,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
According to AP, a "free market approach" to pharmaceuticals means the government pays for the discovery of drugs, then the government gives corporations a monopoly on selling them, and the government is their biggest customer but can't negotiate on prices with them 
Sometimes I fantasize about living in a country where words have meaning
1. This — acknowledging the massive government intervention in the economy regarding pharmaceuticals — is a step forward from the dumb rhetoric about how massive government intervention = "free markets"
2. Pharma’s trade group says they spend $50 billion per year on research. In his book “Rigged,” @deanbaker13 estimates that replacing that with public funding & ending patent protection for drugs would ultimately save between $300-800 billion per year.
3. It’s not true that “patent rights are part of the constitution.” The Constitution says Congress *has the power* to grant patent rights “for a limited time,” not that it has to.
4. Also, both Jefferson (wanted to limit patent length in the Bill of Rights) & Madison ("Monopolies...ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst. abuse” were very concerned with exactly what we see with big pharma now.
5. If you want to know more about why our current system is driving the cost of pharmaceuticals to astronomical heights, and why we could get better results and better lives for far far far less money, read chapter 5 of @DeanBaker13's (free) book "Rigged" deanbaker.net/images/stories…
