2 ms·

The data on biotech and pharmaceutical patents per nation is easy to look up and firmly supports the parent posters point- Google is your friend here. Your sec

The data on biotech and pharmaceutical patents per nation is easy to look up and firmly supports the parent posters point- Google is your friend here. Your second point is a false equivalency as from a private payor perspective the cost of providing care to the indignant is reflected on their localized hospital bill, not on their federal taxes. In struggling rural/inner city hospitals the majority of payors don't cover the cost of the care received (and that includes medicare/medicaid patients), which means hospital bills will be highest in poor regions despite higher rates of federal coverage/subsidy.

ivan_gammel 4y ago
> firmly supports the parent posters point- Google is your friend here. Well, you need to change your search engine, because DDG could help you finding this report: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ 42% of innovations for 40% of GDP of innovating countries isn’t exactly majority. UK and few other countries are more inventive than USA in relative numbers and the rest of the world - more in absolute numbers. On second point thanks for clarification. So, if I understood it correctly, it means that this redistribution model is inefficient, because it creates two tier insurance system, with hospitals serving as second tier insurance. This even sounds crazy.