• Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think access to certain drugs that deeply impact the public health should be capped in the name of national security. Vaccines for AIDS, Flu, COVID-19, H1-N1, HPV, etc. and things like insulin, should be freely available to the public. Let the firms make money off of the thousands of other meds they push.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      In that scenario, why would drug companies bother to develop drugs that deeply impart public health? They already prioritize drugs for smaller numbers of rich people rather than drugs for larger numbers of poor people (e.g. antibiotics). If they can’t make a large profit off of developing an AIDS vaccine, they’re going to work on something like weight-loss drugs instead.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Carrot and stick. The carrot is money for R&D plus a guaranteed purchase of their stock at a fixed and profitable markup. The stick is a regulatory hellscape and guaranteed perpetual purgatory for their other meds if they don’t play ball. Keep the gov happy, and the gov keeps you fat and rich. Drag your feet on critical care meds and risk your skinny pills not be sold in the main market for them.

      • baru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        A lot of that research isn’t done by these companies. Further, their marketing budget is often huge, the research budget is often lower than that.

    • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      you’ve just described every decent public health system in several countries, many of them not really rich, such as brazil.