No surprise here, the US Supreme Court is now just like the rest of the US Gov, they are very happy to take bribes. And due to how the US Gov is structured, no way to stop them from holding out their hand. So getting appointed to that Court is a great gig, you do not even have to care about the law these days.
We started paying attention now.
As for the US gov and institutionalized corruption I highly recommend Lester Lessig’s work around political donations reform as the first step to democracy in the US.
We the people and the republic we must reclaim is an excellent summary of the issue and the solution: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
When exactly was this magical past where things were better, I wonder?
FTFY.
As of 2022, the salary of a US Supreme Court Justice is $274,200 per year. The Chief Justice of the United States, who is the head of the Supreme Court, receives a slightly higher salary of $286,700 per year.
Of course no one will take that job. How much does a banana cost again? $10?
With that being said, I’m not surprised in the slightest someone as corrupt as Thomas would have this opinion. Ginni Thomas and Clarence’s defense of her has forever tarnished the reputation of the Supreme Court and I don’t want to hear another word from his office. His replacement honestly cannot come soon enough.
Also, if I had it my way, no government person while in the employ of the gov, should be able to vote at the level they represent or work in. If they’re fed employees no voting in fed elections and so on. Yes, I know under our constitution this would violate their rights. But you know, one can wish. I see it as a conflict of interest.
But now it's time for external enforcement. There are too many justices who think that they embody law and order in themselves, and therefore no matter what they do they are obeying the law, since they are the law. Similar to most police forces these days.
I'm very happy to see this. And surely pricing transparency is good: we're gonna see just how this works.
Further I'm glad the US government is challenging corporate America. Corporations implicitly threaten the US public saying if minimum wage goes up they'll be forced to cut jobs. They implicitly threaten a leaner pipeline of drug advances if prices are negioated down.
Let's see how this cookie crumbles.
The US congress is explicitly tasked with the federal checkbook. Negotiating prices down is clearly in their purview and is consistent with agency they've always had. Has congress ever negotiated a price with defense, office supply chains? Has the congress solicited competitive bids on work? Then why not meds?
In fact, googling those last five words turns up an industry lawsuit alleging precisely that:
https://phrma.org/resource-center/Topics/Access-to-Medicines...
I am certain that some members of the Court will agree, and others will not. It will come down to a count of votes. And I strongly doubt that I will agree with the reasoning that justifies those votes, either way.
Same as for any other official: impeachment
Honestly I see no theoretical benefit to not allowing the government to negotiate. Maybe there is a practical one?
Its the same tactic doctors use when dealing with medicare. I've been to several doctors that won't take it. The reasoning is obvious: your insurance company will just deny you and medicare will fight them to the bitter end on pricing.
Can you name a single large biotech firm that is going to produce a negative yearly profit because insulin is affordable? I sure can't.
1) Explicitly fund research with public dollars, then, not make people who need drugs that aren't even very new fund it.
2) Stop paying to fund everyone else's research (I think this is about 90% bullshit, seeing as other developed countries have strong drug research sectors and I doubt that's solely because of their sales in the US, but even if it's not bullshit—why the hell would we do that?)
Every time someone tries to defend the status quo, they seem not to notice that they're defending a very shitty version of what they're advocating for, even if all their claims are true.
The only people you are protecting with this idea are the top 1% of the top 1%. We will always value medicine, but we don’t have to line the pockets of billionaires with our cash so they will bestow upon us cures from the ether.
I’d like the Times and the media in general to start reporting the names of the individuals participating in these efforts, instead of faceless corporations.
There is no logical reason that pharma should be on the receiving end of all this hate. Especially considering that their job is literally to save lives.
If/when the US also stops paying, I expect drug development will stagnate a lot.
