4 ms·
A large proportion of pharmaceutical development is funded (directly or indirectly) by public funds. There's a very strong argument that single-payer healthcare
by jdietrich 8y ago
A large proportion of pharmaceutical development is funded (directly or indirectly) by public funds. There's a very strong argument that single-payer healthcare systems should issue a blanket moratorium on buying new patented medicines and direct the funds to research. Major pharmaceutical companies spend significantly more on marketing than on R&D, so it'd be a net win for the taxpayer if they just paid for drug development directly.
- gowld 8y agoNice idea. Why don't single-payer healthcare systems (the ones who are already enlightened, compared to the backward USA, right?) fund that research today? If pharma geniuses couldn't make a fortune in pharma, would they work for the government on the Federal wage scale, or would they go to coding bootcamp (which they could easily thrive at, based on the biochem->coding converts I know) and go work for Facebook?
- ceejayoz 8y ago> Nice idea. Why don't single-payer healthcare systems (the ones who are already enlightened, compared to the backward USA, right?) fund that research today? They (and even our multi-payer system) already do. See: Public universities, NIH grants, etc.
- refurb 8y agoThose two sources pay for a fraction of what goes into R&D at private companies.
- 34k5uoi5ui 8y agobecause some people want to save lives, rather then enslaving them. If you think working at facebook is the pinnacle of human achievement, I respectfully request you consider where we are, and how many humans around you are suffering.
- darawk 8y agoThen why are those people working at for-profit pharma companies? They can go start a non-profit one right now. They could do research.