I'd do single-payer instead.
^^ This
And after that's achieved, when people see the unnecessary expensiveness of pharmaceuticals and how that's driving up cost for the ill and the government's public healthcare program, then nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry will follow. Single-payer and nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry will truly expand coverage, access, and affordability for all Americans by eliminating the costly and burdensome profit-motive from health care.
Nationalising the pharma industry would be complicated by the fact that most big Pharma companies are multinational, and conduct their R&D and operations across borders - if you tried to nationalise only the US entities you would disrupt their operating ability massively; and if you tried to nationalise, say GSK or Roche, which are UK and Swiss based companies. Well... I don't think their is a way you legally could...
Sigh, yet another way in which nationalism is a curse on humanity.
That sounds like more of a curse of internationalism.
I think R&D in pharma is alot more succesful as a result of being global. The issue with "nationalism" is it stops governments from co-operating in a way that mitigates the most nefarious aspects of privatised pharma.
If we were willing to accept the idea that national sovereignty isn't the utmost priority, then we would be able to set worldwide rules to prevent the worst abuses.
In any case, I'm not sure nationalisation is the best route - pharma is the kind of industry that I think should be mutualised; and owned by its employees and its customers, the people who have the most direct interest in its success.
Poll
