5 ms·
Note that the government giving companies money doesn't mean the government magically owns any rights to the medication.
by sdinsn 6y ago
Note 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.