Should "Big Pharma" be pursued?

[DevotedDemocrat]

I've read that "Big Pharma" often delays by years treatments, medicines and the like, that could help with various diseases--from cancer to AIDs--both for monetary reasons and because of bureaucracy. I'm not sure if this is true, but if it is, how could an effective President pursue Big Pharma and make new therapies, treatments and medications available more quickly and more affordable? 

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Well part of that bureaucracy is a little thing called the FDA. (Though if you have a problem with that, I'd suggest you look up a little drug called Thalidomide on Wikipedia. No one wants more deformed flipper babies.)

Also, R&D isn't cheap.

[memphis]

WTF? They don't want to delay treatments. They want to get them out ASAP so that they can start bringing in the dollars. If you wanna be mad at them, be mad over all the bullInks that goes around patent protection of drugs. They're constantly inventing "new" drugs that are almost exactly the same as the old ones, just to get a new lease on exclusivity. Prilosec became Nexium. Provigil became Nuvigil. Or they just throw a extended release version out and BAM, it's a "new" drug that costs hundreds of dollars. And they buy off the doctors to prescribe the new versions and waste the doctor's time with "informational" seminars. Once the patent is up, game's over. Often, the drug simply goes over the counter. See Immodium, Claritin, Prilosec, Zantac, and a million other old drugs that used to be by prescription only.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Interestingly, the conservative magazine site Newsmax sent out some e-mail about the industry covering up a cure for cancer - I just read part of it (it goes to my spam - I don't know how I got on their list, and it never works when I unsubscribe), but if conservatives and Obama are both united on the issue, that could be interesting.

Either way, I don't buy into Newsmax's story.