posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 05:28 AM
I understand what everyone is saying, but here are some of the economic realities of developing pharmaceutical cures by a corporation:
- R&D is expensive and time consuming.
- Not every drug works.
- Not all are approved.
- The time to earn a return is artificially limited.
All the time and money sunk into unusable products still has to be paid for, regardless. The labs and scientists do not come free.
The economic realities of developing an effective drug, and that drug being financially viable lead to a couple of uncomfortable truths. Some
diseases, ailments or conditions are not worth the time, money and effort to risk the R&D on.
Long term ailments that do not kill the patient are the most desirable from a financial perspective. Conditions like diabetes and epilepsy come to
mind. The patient will have to take the medication forever. There is less incentive to spend millions develop drugs for diseases that kill the
"customer" relatively quickly. Those that are developed are really expensive as a result.
Limited patent terms mean that the company has a set time to recover costs and earn a return. Generic drugs are more affordable, but they restrict
innovation. On the same note, compounds in the public domain like ASA (aspirin) are not subject to significant research to see how else they can be
used to benefit people for similar reasons.
Those are a few of the basic realities. It is up to the public to decide if that model works for them or not. The free market works for some things,
but maybe not all things. That said, the government usually screws up everything it touches.
edit on 8-6-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason