There are costs associated with most things in laugh, the question is who pays them. In the case of US funded research, you want free access to things you probably haven't paid for. I don't blame you, I like free access too. By the way, the universities where you can get access to the journals have paid the journals for that privilege--the better universities will usually have more subscriptions.
The last paper that I published I actually paid much of the publication charges myself, there was not enough grant money left to pay for it.
Peer review journals existed before government grants for research existed and not all Universities are public, some of the most prestigious are private. The University also charges the researcher, a well known University such as Harvard, Stanford or Rice would take 75% of the grant money you raised, State Universities like University of Houston would take 50% of your grant money but will contribute that 50% as a contribution to your next grant which given the common requirement for matching funds from another contributor, is really handy. All of these Universities will also charge you rent for lab space and charge you for your utilities.
Yes, your assumptions about the cost structure is way off.
If the scientist conducting the research was on the Taxpayer dole, then there should be no charge for access to the journal article.
As far as a scientific journal's value outside of serving as a tool for peer-review, I have found some to be quite interesting and others....not. Just depends on your interests.
I presume you would if you couldn't read 'em.
Or if you thought scientists were lying.
Or if you thought you were smarter than all those scientists that you disagree with.
It is irrelevant what I think, let the free market decide.
i presume you do not like private sector profits.
