You can't be serious right now...
Democrat Cory Booker: Hold my beer.
Isn't he a co-sponsor?fixed.
Any credible analysis of drug development costs concludes that they are insufficient to explain their cost on the US market. This source mentions that much of the research occurs at academic institutions. Here's another source. And another, though this one only peripherally addresses costs vs. R&D. (Not suggesting these are the most conclusive, in fact I dimly recall one showing that pharma R&D budgets are comparable to general industry, these are just the ones that came up in a minute and a half of Google searches.)
In multiple ways, analysis of the data indicates that the operation of health care in the US is simply wrong. This is not a matter of debate in which rational people can disagree. The removal of private entities from health care demonstrably serves the public interest. It can't be contested. It's supported by a variety of data and can only be opposed for reasons of greed or philosophically invalid ideology. That nationalization of health care is even slightly controversial illustrates how little correct reasoning matters in this political climate.
Collective social benefits (welfare or otherwise) are not "socialism"!
Marx did not invent welfare, military forces, or other public subsidies.
Coming from a person not entirely in favor of Sanders' universal policies he toted in his campaign; this is a sensible, Centrist measure. I dig it.
Oh wait, Trump dick-riders gonna mess this up too. Fuck...
Do any major nations besides USA not negotiate prices like this?
*sigh*
The only examples in this thread are from Berniebros complaining about it.
*sigh*
The only examples in this thread are from Berniebros complaining about it.
Hey, i'm not the one spouting off definitions I don't have any idea what they mean.
As evidenced by equating "nationalization of" and "dominant public involvement in".
Collective social benefits (welfare or otherwise) are not "socialism"!
Marx did not invent welfare, military forces, or other public subsidies.
It's so true though.
What I don't understand about the "drug companies need to recoup their costs" argument is that doesn't every other country in the fucking world negotiate prices? Do these drug companies make ALL of their profit on the backs of the US?
So taxpayers subsidise the development of a vaccine but then aren't allowed to buy it at a reasonable price because the exclusive patent has been sold to a foreign company.
That's not a culture of entrepreneurship that's a culture of parasites.
It's insane how a $1 bag of saline solution becomes $500 by the time they stick an IV into your arm. The whole thing is fucked up.
Republicans: Hold my beer.
2016 was last year.
Bernie lost. Hillary lost. Stop reliving your glory years.
Are you upset that a senator who was a presidential candidate that lost is still trying to help the american people?
Collective social benefits are not exclusive to or invented by socialists. Period.Marx also didn't invent socialism. Most schools of socialism recognise collective social benefits as an integral part of socialism.
Republicans: Hold my beer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-drug-prices_us_597f4546e4b0da64e87aaebf
Don't see how anyone could reasonably reject such a measure.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-drug-prices_us_597f4546e4b0da64e87aaebf
Don't see how anyone could reasonably reject such a measure.
Collective social benefits are not exclusive to or invented by socialists. Period.
Are you upset that a senator who was a presidential candidate that lost is still trying to help the american people?
And I'm sure most of them don't think it's fine that people keep pushing the "bro" angle that was pitched as part of a campaign strategy. The primaries are over, there's no need to do that crap.I don't think it's fine that Berniebros come on here in every thread complaining about how he should have been President.
It's the OT equivalent of Switch port begging.
Why should they not be allowed a degree of advertising? In many cases they spent the money on the R&D, Clinical Trials, etc.
Ironically, the only way it may pass the 1st amendment might be a blanket ban on drug advertising.
But, I think a bigger issue is the "Drug Rep" problem you mention.
This is getting a bit off topic though.
Please read up on how other countries do healthcare.
You seem to only think a nationalized system works, but many countries have successfully done it in other ways.
This sure is productive!
Great job!