Pharmaceutical research can be funded with public money (and often already are to some degree). Bounty programs, grants, et cetera. A lot easier to manage those than the obtuse patent bureaucracy.
https://cepr.net/we-can-develop-new-drugs-without-patent-mon...
> While drug companies do operate to make a profit, the part of the story that Nisen misses is that the profit does not have to be gained through patent monopolies. Suppose that the U.S. and other governments put up research funding, which private corporations like Gilead could bid on based on their expertise and track record. In this case, a condition of the research is that all patents would be in the public domain (the companies were already paid for their work) and all results would be fully public as soon as practical.
The above comes from Dean Baker, who seems to be confident and credentialed.
They don't know a world without such patents and they don't know the people and companies who would do research in such a world.
That's a claim like nobody would be a fire fighter if it wasn't a paid job. Guess how reality is really like.
What about all the underpaid people in healthcare? By that mindset those people wouldn't exits.
Why do people comment about the way society works when clearly agency is monopolized to focus on fiat wealth targets, not real work of value.