Report Inappropriate Comments

History disagrees with you, but I'm sure the profiteers who are licking their chops at the amount of profit they could make off this deadly virus are all applauding your stance. When Jonas Salk decided not to patent the Polio vaccine, the results were quite successful. Perhaps the argument should be that medicine should not be privatized at all. The idea of someone investing in medicine in order to reap billions of dollars in profit is an inhumane and gratuitously wasteful stance. Profit is the result of charging more than your product costs and paying those who produce it less than the value of their production. If medicine were done for the public good, doctors would be making decisions to keep their patients healthy instead of being forced by the insurance companies to promote and peddle the pharmaceutical-of-the-day in order to hook patients on a long term drug dependency and funnel their often meager income to the already filthy rich.

Nearly every society around the world gets this, and so do most Americans, according to the Gallup polls showing the majority of Americans favor Medicare-for-All. In many indigenous cultures, people would pay the local "health care provider" a stipend of sorts, as long as they were healthy, as soon as they were sick, they stopped paying, guaranteeing that their medicine provider's incentive was to keep them healthy. A stark contrast to the lack of care, wanton corruption, addiction, and price-gouging we see from today's health care-for-profit industry.

From: Waiving the COVID-19 patent would not result in increased supply of vaccines

Please explain the inappropriate content below.