7 ms·

Perhaps they should've spent this much on medical research instead. For the same money perhaps we could save a few million people dying of various diseases or

Perhaps they should've spent this much on medical research instead. For the same money perhaps we could save a few million people dying of various diseases or cancer. It would take a whole lot of terrorist events to counter the benefits of significant R&D funding for medicine (or maybe a lot of other things).

new_realist 5y ago
U.S. spends $4T a year on health care (of which $171.8B is spent on research), vs. $320B a year here.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  4T? No, more like 1T Here is 2019: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 Medicare + Medicaid = 1T.
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    This is federal only. Still don't think it will get up to 4 trillion but linking to federal only is a bit misleading.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    But these are actual services provided rather than pure R&D.
bamboozled 5y ago
Climate change will destabilize the world more than any "terrorists" could. Also would've been nice to have seen 6.4 trillion go into renewables tech and investments ~ 20 years ago.
- epistasis 5y ago
  $6.4T into renewables and storage over the past 20 years would have decarbonized the US grid several time over, accelerated the tech curve drastically, nearly completely transitioned us to EVs, and we'd probably have decarbonized a good chunk of industry that is hard to decarbonize now. We'd have cheaper energy than we do today, and cheaper energy forever. We could have been looking at current levels of climate change, instead of the far far bigger changes that we are now going to experience. And why did we spend so much on these countries? It all comes back to oil and the fear of losing access to oil to power the economy. We really should never forgive those who work for the fossil fuel industry for putting us on this timeline with their active deceipt, lies, and massive propaganda campaign. There should be no forgiveness for what they have cost us.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    Absolutely, it's a good reminder that there is a lot of behind the scenes bullshit at play in this world. The world was screwed on this deal and while it's an absolutely humanitarian rights disaster and tragedy what's happening in Afghanistan, maybe the current Administration has worked out that it would be better to spend the money elsewhere, hopefully on tackling climate change.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    What evidence do you have that Afghanistan was due to oil, and not due to the most direct motivations, like Taliban sheltering Al Qaeda (as they still do)? This seems like a conspiracy theory.
    - swader999 5y ago
      If you want to go there look at the acres of cultivation of opium under Taliban and then under US occupation. Ask where that exponential increase in production was spent.
      - gruez 5y ago
        What does opium have to do with oil?
- exclipy 5y ago
  To put this amount in perspective, $6,400 billion is 640 times the amount Jeff Bezos is putting into solving climate change. Wow.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Health care. Food stability. Road repair. Energy grid repair. Public transport. Education. We could have done so much more with that money. It is heartbreaking.
- asdff 5y ago
  We were literally a couple hundred votes from Gore 20 years ago. How different our world would have been today with a climate focused presidency two decades ago. 9/11 would have probably came and went without fanfare like most terrorist attacks, much less spurred invasion of two countries.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    9/11 really wasn't the sort of thing that passes without getting any "fanfare".
- kwere 5y ago
  boomers would have preferred tax cuts
sneak 5y ago
Simply spending it on already-researched healthcare would be more than sufficient.
- new_realist 5y ago
  No, the U.S. already spends $4T a year on healthcare.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
austincheney 5y ago
Over simplifications fail to account for scale. It’s easy to point fingers at some fact taken from past events and it’s even easier to compare that number to some hypothetical fantasy. First, is there any equivalent political will for any of the examples you, or anybody else, mentioned? Second, it’s hard to imagine mobilizing as many doctors into temporary housing as you can soldiers, continuously for almost 2 decades. From a practical perspective this seems unlikely no matter how well intended. Third, I haven’t seen any consideration of logistical factors for any counter examples in any of the comments here. This is the one thing that separates fantasy from reality, even more than money or willpower.
tomjakubowski 5y ago
Could we? I am genuinely curious: has anybody tried to quantify the ROI in lives saved or life years saved (or something) from spending on medical research? Is that a stupid question because medical advances come in fits and starts and don't have steady progress?
diognesofsinope 5y ago
But, have you seen how nice the houses are in Northern Virginia? /s
sk2020 5y ago
The dollars the US spends on medical research led to COVID-19, so maybe that’s not the best option.

new_realist 5y ago

U.S. spends $4T a year on health care (of which $171.8B is spent on research), vs. $320B a year here.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
4T? No, more like 1T Here is 2019: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 Medicare + Medicaid = 1T.
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  This is federal only. Still don't think it will get up to 4 trillion but linking to federal only is a bit misleading.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  But these are actual services provided rather than pure R&D.

bamboozled 5y ago

Climate change will destabilize the world more than any "terrorists" could. Also would've been nice to have seen 6.4 trillion go into renewables tech and investments ~ 20 years ago.

epistasis 5y ago
$6.4T into renewables and storage over the past 20 years would have decarbonized the US grid several time over, accelerated the tech curve drastically, nearly completely transitioned us to EVs, and we'd probably have decarbonized a good chunk of industry that is hard to decarbonize now. We'd have cheaper energy than we do today, and cheaper energy forever. We could have been looking at current levels of climate change, instead of the far far bigger changes that we are now going to experience. And why did we spend so much on these countries? It all comes back to oil and the fear of losing access to oil to power the economy. We really should never forgive those who work for the fossil fuel industry for putting us on this timeline with their active deceipt, lies, and massive propaganda campaign. There should be no forgiveness for what they have cost us.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Absolutely, it's a good reminder that there is a lot of behind the scenes bullshit at play in this world. The world was screwed on this deal and while it's an absolutely humanitarian rights disaster and tragedy what's happening in Afghanistan, maybe the current Administration has worked out that it would be better to spend the money elsewhere, hopefully on tackling climate change.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  What evidence do you have that Afghanistan was due to oil, and not due to the most direct motivations, like Taliban sheltering Al Qaeda (as they still do)? This seems like a conspiracy theory.
  - swader999 5y ago
    If you want to go there look at the acres of cultivation of opium under Taliban and then under US occupation. Ask where that exponential increase in production was spent.
    - gruez 5y ago
      What does opium have to do with oil?
exclipy 5y ago
To put this amount in perspective, $6,400 billion is 640 times the amount Jeff Bezos is putting into solving climate change. Wow.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Health care. Food stability. Road repair. Energy grid repair. Public transport. Education. We could have done so much more with that money. It is heartbreaking.
asdff 5y ago
We were literally a couple hundred votes from Gore 20 years ago. How different our world would have been today with a climate focused presidency two decades ago. 9/11 would have probably came and went without fanfare like most terrorist attacks, much less spurred invasion of two countries.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  9/11 really wasn't the sort of thing that passes without getting any "fanfare".
kwere 5y ago
boomers would have preferred tax cuts

sneak 5y ago

Simply spending it on already-researched healthcare would be more than sufficient.

new_realist 5y ago
No, the U.S. already spends $4T a year on healthcare.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

austincheney 5y ago

Over simplifications fail to account for scale. It’s easy to point fingers at some fact taken from past events and it’s even easier to compare that number to some hypothetical fantasy. First, is there any equivalent political will for any of the examples you, or anybody else, mentioned? Second, it’s hard to imagine mobilizing as many doctors into temporary housing as you can soldiers, continuously for almost 2 decades. From a practical perspective this seems unlikely no matter how well intended. Third, I haven’t seen any consideration of logistical factors for any counter examples in any of the comments here. This is the one thing that separates fantasy from reality, even more than money or willpower.

tomjakubowski 5y ago

Could we? I am genuinely curious: has anybody tried to quantify the ROI in lives saved or life years saved (or something) from spending on medical research? Is that a stupid question because medical advances come in fits and starts and don't have steady progress?

diognesofsinope 5y ago

But, have you seen how nice the houses are in Northern Virginia? /s

sk2020 5y ago

The dollars the US spends on medical research led to COVID-19, so maybe that’s not the best option.