What if we reduced medical patents to a duration of five years?

I figure two things; first, it is obvious that products with 30 to 40 % markups are not benefiting the consumer, in this case sick people, and that this is a form of exploitation I'm not okay with. A large part of the reason they can charge this rate is the temporary monopoly granted by patents which provide the consumer nowhere else to go. This artificially drives up the cost of healthcare, as with any monopoly.





Second, you can't do away with it. It is quintessentially American to believe in entrepreneurship and the rewards from great discoveries seem to us well-deserved. Even more important though is the fact that the prospect of those lucrative patents is what drives research and development (which is a form of venture capitalism), and it does it exceedingly well. There must be a reward there to provide financial motivation for research expenditures.





I'm just proposing we shrink the size of that reward, which is now excessive to the detriment of the consumer. Any thoughts?

What if we reduced medical patents to a duration of five years?
Well, Canada is also a capitalistic country and they have discovered / participated in the discovery of many medicines eg. penecillan, insulin, cure for polio etc... The prices for drugs in Canada are very low compared to the US but the US government intervenes and put tariffs on the drugs which is against the free trade agreement! There's one problem.


Socialised healthcare is cheaper and protects the poor and it's not at all a anti-capitalist. Your idea sounds reasonable for the US though as you might get that legislation passed with enough ambition, but not likley universal healthcare. Good idea.
Reply:Yes, the profit margin would immediately go up even higher than it already is in order to recoup R%26amp;D investment plus enough profit for the company (which is quite excessive mostly in the pharma companies).
Reply:This is a good idea. It would speed up innovation.

have perfect teeth