Please provide some data to back that up because it is a common belief that the high cost of producing a new drug is offset by the US consumer.
Add other regulation and inefficiencies, and subsidized research would work with 1/10 the money.
Not to mention that because of the commercialization of medicine, tons of research is for BS like Viagra and other such drugs (like the tons of stupid feel-good "energy" drugs, so that your boss can squeeze even more overtime out of you), where far more important but less lucrative stuff is ignored.
That's how you get the US sucking donkey's balls in infant mortality rates. As if it was some third world country.
Because their lower investment levels should be producing returns so much higher, that they would quantum leap the US while spending less. That hasn't even remotely happened.
Sucking donkey balls on infant mortality? You should become better educated.
How about Canada, at 5.22/1000 versus 6.81 for the US. That's your magic line on 3rd world countries and donkey ball sucking? Well Singapore is 1.92, and Japan is 2.6, so Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Britain are apparently 3rd world countries by comparison.
Half of the US infant mortality rate is due to high black poverty. Maybe you should become informed on the root causes of problems in America before making bad assumptions.
Misleading stat that doesn't look at the full cost of bringing a NME to market.
You're looking at a yearly budget for a company while ignoring reality: drug development isn't yearly, it takes about 8-12 years total. To analyze something on an 8 year cycle using 1 years worth of data is at best ignorant and at worst, intentionally dishonest.
They'll spend almost $1,000,000,000 USD to whittle 10,000 drug candidates into what is hopefully a single FDA approved new molecular entity.
>That's how you get the US sucking donkey's balls in infant mortality rates. As if it was some third world country.
Did you hear that loud crack? It was you smashing your head against correlation/causation. You might want to have that fallacy checked out. Looks bad, man.
Just as with the development of computers and the internet, we can thank the US taxpayer and government for subsidizing pharmaceutical innovations. Which is then sold back to us at hilarious rates.
Pharmas reap wonderful profits in other countries (otherwise they probably wouldn't operate in them), just not extreme profits they can extract from US people. It's propaganda that high US prices benevolently subsidize pharma for the rest of the world; this narrative increases nationalism, and sets up an entitlement complex. Propaganda's a great way to get your targets to believe in their own fleecing.
It takes more effort (particularly since you don't want to cite bad evidence), but is necessary.
And the issue is, people who want truth gotta dig. Otherwise they'll be doomed to live the rest of their lives believing lies written by some PR flack. (I've known some PR flacks. They eloquently phrase what their bosses want communicated. And even being careful, I'm sure I believe many serious lies and falsehoods, at least to some extent.)