Posted on 04/17/2022 7:23:09 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
April 14, 2022: A majority of voters favor price controls on prescription drugs. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that 43% of voters strongly favor price controls on prescription drugs, and 29% somewhat favor them. Ten percent (10%) somewhat oppose price controls on prescription drugs, and 6% strongly opp
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
When my mom got it, she paid $30 for whole protocol from a CVS in SC. A week later CVS stopped filling the scripts. I went to an apothecary and paid $160 for the same thing.
They wanted folks dead for political purposes. If they actually cared that would have allowed alternative treatments. When Ivermectin was proven to work Pfizer or whoever would have used their power in Congress to corner the market and raise the price through the roof.
To think that guy went to prison for doing the same thing the drug companies did.
But the price has skyrocked compared to the more traditional insulin products.
Which work just about as well.
Same with a lot of blood pressure pills.
I worked in phrama for a while. Game was to change the molecule enough to repatent it, but keep the functionality.
Price controls ALWAYS lead to shortages and lessening of production.
Is that what they want?
I know the difference and so do those that exploit them.
They were meant to expire for the express purpose of requiring the continuing production of new material. The movie and Software companies have made a mockery of the process with the full support of Congress and the Court. If a thing is subject to perpetual renewal then it is certainly subverting the plain meaning of the constitution. We now have software companies only renting their software with the full protection of the government.
Although perpetual copyrights and patents are prohibited—the language specifies "limited times"—the Supreme Court has ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) that repeated extensions to the term of copyright do not constitute a perpetual copyright. In that case, the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also known pejoratively as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."[8] Petitioners in that case argued that successive retroactive extensions of copyright were functionally unlimited and hence violated the limited times language of the clause. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the Court, rejected this argument, reasoning that the terms provided by the Act were limited in duration and noted that Congress had a long history of granting retroactive extensions.
Has something to do with copyright and patent and how they are exploited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.