According to somebody who works in this industry it is the standard contribution. Does not matter if the drug does not get approved, the money is for the research, as far as I know.
If you compare the NIH budget vs. the major pharmaceutical companies, it's a 2 to 1 ration. And not all the NIH budget is spent on drug research. It's mostly basic science.
In what sense is it fraudulent? A straightforward exchange of money for policy doesn't require anybody to lie. The harm is from the disloyalty and lack of integrity of the elected representative. And making policies in order to get money is disloyal regardless of whether it's illegal.
If there are multiple meanings for a word, I think the author (AnthonyMouse) would get the final word on which meaning he intended. And he made it clear he intended it to mean "dishonest, disloyal, lacking in integrity" not "fradulent" or "illegal".
Think of segregation/separate but equal. Nothing can really stop someone from choosing not to associate with another person because of their race or gender. And that's generally okay. But the second it becomes law of the land, through government, it's a problem. IP is no different.
There is plenty of lobbyism that's ok. The problem is when it's conspiring against the interest of the society as a whole. So both should of course be monitored closely.
which is why I dont understand the "let's just buy them from canada" mentality
buying drugs abroad just skirts ip price fixing. we can skirt price fixing here by making drugs and not paying the ransom costs.
should the government be able to pull eminent domain on lifesaving drugs?
should all drugs purchased with public funds (ex medicare) be exempt from any cost/margin past manufacturing?
it feels to me like importing from canada is having cake and eating it too. we either agree that full drug prices are legitimate or we agree they are unethical. you cant pretend both are compatible worldviews.
