3 ms·

If the US were to make all drug R&D a public service they'd have to basically increase the current NIH budget from ~$30B to probably $150B It may be nice in th

If the US were to make all drug R&D a public service they'd have to basically increase the current NIH budget from ~$30B to probably $150B It may be nice in theory to have government manage drug R&D, but it is not practical. It's simply too expensive

pjc50 9y ago
.. or a fifth of the military budget. "It's not practical of the US to maintain the most expensive military in the world, it's simply too expensive" said nobody in Congress ever.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Eisenhower's warning of the military-industrial complex is still very much valid, nearly 60 years later. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns...
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    It is also worth noting that the original speech called it the military industrial congressional complex. Indeed very relevant.
- aaavl2821 9y ago
  Thats a false comparison. It's like saying "people spend $1,000 on iPhones. Why wouldn't they spend $1,000 on a pizza?" Ability to pay and willingness to pay are very different concepts
  - magicalist 9y ago
    > Thats a false comparison. All your argument was that it's too expensive. Clearly it's not. If the manner in which the money is spent (or the feelings we'll have while sending it) is actually the limiting factor, you'll need to actually make that argument.
- magicalist 9y ago
  > or a fifth of the military budget And less than the projected increase in the deficit this year due to tax cuts and spending increases
jamroom 9y ago
It's not too expensive - the US can easily afford $150B. We just have to decide that it's a priority and make it happen. Each year we some how find almost a trillion dollars for defense (more if you include "black budget") and no one blinks an eye.
- jrobn 9y ago
  I think the US is still stuck in the Cold War mentality of making military spending an “untouchable” cut. Meanwhile country infrastructure is falling apart and our equality gap is unprecedented. Sounds a lot like the USSR.
tgb 9y ago
It's not politically practical, but why would you expect that paying for the stuff we already pay for is too expensive?
- tgb 9y ago
  I'll assume that downvotes mean I wasn't clear: the US is currently spending that much ($150B apparently, I haven't checked) on R&D for drugs. It's just doing it through different means, presumably by paying higher insurance premiums and healthcare costs that end up going to drug companies to fund their R&D. If instead we payed that cost through taxes, then there's no theoretical reason why it would have to cost any more. So why would it be too expensive, given that we already pay that much via a different route? Of course, it's not politically expedient and won't happen anytime soon.

pjc50 9y ago

.. or a fifth of the military budget. "It's not practical of the US to maintain the most expensive military in the world, it's simply too expensive" said nobody in Congress ever.

Clubber 9y ago
Eisenhower's warning of the military-industrial complex is still very much valid, nearly 60 years later. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns...
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  It is also worth noting that the original speech called it the military industrial congressional complex. Indeed very relevant.
aaavl2821 9y ago
Thats a false comparison. It's like saying "people spend $1,000 on iPhones. Why wouldn't they spend $1,000 on a pizza?" Ability to pay and willingness to pay are very different concepts
- magicalist 9y ago
  > Thats a false comparison. All your argument was that it's too expensive. Clearly it's not. If the manner in which the money is spent (or the feelings we'll have while sending it) is actually the limiting factor, you'll need to actually make that argument.
magicalist 9y ago
> or a fifth of the military budget And less than the projected increase in the deficit this year due to tax cuts and spending increases

jamroom 9y ago

It's not too expensive - the US can easily afford $150B. We just have to decide that it's a priority and make it happen. Each year we some how find almost a trillion dollars for defense (more if you include "black budget") and no one blinks an eye.

jrobn 9y ago
I think the US is still stuck in the Cold War mentality of making military spending an “untouchable” cut. Meanwhile country infrastructure is falling apart and our equality gap is unprecedented. Sounds a lot like the USSR.

tgb 9y ago

It's not politically practical, but why would you expect that paying for the stuff we already pay for is too expensive?

tgb 9y ago
I'll assume that downvotes mean I wasn't clear: the US is currently spending that much ($150B apparently, I haven't checked) on R&D for drugs. It's just doing it through different means, presumably by paying higher insurance premiums and healthcare costs that end up going to drug companies to fund their R&D. If instead we payed that cost through taxes, then there's no theoretical reason why it would have to cost any more. So why would it be too expensive, given that we already pay that much via a different route? Of course, it's not politically expedient and won't happen anytime soon.