Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) suggested late last week that she would “snatch” patents from private companies if they did not abide by her orders so that the government could “take over.”
“My plan, as a candidate for president, on these drug prices is as follows: We are going to set drug prices based on fair market,” Harris said during a campaign stop in Iowa on Friday. “So, essentially what we’re going to do – and you can visit the website if you will, and if not, get you some documents – but essentially what we’re going to do is set drug prices so that American consumers are charged a price for drugs that’s the average price that’s being charged around the globe.”
“And there’s a huge difference, insulin being an example,” Harris continued. “The other thing is this, if people don’t want to cooperate with that, I’m also going to do the next thing, which is this: A lot of drugs, prescription medication, was born out of the federal funding for the research and development of that drug. Your taxpayer dollars.”
“So, for any drug where they fail to play by our rules, and if that drug came about from federal funding for what’s called ‘R&D,’ research and development, I will snatch their patent so that we will take over,” Harris continued.
The audience asked if Harris was legally allowed to do that, to which Harris responded, “Yes, we can do that! Yes, yes, we can do that! Yes, we can do that. The question is whether you have the will to do it. I have the will to do it.”
WATCH:
Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris on if drug companies do not comply with her mandatory set drug prices: “I will snatch their patent so that we will take over”
Audience asks: “can we do that?”
“Yes, we can do that! Yes, we can do that! … I have the will to do it” pic.twitter.com/gpU8nnGt6h
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 23, 2019
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) responded on Twitter, writing: “Nope. Patents are unequivocally protected in the US Constitution. Even if they weren’t, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that stealing people’s property after they make it means THEY WON’T MAKE IT ANYMORE. Fewer drugs, fewer cures. Bad policy.”
Trump Campaign Rapid Response Director Andrew Clark wrote: “A) No, actually, you cannot do that. B) Also, the government does not (and should not!) manufacture drugs. C) This is terrifying.”
Washington Examiner editor Jay Caruso wrote: “It’s funny how candidates complaining the need to stop Trump and his authoritarianism are promising to behave like authoritarians.”
Lawyer and National Review contributor Dan McLaughlin wrote: “Democrats think the President heads the legislative branch.”
Psychology professor Geoffrey Miller wrote: “TFW you realize a presidential candidate doesn’t understand anything about intellectual property, research funding, incentives, unintended consequences, game theory, or killing gooses that lay golden eggs.”
Scott Adams wrote: “Audio seems slowed to make her seem not-too-bright, but I think that was overkill in this case. The content makes the case.”
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies, wrote: “Our future People’s Commissar of Pharmaceuticals.”
Harris’ presidential campaign has been on a downward trend for months after reaching its peak in June after Harris attacked former Vice President Joe Biden during one of the Democratic debates.
“Because her bump was based largely on the one event, it wasn’t really baked in, and voters looked around for another candidate that might excite their interest,” Monmouth University polling director Patrick Murray said. “The bigger problem is that she did not have the kind of base in the early states that would have helped sustained her momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire, if not nationally.”