Democracy is what the United States prides itself on. As a model for many other countries, every citizen would have whatever they need in order to live happy, healthy and productive lives due to a government structure holding their civil liberties a in the forefront of political decisions. Unfortunately, many of the citizens find themselves in a place between a critical choice to be healthy or live comfortably. In order to fulfill a critical foundational building block of the United States, many citizens need to choose feeding their family over paying for a life saving drug. Funding political campaigns via lobbying in favor of major Pharmaceutical company CEOs instead of the American citizens. This is costing families a loved one who must be
…show more content…
Therefore, it would make sense she was the stand-in she would offer some answers. Far from the truth. Ms. Retzlaf makes the drug itself and the young company the scapegoat and proved herself unreliable. In turn, the following facts have started helping out patients who rely on Daraprim. Ms. Retzlaf explained the reason for the increase is only 3,000 people need it, they are the only ones with the drug since they bought it the year before, Daraprim is their primary drug and it is their investment opportunity. This was made apparent during questioning when overnight the 60 year old drug went from $13 per pill to the current $750 per pill. She states the cost is justified in order to do research and development for all of the disease that are …show more content…
Lynch followed the backpedaling and untouchable attitude of Touring with the proposal of action from Congress. This is a double edged sword idea though, he wants to introduce a, “Poison Pill Amendment” to take back control from companies like Touring who wish to skyrocket prices unnecessarily and rapidly. Immediately elimination of the exclusivity period and handing it over to the Federal Research companies. The negative part of handing the research over would be the penalty to the major companies who are doing groundbreaking work within cancer treatments, organ transplant medications and a variety of other companies following the letter of the law. With a process like this it could still infringe on their own constituents who would then still be dealing with ramification dealt by the vary companies power was removed
Therefore, it would make sense she was the stand-in she would offer some answers. Far from the truth. Ms. Retzlaf makes the drug itself and the young company the scapegoat and proved herself unreliable. In turn, the following facts have started helping out patients who rely on Daraprim. Ms. Retzlaf explained the reason for the increase is only 3,000 people need it, they are the only ones with the drug since they bought it the year before, Daraprim is their primary drug and it is their investment opportunity. This was made apparent during questioning when overnight the 60 year old drug went from $13 per pill to the current $750 per pill. She states the cost is justified in order to do research and development for all of the disease that are …show more content…
Lynch followed the backpedaling and untouchable attitude of Touring with the proposal of action from Congress. This is a double edged sword idea though, he wants to introduce a, “Poison Pill Amendment” to take back control from companies like Touring who wish to skyrocket prices unnecessarily and rapidly. Immediately elimination of the exclusivity period and handing it over to the Federal Research companies. The negative part of handing the research over would be the penalty to the major companies who are doing groundbreaking work within cancer treatments, organ transplant medications and a variety of other companies following the letter of the law. With a process like this it could still infringe on their own constituents who would then still be dealing with ramification dealt by the vary companies power was removed