Big pharma, in the United States, has become an extremely profitable market. Many joining the field in hopes of riches, but that’s not how the prescription business started. With the creation of the original vaccines and medications many doctors and scientists rejoiced a cure or crutch for diseases and disorders. There seemed to be a genuine interest in helping others and sharing the findings. However, in modern day, many search for new medications in order to gain a large profit. This is seen by the excessive price of many prescriptions, company’s margins, and lack of policy capping prescription prices. You may wonder, why is big pharma such a big and profitable industry? Big pharma has found a way to justify high prices by claiming the research cost billions of dollars and treating prescriptions like a business opportunity. While, yes, research costs money, yes, prescriptions are sold but, millions of Americans can’t afford their life saving prescriptions as big pharma is now. As America doesn’t have universal health care and with prescription prices rising, there should be a federal policy capping the price of prescription medications.
One thought on “Big Pharma Needs a Cap(sule)”
Comments are closed.
1). I personally really like the title’s pun. I think it does reflect the major idea that will be discussed in the paper.
2). The title and introduction do respond to an exigence. The high price of medication is an important issue that needs to be fixed, but I do think that the intro could reflect this need a little better. To me, it seemed like there were really only one or two sentences that actually reflected on why this is such an issue, and because it’s the topic of the paper, I feel there should be a higher focus on why it’s important.
3). The thesis clearly states that there should be a price cap on medications. I can’t really imagine the structure of this argument. I don’t know if there are existing regulations that are similar to what you are arguing for, or if you are going to be inventing an entirely new policy. I would maybe like a little more background information on those aspects just for some clarification.
4). Similar to what I commented above, I think the direction of your paper could be a little clearer. I could see the organizational pattern being three of the four options, depending on the stuff I mentioned in #3. If there is an existing policy, I could see the paper following the Problem/Existing Plan/Counterplan pattern. If there is no existing policy, I could see the paper following either Problem/Cause/Solution or Need/Plan/Advantage. Again, I think there needs to be a little more direction when it comes to the introduction so your readers know exactly what to expect from and can focus on the content of your paper.
Also, this wasn’t specified by the workshop, but I’m going to include it because I feel it will lead to a stronger paper. I feel that you have some weird wording and grammar going on in some parts of your introduction. Personally, stuff like that distracts me, which could have led to some of the confusion I have over the direction of your paper.