Aren't those called drugs that have government issued patents on them? So the drug manufacturer goes to all the expense to develop new drugs and get a patent, then Warren takes that away and the government produces the drug (let's not talk about quality or efficiency).
This actually sounds like a variant of what Canada does now (forcing the manufacturer to sell for close to marginal cost, leaving the US consumers to pay for R&D costs). The result will be that there will soon be no more new and better drugs.
It is also called communism. Or if the government picks which drug company does the manufacturing, fascism.
what’s more, the manufacturers of knockoffs, er, generics are exempted from liability from side effects of their dodgy pills.
DRUG COMPANIES NOW EXEMPT? HOW THE SUPREME COURT RULING WILL AFFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAWSUITS
https://www.ginsburg-law.com/blog/2013/july/drug-companies-now-exempt-how-the-supreme-court-/
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in June 2013 affecting the permissibility of products liability lawsuits against generic drug makers, and this ruling has heavy implications on the American consumer. The ruling, in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v Bartlett, is the culmination of acts that began with the dispensation of the generic form of a brand-name drug. Millions of Americans take prescription drugs daily for a wide variety of ailments and illnesses. Over three-fourths of those prescriptions are issued in generic form largely due to the fact that generic drugs are much less expensive than their brand-name counterparts. That is where Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v Bartlett got it’s start.
In 2004, Karen Bartlett received a prescription for the generic drug, Sulindac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID). Within weeks, she began experiencing the symptoms of toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), a more severe form of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS). Karen’s skin was essentially burning off from the inside out on over 60% of her body. She is permanently disfigured, has undergone over a dozen eye surgeries, and is almost completely blind.
Karen sued Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., the maker of Sulindac, and her lawsuit focused on design defects and failure-to-warn (i.e., mislabeling), alleging that the generic drug was unreasonably dangerous and labeling did not include warnings about TEN being a potential side effect. The package insert for the drug did include a warning referencing TEN, but because Karen’s physician affirmed that he had not read the insert, the failure-to-warn portion of the products liability lawsuit was dismissed.
Karen was awarded $21 million and Mutual Pharmaceutical’s response was to remove the case to the Supreme Court. Mutual claimed there could be no products liability attached to their design and labeling of the generic drug because both were copies of the FDA-approved brand-name design and labeling. FDA regulations explicitly prohibit any changes to the design or label approval. The Supreme Court reversed the state court’s verdict, upholding Mutual’s argument that makers of generic drugs have no potential for products liability because of those regulatory prohibitions...
Government produces drugs? Yeah. By taxing the hell out out of us.