[frgtpsswrdlame]

>I don't think the situation would be much improved if the government siezed control of pharma companies, but it would be improved if pharma companies no longer had control of the government.

Seeking control of the government is a side effect of profit motive, it's a symptom of capitalism. Seizing the means of big pharma seems totally fine to me, it's a public good and our world where the amount spent researching a cure is proportional to how much money we can milk out of those afflicted seems a lot worse to me than a world where the amount spent researching a cure is proportional to the misery of those afflicted.

[danschumann]

I'd rather stop all government funding of their research, have a public option. Let the government compete with them. First we need to stop big pharma dollars from influencing politicians.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>I'd rather stop all government funding of their research, have a public option. Let the government compete with them. First we need to stop big pharma dollars from influencing politicians.

Compete on what merits? Corporate pharma is going to win on profit created and government pharma is going to win on any altruistic measurement. At that point why even bother with the corporate pharma? The money that goes into corporate pharma is still my money, it's what I'm paying at the pharmacy. I'd much rather my tax go up a little bit and we get full on government pharma research than getting good prices on some drugs (gov created) and getting gouged on others (corporate created).