Comment by thrance
1 year ago
It's becoming increasingly difficult to understand what you're even arguing about. My original comment was:
> Which is why there should be no patents in healthcare. Most research is already publicly-funded, production and distribution should be too. We could drown in cheap medicine, instead we artificially increase the prices by 5000% to fatten the pockets of already super-wealthy parasites.
If a company sells a pill for $100 that cost them $2 to manufacture, that's a 5000% markup. Indeed, they would need to recoup R&D expenditures, but I am arguing for a system where we don't need to, because R&D is paid for by the state, and we don't need to turn a profit once the product has been developed. Where's the logic flaw?
No, it's obviously not a "5000%" markup, because the pharma company doesn't just pay its COGS.
OK, so you're just arguing about a technicality. Why waste so much of our time? Why not engage with the core of my comment and instead nitpick an obvious hyperbole? What can you possibly gain this way?
Your entire premise is invalid. You have a faulty understanding of the cost structure of drug production. That's not a "technicality".
2 replies →