4 ms·
There's a ton more funding you disregard, there's subsidies i.e. tax breaks, you can't simply look at direct research funding and at the federal level at that,
by AsyncAwait 6y ago
There's a ton more funding you disregard, there's subsidies i.e. tax breaks, you can't simply look at direct research funding and at the federal level at that, what about state funding? Private funding not tied to big pharma?
This is like when academic publishers defend themselves by saying how much value they add. The fact is the U.S. could easily cover all Big Pharma R&D spending and then some if it wanted to, just the military spending increase this year was in the tens of billions of dollars. What if that went to this instead?
The problem is not the money, the problems is the incentives of the U.S. healthcare system are completely messed up. How else would you explain getting charged thousands of dollars for an ambulance ride?
I am not against Big Pharma making a profit, I am against them jacking the price of drugs by 700% because the new owners saw a cashcow opportunity. That's someone's life right there. I am not for them lobbying against single payer either.
Just look at the recent Remdesivir pricing fiasco. Why can't Medicaid negotiate drug prices for example?
- s1artibartfast 6y agoI think we probably agree on more than we disagree on. I was objecting specifically to the claims that pharma substantially benefits from taxpayer funded research and would sue non-profits out of existence. I totally agree that the incentives are the problem! The best step forward would be to federally negotiate prices based on relative benefit. Next we could look at outcome based compensation. I think these changes would address 90% of the problem.