4 ms·

> Because governments dont spend nearly as much as private investment into the medical field... Are you not aware of how much fundamental drug and medical rese

by rosser 8y ago

> Because governments dont spend nearly as much as private investment into the medical field... Are you not aware of how much fundamental drug and medical research is actually conducted on the taxpayer's dime at the university level, and then exclusively licensed to private enterprise for commercial exploitation? I've seen a number of sources make a compelling case that "big pharma"'s number one line item is marketing, not research.

conanbatt 8y ago
At great cost to society. There should be no federal funding on this. This is one of the gravest reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the U.S. It subsidizes big corpo, big hospitals, then subsidizes richest employees, eliminating the most basic price mechanisms for competition. Not only does it do all the subsidizing, but it also makes it expensive by putting extremely costly regulation. But thats a whole topic on its own: government funding of healthcare research is not efficient and does not make it cheaper in any way. Big Pharma's #1 expenditure is always going to be protect its patent monopoly process with the FDA.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  You have a fascinating perspective on medicine and research. Research should be paid for by the people and made available in the public interest. If a private entity does pay for the research they are entitled to protect their inventions for 20 years via the patent program. That doesn't mean buyers or buying organizations shouldn't be allowed to negotiate.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    Research should be paid by the people with an interest to pay for research. And the government should put as little stops and costs into that process as possible. I would find it better that patents in pharma were eliminated, but also that the FDA approval process should be optional. If you want to save lives, you need to loosen up.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Oh, I see, having a conversation here probably won't be very productive. "If you want to save people, you should just let people try any old untested medical device, procedure or supplement, and wish them the best if that's what they want." That's how you kill people. There's a reason we have an FDA approvals process and it's not because the barbershop surgeons and snake oil salesmen were doing so well that big government needed to step in and ensure we didn't save so many.
      - conanbatt 8y ago
        > That's how you kill people. You also kill people by not giving them the medication they would want to get, or making it to expensive for it to exist. There is no "clean-hands" solution on this. > here's a reason we have an FDA approvals process and it's not because the barbershop surgeons and snake oil salesmen were doing so well that big government needed to step in and ensure we didn't save so many. Yes, the 1920's of medical licensing, restricting doctors supply, hospital grants etc. You can see how medical expenses became an issue right after that.
        rosser 8y ago
        I wonder what happened to the slope of the graphs for rates of various adverse outcomes over time did right around then, too. I think price, by itself, is an absurdly meaningless metric. If it gets more expensive, but gets better, that's potentially worthwhile. What's happening in the US healthcare system now, however, is that it's on the order of twice or more as expensive as anyone else's — and climbing — with worse outcomes than many of those, and are getting worse. No matter your views on who should pay for it, you can't be in favor of that.
        arcticbull 8y ago
        Imagine if every late-night "male enhancement" pill was instead a cancer treatment. That's what the world of snake oil salesmen was like. That's the world you're advocating for. God help us all if you get your way. It's like how the rivers dont catch fire anymore so we don't need an EPA </scarcasm> I bet you the costs of disposing of dangerous waste products went up exponentially after the EPA was established, and yet, nobody cares because it's better all around. Out of interest, how do you feel about vaccines?

by rosser 8y ago

conanbatt 8y ago

At great cost to society. There should be no federal funding on this. This is one of the gravest reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the U.S. It subsidizes big corpo, big hospitals, then subsidizes richest employees, eliminating the most basic price mechanisms for competition. Not only does it do all the subsidizing, but it also makes it expensive by putting extremely costly regulation. But thats a whole topic on its own: government funding of healthcare research is not efficient and does not make it cheaper in any way. Big Pharma's #1 expenditure is always going to be protect its patent monopoly process with the FDA.

arcticbull 8y ago
You have a fascinating perspective on medicine and research. Research should be paid for by the people and made available in the public interest. If a private entity does pay for the research they are entitled to protect their inventions for 20 years via the patent program. That doesn't mean buyers or buying organizations shouldn't be allowed to negotiate.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Research should be paid by the people with an interest to pay for research. And the government should put as little stops and costs into that process as possible. I would find it better that patents in pharma were eliminated, but also that the FDA approval process should be optional. If you want to save lives, you need to loosen up.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Oh, I see, having a conversation here probably won't be very productive. "If you want to save people, you should just let people try any old untested medical device, procedure or supplement, and wish them the best if that's what they want." That's how you kill people. There's a reason we have an FDA approvals process and it's not because the barbershop surgeons and snake oil salesmen were doing so well that big government needed to step in and ensure we didn't save so many.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      > That's how you kill people. You also kill people by not giving them the medication they would want to get, or making it to expensive for it to exist. There is no "clean-hands" solution on this. > here's a reason we have an FDA approvals process and it's not because the barbershop surgeons and snake oil salesmen were doing so well that big government needed to step in and ensure we didn't save so many. Yes, the 1920's of medical licensing, restricting doctors supply, hospital grants etc. You can see how medical expenses became an issue right after that.
      - rosser 8y ago
        I wonder what happened to the slope of the graphs for rates of various adverse outcomes over time did right around then, too. I think price, by itself, is an absurdly meaningless metric. If it gets more expensive, but gets better, that's potentially worthwhile. What's happening in the US healthcare system now, however, is that it's on the order of twice or more as expensive as anyone else's — and climbing — with worse outcomes than many of those, and are getting worse. No matter your views on who should pay for it, you can't be in favor of that.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        Imagine if every late-night "male enhancement" pill was instead a cancer treatment. That's what the world of snake oil salesmen was like. That's the world you're advocating for. God help us all if you get your way. It's like how the rivers dont catch fire anymore so we don't need an EPA </scarcasm> I bet you the costs of disposing of dangerous waste products went up exponentially after the EPA was established, and yet, nobody cares because it's better all around. Out of interest, how do you feel about vaccines?