No one here is getting drugs for free, just at reasonable prices that may not be available in the US
TPP as currently written will neuter this advantage costing us billions that will come out of my taxes
Currently, without the TPP, the large pharmaceutical companies make billions in profit every year even including the rampant "piracy" in countries like India and China.
Or, with the TPP, all of those generics go poof, billions lose legal access to modern drugs, and pharmaceutical companies increase profits by 30, maybe 40 percent?
Of course that slack will get taken up by USAID, like you said, which means that now American tax payers will be on the hook to provide medicine that is now more expensive because our own government made them so.
Doesn't really add up, does it?
As for getting "paid fairly" I disagree with the general notion that companies that make unimportant things should get paid "what the market will bear" while companies that make important things should get "paid fairly." I think that creates perverse incentives.
That all this seems to be happening behind closed doors doesn't inspire confidence.
I want both, so I want a balance...
Because he has the requisite knowledge to understand it and because he clearly hasn't been bought.
And they're certainly not struggling despite that; not sure why they need a treaty to 'protect' them.
> It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.
Only if you think dollars are the only important thing. Plenty of people see welfare (including foreigners) as being a worthy thing in its own right.
"struggling" isn't the word I would use in this situation.
Things change, oil dries up. Doesn't mean we need to start making redflag laws to protect the old models.
I do hear what you say about the font drying up, but it's also no secret that medication is ridiculously expensive in the US. Big pharma is very wealthy, and very politically powerful, despite the low-hanging fruit being gone. The point I'm trying to make is that they don't need a treaty to protect them.
Correction -- that should read "benefit to the US companies".
That's quite an interesting interpretation of "without borders".
The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U.S. It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.
That is not to say that we shouldn't be giving free drugs to people who need it. But that's a policy decision decidedly outside the scope of the USTR. We have agencies like USAID whose job it is to handle humanitarian aid.