Video & Multimedia
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And it did.
If you want to take out the pharmacuetical companies, you're going to need to have a substitute source for medication already in place and working within the supply chain.
You need to define your priorities, and health care is priority of the Democratic Party.
I know that Hillary was excoriated for the Clinton Foundation negotiating deals between pharmacuetical companies and developing nations that would guarantee that deeply discounted bulk rates for HIV antiretrovirals would be offered to those countries, and the Foundation would guarantee that they would buy any of that bulk order that the country didn't.
Now 75% of HIV patients in the world get their drugs via a Clinton Foundation negotiated partnership. "Going after" the pharmacuetical companies on the part of the Clinton Foundation would have meant that no drugs would have gotten to them, and likely most of those people would not have access to affordable medication, likely dead or close to it, and pharmacuetical companies would still be in business.
The choices aren't always what you think they are, and that "imperfect" way of doing things saved a lot of people's lives.
Don't you think that was worth it?