5 ms·

>Healthcare research funding to come from the public sector and donations only. And I suppose the public will indirectly vote on where research goes and where

>Healthcare research funding to come from the public sector and donations only. And I suppose the public will indirectly vote on where research goes and where it does not? I don't trust any party in power to have a monopoly on healthcare research without a private sector counterbalance. But I'm open to reconsidering the current allocation.

markvdb 8y ago
The freedom to research would stay! If anything, researchers should have more freedom to research. An example. Imagine a researcher invents cheap medication that obviates the need for some kind of eye surgery. What would happen now? Surgeons don't like it, insurance companies don't like it. It might never catch on. The silly researcher certainly wouldn't get rewarded for his idiotic idea. What would happen in an ideal scenario? Better health with less side effects for the patients. Cheaper for the community.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  Exactly. Institute proper nutrition at school lunch programs and easy access to clean water throughout the day, and watch what happens to healthcare costs, dental costs, test scores, etc. It costs more, but society currently pays the cost later times ten. Same with sunlight to prevent the onset of myopia, etc. These are things we already know about and can have huge impact, but it's politically infeasible to solve these problems correctly.
jacobwilliamroy 8y ago
I was watching some NASA scientists ask the federal government for money on C-SPAN and the NASA people said that they decide what research to fund by surveying the scientific community. I forget what they call the system exactly. EDIT: I found it. They use something called a "decadal survey" https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/decadal-surveys https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/decadal-surveys
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I would trust the group of folks NASA is surveying MUCH more than the general public, even when it came to healthcare.

markvdb 8y ago

The freedom to research would stay! If anything, researchers should have more freedom to research. An example. Imagine a researcher invents cheap medication that obviates the need for some kind of eye surgery. What would happen now? Surgeons don't like it, insurance companies don't like it. It might never catch on. The silly researcher certainly wouldn't get rewarded for his idiotic idea. What would happen in an ideal scenario? Better health with less side effects for the patients. Cheaper for the community.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
Exactly. Institute proper nutrition at school lunch programs and easy access to clean water throughout the day, and watch what happens to healthcare costs, dental costs, test scores, etc. It costs more, but society currently pays the cost later times ten. Same with sunlight to prevent the onset of myopia, etc. These are things we already know about and can have huge impact, but it's politically infeasible to solve these problems correctly.

jacobwilliamroy 8y ago

I was watching some NASA scientists ask the federal government for money on C-SPAN and the NASA people said that they decide what research to fund by surveying the scientific community. I forget what they call the system exactly. EDIT: I found it. They use something called a "decadal survey" https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/decadal-surveys https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/decadal-surveys

craftyguy 8y ago
I would trust the group of folks NASA is surveying MUCH more than the general public, even when it came to healthcare.