this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
387 points (98.5% liked)

politics

25259 readers
2025 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 176 points 2 years ago (3 children)

These drugs were developed with public funds and yet are sold at outrageous pricing.

If the pharma industry was at all reasonable about their pricing, this wouldn't be a consideration at all.

If you take public funds, you can't charge exorbitant amounts. Seems an easy trade-off decision for them to make.

[–] oDDmON@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago

^ This. R&D in PharmaWorld means mergers and acquisitions; the real moneymakers they scrape from public research, tweak and then charge for.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you take public funds, you can't charge exorbitant amounts. Seems an easy trade-off decision for them to make.

Damn I wish that were true. Telecoms got like $4bn decades ago to upgrade American infra....

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not only then, they're allowed to recoup deployment costs as separate surcharges, not part of plan costs, and they're still charging for infrastructure they already completed decades ago.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Add about 15% to the sticker price of any cell phone plan because of taxes and those fees.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

There should be full backpay/reimbursal from the bullshit profits

[–] TheaoneAndOnly27@kbin.social 60 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

Please do it to Eliquis. My fucking insurance just jumped it up to 275 a month.

Edit: also, I don't have anybody to vent this too. But the hospital just called and I have to have another heart surgery In 22 days. I had open heart surgery 9 months ago. I'm just so fucking tired

[–] 2Xtreme21@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

Try to stay in good spirits. You’ll make it through!

[–] cheeseandrice@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago

Hey, I’m really sorry. That sounds really hard. Vent all you want if it helps.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 2 years ago

If it's any consolation, it's still this month and you've likely hit your deductible already... Cries in American healthcare

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

I'm sorry you are struggling, but remember to take care of yourself. You are worth it, and you can make it through this. ✊️🫶🙌

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

deleted by creator

[–] AFLYINTOASTER@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

You win these, dawg

[–] oDDmON@lemmy.world 58 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Excuse while I try to find my tiny violin.

[–] neidu 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I didn't know nanotech at that scale was possible yet

[–] Sovereign_13@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The violin in question is really just a math model for string theory.

I’ll see myself out.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago

HELL FUCKING YES

[–] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 24 points 2 years ago

Omg yes!!! I was just ranting the other day that all these drug shortages should come with consequences to the companies. (Looking at you Ozempic) If you can't produce enough of your drug to keep up with demand then other companies should get a chance at making it. It shouldn't be the patients that have to suffer.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The administration will not endorse the widespread use of march-in rights, and is not expected to take action against any individual medicines, said the people familiar with the matter, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal decision making.

Important bit from that, lest anyone think they're actually going to do something.

I would be delighted if they did, but I would also be very surprised if they actually assert these rights on medicines developed with public funds, which is what they should do - just all of the medicines developed with public funds, patents seized, end of story.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Important bit from that, lest anyone think they’re actually going to do something.

They'll expect us to rejoice as though we can afford the meds our taxes paid to research anyway.

[–] LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is Big Dark Brandon Energy, I love it!

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago

More than that, think of private equity looking for quick and destructive ways to make a buck, including buying the rights to cheap but essential drugs that have been on the market for decades and jacking up the price 5-fold. That is really driving prices in the 2000s. Them boys are already started running away.