Joe getting sleepier

[RiverDog]

Although I'm not as flamboyant about it, I tend to agree with Hawktalk. Biden didn't make Trump an issue and for the most part, tried to ignore him or attack him personally Hillary was the one that made Trump the central theme of her campaign and all it did was inspire Trump's base ("a basket of deplorables").

The primary issue in the 2020 election was the pandemic, HT is right, Trump did plenty to F-up his response. But let's give credit where credit is due. It was the Trump Administration that was the primary driver in getting the vaccines developed and manufactured in record time and assured that Americans would be first in line when they were ready. Compare our vaccine rollout to socialistic countries like Canada and western Europe. It was the only thing he did right during the pandemic, but we do have to recognize it.

[Hawktawk]

Scientists rushed vaccines to market in record time but the rollout was a disaster with vaccinations crawling for weeks after loser lost until Biden took over . It’s was so bad governors inckuding red were coordinating with Biden rather than the still existing trump adminstration . And as I’ve said his bs poisoned minds and caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths . Had we matched Canada’s death rate we woukd have had 450 k less deaths . There are several red states in America that had so many deaths they would be in the top ten in the world if they were countries .
His dreadful response and poisoning of millions of minds outweighs any good his adminstration did.

[RiverDog]

Scientists rushed vaccines to market in record time but the rollout was a disaster with vaccinations crawling for weeks after loser lost until Biden took over . It’s was so bad governors inckuding red were coordinating with Biden rather than the still existing trump adminstration . And as I’ve said his bs poisoned minds and caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths . Had we matched Canada’s death rate we woukd have had 450 k less deaths . There are several red states in America that had so many deaths they would be in the top ten in the world if they were countries .
His dreadful response and poisoning of millions of minds outweighs any good his adminstration did.

Logistically the rollout was a huge success, and yes, I give Biden a lot more credit for that part of the rollout than Trump as they pretty much handed it off to the states without any kind of guidance. But the point is that Trump was able to get the vaccines developed, manufactured, and ready for shipment in record time. They told the drug companies to go ahead with production while the vaccines were still being tested and before they were approved, that they would cover the cost if they failed. It's one of the few victories of his presidency.

[tarlhawk]

Scientists rushed vaccines to market in record time but the rollout was a disaster with vaccinations crawling for weeks after loser lost until Biden took over . It’s was so bad governors inckuding red were coordinating with Biden rather than the still existing trump adminstration . And as I’ve said his bs poisoned minds and caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths . Had we matched Canada’s death rate we woukd have had 450 k less deaths . There are several red states in America that had so many deaths they would be in the top ten in the world if they were countries .
His dreadful response and poisoning of millions of minds outweighs any good his adminstration did.

Many things slow to a crawl during a change in presidency...especially one that wasn't expected. If governors wanted a smooth transfer of power then the incoming administration seems like the ones to coordinate with. Comparing our country to another over something as complicated as a pandemic virus...did Canada have a "baby boomer" population in transition of retiring? We share a border...not countries...the early covid strain took a heavy toll on the elderly...is Canada's age population distribution a mirror of our own? BS causing death? When it comes to issues of health...especially life and death...I do what I think is right not a politicians influence...I was fully vaccinated as soon as I could and I still take steps to protect others who have gone unvaccinated. I venture out once a week for groceries...I've always worn masks outside my home wherever I've gone. I don't feel comfortable thinking I can restore normality in my life while the pandemic is far from gone. I felt Trump also took steps that were timely using authority granted normally in war time to switch industrial output to masks...N95 types for front line medical response and the mass production of ventilators. Again these are presented as my opinions...because I believe this forum is for respectful sharing of one's views...I am not a parrot and I don't drink anyone's "kool-aid.

[RiverDog]

Many things slow to a crawl during a change in presidency...especially one that wasn't expected. If governors wanted a smooth transfer of power then the incoming administration seems like the ones to coordinate with. Comparing our country to another over something as complicated as a pandemic virus...did Canada have a "baby boomer" population in transition of retiring? We share a border...not countries...the early covid strain took a heavy toll on the elderly...is Canada's age population distribution a mirror of our own? BS causing death? When it comes to issues of health...especially life and death...I do what I think is right not a politicians influence...I was fully vaccinated as soon as I could and I still take steps to protect others who have gone unvaccinated. I venture out once a week for groceries...I've always worn masks outside my home wherever I've gone. I don't feel comfortable thinking I can restore normality in my life while the pandemic is far from gone. I felt Trump also took steps that were timely using authority granted normally in war time to switch industrial output to masks...N95 types for front line medical response and the mass production of ventilators. Again these are presented as my opinions...because I believe this forum is for respectful sharing of one's views...I am not a parrot and I don't drink anyone's "kool-aid.

There wasn't much of a disruption in the vaccine rollout in the United States. If this country has done anything right in the pandemic, it's been getting needles into arms at twice the rate than many, including Biden, thought possible. Our problems are almost exclusively with vaccine hesitancy.

Here's a good article published last April on Canada's botched rollout:

Canadians have been overwhelmingly compliant with public-health directives, wearing masks, limiting social interactions, washing and sanitizing our hands ’til our fingertips prune. And what do we (Canadians) get? Per capita vaccination numbers lagging behind those of 50 other countries, including Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and much of Europe, according to Johns Hopkins University’s immunization tracker.

Without much domestic manufacturing capacity to speak of, Canada had to sign advance-purchase deals with international vaccine companies. The country hedged its bet by mostly going with companies funded by Operation Warp Speed, and so far its strategy has been to overbuy doses in the hopes of securing enough to vaccinate all of its citizens. A mounting critique, however, is that perhaps Canada should have been more specific than “first quarter of 2021” in terms of arranging vaccine-delivery timing. Picard said that Canada, by not giving manufacturers a specific week, or even day, allowed them to push delivery until the outer limit of the quarter.

"Canada has watched its pharmaceutical industry slowly move out of here over decades, because they created an environment that was not conducive to investment in this country,” charges Van Exan, a semiretired vaccine-industry consultant who spent nearly 35 years at Sanofi Pasteur working on policy, immunization campaigns, sales, and product development.

He cites long-standing Canadian policies in three areas as being particularly antagonistic to vaccine makers, especially multinationals: patents, prices, and procurement.

Most countries give pharmaceutical companies drug patents guaranteeing them a term of market exclusivity as a sort of reward for the 10 to 15 years the companies spend, on average, in research and development. Van Exan notes that Canada’s patent protection can be years shorter and much more complex than in other countries, such as the United States, which makes developing drugs in Canada less inviting. The Canadian government also has the ability to regulate drug and vaccine pricing—another turnoff. “And in fact, we’re in the process right now of adding even more teeth and more rigor to the price regulator than we had before,” Van Exan explains. (In Canada, provinces run partially subsidized drug plans, which is why control pricing is so popular.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ms/618516/

In other words, its due to two factors: Canada does not manufacture vaccines. Unlike the United States, which can insist that domestic manufacturers fill domestic orders first, Canada was at the mercy of the US and other countries that have manufacturing capacity. Secondly, it was Canada's socialized system that regulated prices and denied their domestic manufacturers of making a profit, so guess what? They left. It's a good lesson for those that want the United States to emulate Canada's health care system.

[NorthHawk]

Demographically Canada and the US are quite similar.
The socialized system didn't and doesn't regulate drug prices in Canada, those are political decisions taken by politicians. The rollout has not been botched.
What happened in Canada is the right wing leaders tried to take control and sidelined the Health experts and in those Provinces they had and in some cases still are having problems.
In the centerist/left leaning Provinces they let the scientists lead and are having a much better time of it. There are still pockets in each Province where there are clusters of vaccine
deniers/those still "researching"/right wing zealots who believe everything they hear on Fox news and conspiracy media who will never be vaccinated, but it seems to be only at approx
10% of the population.

Canada made a political decision years ago to rely on global supply chains for vaccines and that caused a huge delay in getting the vaccines as countries got their citizens vaccinated
first. Once the vaccines arrived on a regular schedule, the rollout has been relatively smooth, but like many nations there is still some resistance to vaccines by a few who are filling
the hospital wards with Covid patients.

From what I can see, the issue with the Trump administration is they did very little to coordinate with the individual States for distribution and inoculation scheduling. It was much
more of a hands off approach than the Biden administration and that's in large part why things rapidly improved after Trump left. Then, of course the Delta variant hit and with a
much more virulent form of the virus, cases began climbing again. The 4th wave seems to have peaked and cases are trending downward at the moment, but it's imperative that
those that aren't vaccinated do so otherwise the hospitals will remain full of Covid cases.

[RiverDog]

The rollout has not been botched.

I guess it depends on what you call "botched" and what you consider to be a "rollout". If you call months long delays in getting needles into arms compared to even 3rd world countries, it absolutely was botched. Here's another article that uses that term:

How Ottawa utterly botched Canada's COVID vaccine acquisition

Despite spending more money on this pandemic than anyone else, Canada is lagging behind almost every other developed nation in vaccination numbers

It’s now becoming increasingly clear that as the world mobilizes to immunize itself against COVID-19, Canada is falling seriously behind. At a time when more than half of Israelis have gotten the jab, Canada has only two per cent of its population vaccinated. Recent analysis by The Economist found that while virtually all of Europe will be fully vaccinated by the end of this year, the earliest Canada can hope for is mid-2022 . And in one of the sharpest rebukes to Canada’s pandemic performance yet, the federal government has tapped into a global vaccine-sharing pool initially meant for developing nations.

https://nationalpost.com/news/how-ottaw ... cquisition

From what I can see, the issue with the Trump administration is they did very little to coordinate with the individual States for distribution and inoculation scheduling. It was much more of a hands off approach than the Biden administration and that's in large part why things rapidly improved after Trump left.

That's true, the Trump administration definitely dropped the ball when it came to distributing the vaccines. It wasn't all their fault as the states have some blame to share as well, and there were some bottlenecks caused by weather delays in transportation. I give great credit to Biden's team for picking up the slack as from the time they took over in late January until about mid April, we were vaccinating several million per day. But all I said was that Trump needs to be credited with vaccine development and manufacture, not the distribution or roll-out.

Then, of course the Delta variant hit and with a much more virulent form of the virus, cases began climbing again. The 4th wave seems to have peaked and cases are trending downward at the moment, but it's imperative that those that aren't vaccinated do so otherwise the hospitals will remain full of Covid cases.

Agreed.

[Aseahawkfan]

Demographically Canada and the US are quite similar.
The socialized system didn't and doesn't regulate drug prices in Canada, those are political decisions taken by politicians. The rollout has not been botched.
What happened in Canada is the right wing leaders tried to take control and sidelined the Health experts and in those Provinces they had and in some cases still are having problems.
In the centerist/left leaning Provinces they let the scientists lead and are having a much better time of it. There are still pockets in each Province where there are clusters of vaccine
deniers/those still "researching"/right wing zealots who believe everything they hear on Fox news and conspiracy media who will never be vaccinated, but it seems to be only at approx
10% of the population.

Canada made a political decision years ago to rely on global supply chains for vaccines and that caused a huge delay in getting the vaccines as countries got their citizens vaccinated
first. Once the vaccines arrived on a regular schedule, the rollout has been relatively smooth, but like many nations there is still some resistance to vaccines by a few who are filling
the hospital wards with Covid patients.

From what I can see, the issue with the Trump administration is they did very little to coordinate with the individual States for distribution and inoculation scheduling. It was much
more of a hands off approach than the Biden administration and that's in large part why things rapidly improved after Trump left. Then, of course the Delta variant hit and with a
much more virulent form of the virus, cases began climbing again. The 4th wave seems to have peaked and cases are trending downward at the moment, but it's imperative that
those that aren't vaccinated do so otherwise the hospitals will remain full of Covid cases.

They watch Fox News in Canada? I figured they would have their own version. Is it just Fox News Canada?

[NorthHawk]

Fox News is offered like CNN, and people are influenced both ways. On some cable services it's an extra cost.
I haven't seen OAN, but maybe that's available on streaming services.

Edit:
And of course there is always Facebook and Dr. Google...

[NorthHawk]

I guess it depends on what you call "botched" and what you consider to be a "rollout". If you call months long delays in getting needles into arms compared to even 3rd world countries, it absolutely was botched. Here's another article that uses that term:

If you want to consider that botching, it started after the original FTA where Canada decided to allow the trade treaties supply chain handle the supply of pharmaceuticals.
That started in the 1980's and over time forced those types of businesses to leave the country. Constant pressure from tax changes encouraged that until they were mostly
gone. Since it started 30 to 40 years ago, I don't see it as a "botched rollout", rather a piss poor political strategy by successive governments both left and right that blew
up in our face.
The rollout part has been very smooth. In BC, I believe we have 85% with first dose and 80% with 2 doses all done in basically 7 months. Other Provinces are different, some
better and some worse. Note: the % are for people over 12 years of age who are permitted vaccines and doesn't include those under 12 of the total population.

[RiverDog]

If you want to consider that botching, it started after the original FTA where Canada decided to allow the trade treaties supply chain handle the supply of pharmaceuticals. That started in the 1980's and over time forced those types of businesses to leave the country. Constant pressure from tax changes encouraged that until they were mostly gone. Since it started 30 to 40 years ago, I don't see it as a "botched rollout", rather a piss poor political strategy by successive governments both left and right that blewup in our face.

The rollout part has been very smooth. In BC, I believe we have 85% with first dose and 80% with 2 doses all done in basically 7 months. Other Provinces are different, some better and some worse. Note: the % are for people over 12 years of age who are permitted vaccines and doesn't include those under 12 of the total population.

Agreed, which is one of the reasons why I don't want anything to do with a Canadian-style socialized health care system. Your country was entirely dependent on the US and other countries for these truly amazing vaccines. Big Pharma came through big time. There's no way that the vaccines could have been developed under a socialized health care system unless they had a big, free market like we have here in the US in which they could make enough of a profit to pay for the R&D expense.

As far as the distribution goes, yes, Canada was very efficient once they had a good supply of vaccines. But that wasn't what I was referring to when I said that they had botched the rollout. They screwed the pooch in their acquisition of them.

[NorthHawk]

We don’t have to be dependent on other countries and we are re-establishing a pharmaceutical capability now.
It just so happens that about 30 or so years ago the politicians thought we could rely on trade agreements. It
shows how naive they were until lately. I saw an article on tv recently that said the politicians had let it slip
so much we would have had a problem with a particularly virulent Flu virus.
These were all political decisions completely separate from socialized medicine and would have occurred even if our
system was exactly like yours as the tax system was used to force them out - or at least didn’t make it desirable to stay
along with having no other economic incentives to produce here. It remains to be seen if this is just talk by Sr Gov’t
members or not.

[RiverDog]

We don’t have to be dependent on other countries and we are re-establishing a pharmaceutical capability now.
It just so happens that about 30 or so years ago the politicians thought we could rely on trade agreements. It
shows how naive they were until lately. I saw an article on tv recently that said the politicians had let it slip
so much we would have had a problem with a particularly virulent Flu virus.
These were all political decisions completely separate from socialized medicine and would have occurred even if our
system was exactly like yours as the tax system was used to force them out - or at least didn’t make it desirable to stay
along with having no other economic incentives to produce here. It remains to be seen if this is just talk by Sr Gov’t
members or not.

Even if Canada is successful in re-establishing a pharmaceutical industry, they won't go very far unless they have that big fat market to the south of them to sell their products. With a population barely that of California, there simply isn't enough people to support an all domestic supplier of drugs, and if the US were to to apply strict price controls on drugs and not allow companies to make a handsome profit off of new and experimental drugs, recouping R&D investment from all those that failed and didn't generate any income as would happen if we were to adapt to a Canadian-style health care system, they won't be able to do anything but manufacture standard, generic type drugs that have no R&D costs imbedded in their price. No miracle drugs or revolutionary vaccines.

The mRNA vaccines took 30 years to develop. Some of that research can be done at universities, but the bulk of it occurs in private industry within well funded R&D departments. The only reason why we got these new vaccines as soon as we did was that the US government took the extraordinary step of underwriting the costs and put the money up front so Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, and J&J could manufacture the vaccines before the trials were completed. Had that step not been taken, not only the US, but every country that is currently using those vaccines to inoculate their populations would have had to wait at least 6-9 months for those vaccines to be available.

[NorthHawk]

What it's going to take is subsidies to the industry.
It's all about money and the priority placed on health and can be done.
Partnering with the private sector can be done and it wouldn't surprise me to see agreements with the likes of Pfizer, Merck, and others.
It's a matter of will.
Hell, Ireland has an agreement with Pfizer to produce vaccines by the end of this year, so there's no reason Canada couldn't do the same.

[RiverDog]

What it's going to take is subsidies to the industry. It's all about money and the priority placed on health and can be done.
Partnering with the private sector can be done and it wouldn't surprise me to see agreements with the likes of Pfizer, Merck, and others. It's a matter of will. Hell, Ireland has an agreement with Pfizer to produce vaccines by the end of this year, so there's no reason Canada couldn't do the same.

That would work for small countries like Canada and Ireland, but it won't work with a large country like the US. We're already talking about taxing the hell out of Big Pharma and other large corporations, and now you're talking about giving them a handout at a time when we would be embarking on a hugely expensive single payer health care system? Good luck with that!

[NorthHawk]

Then those companies will move to more favorable locations.
That's what most people don't understand about Free Trade Agreements. They aren't about country A selling their goods to Country B and vice versa, they are about
the free flow of capital. That means businesses can freely move amongst the participating countries to get the best deals.
And where capital flows, jobs follow. They work well when the participants all have similar regulatory and tax burdens, but don't when one of the participants is out
of balance as that's where the jobs will go.

In the case you mentioned above with taxing the hell out of pharmaceutical companies, they will move to friendlier jurisdictions. There is a misconception that the
Covid version of the mRNA vaccine was developed mostly by Americans. It wasn't. It was a truly international effort with discoveries from all parts of the world.

[RiverDog]

Then those companies will move to more favorable locations.

It won't make any difference where the set up shop if the prices in the US market are controlled.

If a company can't make a large enough profit to make up for decades long R&D they will not have the financial motivation to develop new and experimental drugs because there is no place for them to recoup their development costs. The US market, a rich country with 330 million people, is the 500 pound gorilla. If companies can make enough profit here to cover their R&D costs, the rest of the world will benefit. Without the US market, no more revolutionary vaccines or wonder drugs.

[NorthHawk]

It won't make any difference where the set up shop if the prices in the US market are controlled.

But tax rates and regulatory systems will make a difference. If, as you say this Administration is going after Pharma, then
they can move to another jurisdiction who will give them less costs to produce.

[RiverDog]

It won't make any difference where the set up shop if the prices in the US market are controlled.

But tax rates and regulatory systems will make a difference. If, as you say this Administration is going after Pharma, then
they can move to another jurisdiction who will give them less costs to produce.

Taxes are just one part of the equation. Price controls are another.

There seems to be a common outrage over the cost of some of these drugs leading for calls for price regulation. My fear is that if government steps in and limits what a drug manufacturer can charge for their products that they will discourage companies from developing new and revolutionary drugs and and other treatments. Without the profit motive, there will be little incentive for companies to plop millions of dollars annually into robust research and development departments.

[NorthHawk]

If you have price controls it becomes even more imperative to lower production costs.
That would mean moving the business to other places where they can save money in any way possible.

[RiverDog]

If you have price controls it becomes even more imperative to lower production costs. That would mean moving the business to other places where they can save money in any way possible.

I've seen what the US governments price controls look like. Medicare heavily regulates what doctors can charge for services, and there's a number of doctors that won't accept Medicare or serve only a limited number of Medicare patients because it doesn't pay. Fortunately there's enough business through patients with private insurance that they can make enough money off of to offset what they don't get from Medicare. That's why I'm so strongly opposed to socialistic medicine in this country.

[Aseahawkfan]

Agreed, which is one of the reasons why I don't want anything to do with a Canadian-style socialized health care system. Your country was entirely dependent on the US and other countries for these truly amazing vaccines. Big Pharma came through big time. There's no way that the vaccines could have been developed under a socialized health care system unless they had a big, free market like we have here in the US in which they could make enough of a profit to pay for the R&D expense.

As far as the distribution goes, yes, Canada was very efficient once they had a good supply of vaccines. But that wasn't what I was referring to when I said that they had botched the rollout. They screwed the pooch in their acquisition of them.

Pfizer-Biontech is one of the most advanced vaccines. Pfizer is an American company. Biontech is a German company with a socialized medical system.

Moderna is a relatively new company Massachusetts.

You in fact posted an article a while back showing the nearly 50/50 partnership between public and private entities in drug and medical development.

Some of the vaccines were developed in countries with socialized healthcare systems. Canada has a lot of biotech companies. So does Europe and Israel. It has more to do with your education and economic base than the type of medical system. Many advancement in drugs are done in universities and government funded research centers prior to receiving funding from private industry to develop for additional uses.

Plenty of advancements occurring in nations with socialized medicine. Medicine will always be well funded by wealthy people and nations. All the money in the world doesn't stop you from dying from a terrible disease, so you're always going to fund that type of advancement for personal reasons.

America isn't the only nation to vaccinate their population well. Great Britain and Israel, both with socialized medical systems, secured plenty of vaccines and did quite well.

The economy is global, Riverdog. Biotech development is global as well. Some countries are better than others at it. America is one of the best. Places like Israel, Great Britain, and Germany are great places for drug development too.

[Aseahawkfan]

Taxes are just one part of the equation. Price controls are another.

There seems to be a common outrage over the cost of some of these drugs leading for calls for price regulation. My fear is that if government steps in and limits what a drug manufacturer can charge for their products that they will discourage companies from developing new and revolutionary drugs and and other treatments. Without the profit motive, there will be little incentive for companies to plop millions of dollars annually into robust research and development departments.

You haven't done much of a deep look at how these socialized medical systems work. They aren't as simple as you think they are and aren't all the same. They don't generally discourage drug development as it's always been a combination of public and private money funding such development.

Countries even like Canada has a vibrant biotech industry.

https://biopharmguy.com/links/company-by-location-canada.php

America, Europe, and Israel have lots of biotech companies. Even socialized systems incentivize drug and medical development. Price controls are often in place for common medical procedures, drugs, and the like that don't have advanced alternatives. If something new is developing, socialized nations will pay a higher price or make an investment in a company to help them develop a drug. Even America limits the length of patents on drugs, which are often shorter than other types of patents allowing cheaper generics to be developed so American can afford the drugs.

It's a very interesting process. I do like finding a good biotech to invest in.

[RiverDog]

Taxes are just one part of the equation. Price controls are another.

There seems to be a common outrage over the cost of some of these drugs leading for calls for price regulation. My fear is that if government steps in and limits what a drug manufacturer can charge for their products that they will discourage companies from developing new and revolutionary drugs and and other treatments. Without the profit motive, there will be little incentive for companies to plop millions of dollars annually into robust research and development departments.

You haven't done much of a deep look at how these socialized medical systems work. They aren't as simple as you think they are and aren't all the same. They don't generally discourage drug development as it's always been a combination of public and private money funding such development.

Countries even like Canada has a vibrant biotech industry.

https://biopharmguy.com/links/company-by-location-canada.php

America, Europe, and Israel have lots of biotech companies. Even socialized systems incentivize drug and medical development. Price controls are often in place for common medical procedures, drugs, and the like that don't have advanced alternatives. If something new is developing, socialized nations will pay a higher price or make an investment in a company to help them develop a drug. Even America limits the length of patents on drugs, which are often shorter than other types of patents allowing cheaper generics to be developed so American can afford the drugs.

It's a very interesting process. I do like finding a good biotech to invest in.

The discussion wasn't about biotech, it was about the pharmaceutical industry. Secondly, my point wasn't just about where companies were located, it was about where their markets are, where they sell their products and services.

And lastly, would you please quit making things personal by telling posters what they know and don't know, or vis-à-vis, how smart you are in comparison. Telling other posters that "You haven't done" this, that, or the other thing contributes nothing to the discussion.

Here's a snippet from an article that describes my concern:

In contrast with most other countries, the United States does not employ a form of drug price regulation to control spending on pharmaceuticals, mainly because of concern that regulatory controls drive down profits and discourage the flow of capital to support the development of new molecular entities (NMEs). Industry and government officials in the United States have targeted other countries for their implementation of national policies surrounding drug price regulation. For example, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of America has claimed that foreign governments are free riding on US innovation and are not paying for their fair share of drug development costs. In addition, US government officials have stated that the United States is now covering most of the costs of developing a new drug.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

[Aseahawkfan]

The discussion wasn't about biotech, it was about the pharmaceutical industry. Secondly, my point wasn't just about where companies were located, it was about where their markets are, where they sell their products and services.

And lastly, would you please quit making things personal by telling posters what they know and don't know, or vis-à-vis, how smart you are in comparison. Telling other posters that "You haven't done" this, that, or the other thing contributes nothing to the discussion.

Here's a snippet from an article that describes my concern:

In contrast with most other countries, the United States does not employ a form of drug price regulation to control spending on pharmaceuticals, mainly because of concern that regulatory controls drive down profits and discourage the flow of capital to support the development of new molecular entities (NMEs). Industry and government officials in the United States have targeted other countries for their implementation of national policies surrounding drug price regulation. For example, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of America has claimed that foreign governments are free riding on US innovation and are not paying for their fair share of drug development costs. In addition, US government officials have stated that the United States is now covering most of the costs of developing a new drug.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

If you want to believe that nations with socialized medical systems don't encourage a robust biotech industry including the novel drug development industry aka Big Pharma, then I guess I'll leave you to it.

Biotech encompasses novel drugs, novel medical treatments, medical devices, genetics, and everything associated with medical development. I posted a list of at least a few hundred biotech companies developing everything involved in medical technology in Canada, a socialized medicine country. It is indisputable fact that a socialized medical nation can support drug advancement. Many already do.

I invest in biotech and do research on the companies all the time. They are all around the world, primarily America, Israel, Canada, and Northern Europe/Scandinavia. It's a very involved process involving a public and private partnership with lots of big companies seeding small companies or using grant money from various governments as well as development in universities and the like. Biotech including Big Pharma is generally funded on a global scale and is done all around the world including Asia, though I admit I don't know Asian biotech/medical companies as well as I know America, Europe, Israel, and Canada.

I'll leave you to discuss this with others. The evidence is indisputable that biotech thrives in nations with socialized medical systems with governments intelligent enough to manage their socialized medical systems in a fashion to encourage medical development.

One last list so at least others know socialized systems do support drug development:

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/top-ten-pharma-companies-in-2020/

1. Johnson & Johnson – $56.1bn/American

2. Pfizer – $51.75bn/American

3. Roche – $49.23bn/Switzerland

4. Novartis – $47.45bn/Switzerland

5. Merck & Co. – $46.84bn/American

6. 6. GlaxoSmithKline – $44.27bn/England

7. Sanofi – $40.46bn/France

8. AbbVie – $33.26bn/American

9. Takeda – $30.52bn/Japan

10. Shanghai Pharmaceuticals Holding – $26.69bn/China

Still not sure why you want Americans paying so much money for their medicine while many other nations seem to be deriving a similar or better benefit from their medical services than us for far less money.

But I guess that is just one of those beliefs you have that won't alter even with the available evidence indicating we can develop a much better, more flexible system than get a job and hope you get enough hours and pay to cover yourself and your family.