Like I said, there’s plenty to criticize and discuss 
Let’s keep in mind the fundamental thrust of the above proposal: Socializing development costs so that pricing is affordable, while trying to balance this goal with preserving liberty and the “animal instincts” of the private sector vigorous.
If the patent system needs to be fixed, or some entirely new instrument developed, then so be it. We do that.
Indeed–hope it was clear that I was totally agreeing with your point, including the larger idea of spreading the development costs more widely and equitably.
Things that sound too good to be true, usually are. The idea of internationally socializing control and pricing of a medication is one. Not because there’s inherently anything good or bad about the idea; I express no position either way on its validity—just its actual, real world value. A proposal that has zero (0) chance of ever happening has no value; it’s just a philosophical discussion and time sink. And that one doesn’t. The reasons why are numerous, and I will leave most of them as an exercise for the student. Here’s just one: trial lawyers.
… and anything that smacks of internationalism is, how shall I put this, not exactly the political flavor of the month. But I don’t think it’s a useless exercise to understand where the nature of the problem indicates the solution lies, even if we don’t see a way to get there.
. . . and there, I’m afraid, we differ. There is a difference between “we see no way to get there” and “there is no way to get there.” One is worth pursuing, the other is a sterile exercise. It isn’t the reality of the problem I was referring to, but the proposed answer.
It’s a fair criticism, even if some of us are more optimistic about what can be accomplished than you are.
So, given you feel this idea is without practical merit, why don’t you offer a different solution that you think is practical?
Can we plot the rebates given to PBM’s against that to get a better picture ?
this is from 2015 annual report of sanofi
sales were almost flat in 2014 and 2015 even though the price is increased by 30% unless the number of lantus rx units decreased by 30%.
How much of that 30% was passed on to each player in the chain?
shows how incomplete that picture is and how misleading?
http://en.sanofi.com/Images/45889_Sanofi_20-F_2015_V2.pdf
devil is in the details…pay attention folks
Interesting development relevant to this discussion: https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/people-with-diabetes-are-suing-the-top-3-insulin-makers-349851/
Oh, yeah, and for some more “behind the scenes” on pharmaceutical R&D (even if not about insulin per se):
How about the “powers-to-be” delve into the price increases of insulin like they did the past couple years with the Epipen? Something needs to be done! The Epipen is used that it MAY save a life. If diabetics do NOT have insulin, we WILL DIE!
