> First of all, you made a general statement and I demonstrated its falsity

This is an extremely disingenuous reading of our conversation. I made a specific statement about a particular instance (which you dismissed as cherry-picking), and I asked a question at the same time. Which you reduced overall to a "general statement" while dismissing the specific example that was really important to the context of what point I was trying to make:

> James Collip and Charles Best [donated] the insulin patent "so that everyone could have it" and we still don't have universal low-cost insulin over 100 years later, and prices continue to skyrocket

> Is there any evidence that drug patents can actually enter the public domain productively at their end of their expiration period?

There's an impedance mismatch between "nearly all insurance companies require a generic to be used" and "drug patents should be clearly in the public interest" when "drugs have to be profitable or they are not made by companies anymore."

Why not engage a bit more directly with the original example, if you're going to accuse me of generalizing now? Let's talk about insulin, I'm sure I picked it for a reason.

Is there a generic insulin that is chemically identical to a name brand insulin with the same efficacy? No, there apparently is not [1] – I won't claim to be fully informed on these issues, but it seems pretty clear from reading that the issue cannot simply be reduced to "lots of generics exist, so you are mistaken."

Why can't we have low cost insulin from an entity that operates like the post office, that exists as a public benefit corporation without any profit motive?

Does it really make sense that people who have insurance that is not "top tier" will not have access to the better (still patented) drugs, if they are really better? Are they better, or are they really just "evergreening" patents? If insurance typically only covers generics, then it's really problematic that there is no generic form of this lifesaving drug, and the monopoly persists more than 80 years after the patent should have expired on the original invention!

The deal was supposed to be 20 years. What went wrong, does it "go wrong" a lot, and does it "go wrong" more or less frequently when human lives are at stake? These aren't unfair questions, and if Teva (or any company other than Eli Lilly) made a generic form of Humalog insulin then I probably would not ask them at all. But only Eli Lilly does, only Eli Lilly can.

The same company apparently makes the so-called "generic" insulin that also makes the top-tier patented "Humalog" so maybe there are too many regulatory hurdles or something else is wrong. (I thought that the generics were supposed to represent the competition, that comes to save the day after patents expire...)

If we're central planning, wouldn't we want to promote a resource arrangement such that the best drugs with the most promise and the greatest life-saving properties will go to the most people? Is it really so off-base to conjecture that a resource arrangement that actively does something else is "really evil?"

[1]: https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/why-is-there-no-gene...