Regardless, shorten the lifespan of drug patents and deschedulize marijuana and kratom.
Yes, but only enough to prevent major price gouging and the government should reduce the subsidies to the health care monopolies to allow for competition to emerge
Healthcare should be free for all citizens.
Depends on what drugs. And their rareness and neccessity amount.
Only to prevent inflation in prices
No, the government should lower the prices of life-saving drugs
No, but private companies that make drugs cost-prohibitive and engage in price-gouging practices should not receive any government funding.
No, but support people who do not have enough money to buy it.
Government should subsidize instead regulate life saving drugs.
The government should incentivize creation of drugs and provide subsidies for those limiting patent lengths and providing affordable prescriptions.
Only to lower the prices.
No but create sanctions to drug makers that overcharge for life saving drugs
Yes, if it is to lower the price.
Yes, if left to the discretion of private companies the risk of overcharging is too high
Yes, and the government should make sure all life-saving drugs are affordable.
The people and the government should come to a reasonable price for life-saving drugs
No, but reduce the length of patents to allow for competition
Yes, they need to do something to prevent the monopoly & price gouging on some life saving prescriptions
No, unless the prices undermine those who cannot purchase the needed pharmaceutical.
Drug prices should be set by a fair market. The drug patents are a problem
No, instead we should allow drug purchases from outside cheaper countries, creating competition to drive overall prices down.
Yes, If government grant money was used in the development of the medicine.
Yes, but only if they make them affordable
Yes, but not for future life-saving drugs
No but outlaw drug patents
Yes, with a caveat that companies must be allowed to recoup the costs spent on research and the cost cannot price someone out of live saving medication.
Yes but only drugs that are the sole solution to a medical problem
Yes, but within a fair market. The government should have little involvement in privet business.
No, But Abolish IP laws that allow for the high prices of drugs, which cause the high prices to begin with.
No, but they should penalize those who price gouge.
No, but shorten the lifespan of the patents to a break even point plus 10% of original investment. That will keep R&D going but allow for eventual generic options in the future.
Yes but only to place a price ceiling.
Yes, in terms of setting a tax on surplus revenue from life-saving drugs, limiting the non-competitive drug patients, and only setting price ceilings when a drug company is bought out or merged with another corporate entity.
This is a double edged sword. Have other countries pay their fair share so we can price control ours and not have to single-handedly pay for the worlds research and development and the continued existence of pharmaceutical companies.
No but there should be fiscal responsibility and oversight
Yes but don’t overcharge the people the Government should step in to help if the citizen can’t afford the drug on their own they can split the difference or work out a deal with the company to adjust the price
Yes, limit drug prices but also increase federal and state funded incentives for research and development of safer and more effective drugs for all forms of Illness. Also decriminalize all drug use, increase funding for rehabilitation and mental health treatment, as well as safe use sites, then dismantle the DEA and force the FDA to re-evaluate the drug schedules based on modern research and allow for more research and development in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy.
No, deregulate the medication industry to create competition and lower prices that way.
Do not know enough about this issue to have an opinion.
It depends completely on the drug. Generally life saving medicine is very expensive, and the money that goes into that medicine is used to improve the product as well as being the cost down.
A drug should have a cap of X percent over the cost to make the drug.
Yes, they should monitor and prevent increasing price for drug company financial gain rather than health of people to keep drugs affordable and accessible
If it lowers the prices yes but they shouldn’t raise higher.
I hate to say yes because we don't need to have the government control everything, but greed is driving up the costs of medication. We should want to help people and still make money without causing people to have to choose between medication and buying food or paying a bill.
Only if it makes them more affordable.
It depends on the definition of life saving as per each drug. Something like an EpiPen makes sense but others are debatable
Yes but it should be regulated with input for health professionals and a bipartisan committee.
Yes to a stance because you want funding for new drugs but not rip people off
Only when companies are gouging making it impossible for the average American
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
