said, in a capitalist society, the production price helps to set where companies will stop making it. The price is actually set to where profit is highest, meaning it's a function of: how many people will buy at various prices and how much does it cost to produce at various quantities. One of the strong arguments for single payer healthcare, IMHO.
- sdinsn 6y agoSingle payer healthcare is a separate issue from pharmaceutical companies. In a single payer system, there will just be a single buyer- and a single buyer, AKA a monopsony, is illegal under monopoly laws in the US.