4 ms·

It will also massively hurt global drug and medical research. We are the leader in it partly because we pay these exhortation prices when the rest of the devel

It will also massively hurt global drug and medical research. We are the leader in it partly because we pay these exhortation prices when the rest of the developed world simply won't play that kind of game. I'm okay with biting that bullet, and taking a global reduction of health research by some double digit percent for awhile, but that's a serious unintended consequence of single payer. I'm a Bernie voter who supports single payer, but it's not sunshine and roses everywhere, and crooked capitalism really does do some "not bad" things for us.

cudgy 4y ago
> It will also massively hurt global drug and medical research. This may not be the case, since much research is subsidized by the government and educational funding providing labs that train the scientists the pharmaceutical companies utilize. Single-payer may result in lower costs and therefore more money for support of research and laboratories. Also, pharmaceutical companies would not need to spend vast amounts for marketing their drugs direct to consumers.
- nradov 4y ago
  The government subsidizes much of the basic research needed to identify candidate drugs. However, private companies usually pay for the human trials necessary to bring new drugs to market. A stage-3 clinical trial can cost >$1B with no guarantee of success. It's a huge financial risk. In theory we could nationalize the whole industry, and let government bureaucrats decide which clinical trials to fund. I'm skeptical whether that would produce better results. Government employees with no skin in the game have a poor record of picking winners.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
I don't know, many of the major drugs, like penicillin, insulin, thorazine, birth control etc were developed without those hurdles, and not in the USA. But US gave us Viagra)
amf12 4y ago
> It will also massively hurt global drug and medical research. I doubt it would. Private drug companies would still exist and charge the same money regardless of whether the insurance is paying for it or "the single payer system".

cudgy 4y ago

> It will also massively hurt global drug and medical research. This may not be the case, since much research is subsidized by the government and educational funding providing labs that train the scientists the pharmaceutical companies utilize. Single-payer may result in lower costs and therefore more money for support of research and laboratories. Also, pharmaceutical companies would not need to spend vast amounts for marketing their drugs direct to consumers.

nradov 4y ago
The government subsidizes much of the basic research needed to identify candidate drugs. However, private companies usually pay for the human trials necessary to bring new drugs to market. A stage-3 clinical trial can cost >$1B with no guarantee of success. It's a huge financial risk. In theory we could nationalize the whole industry, and let government bureaucrats decide which clinical trials to fund. I'm skeptical whether that would produce better results. Government employees with no skin in the game have a poor record of picking winners.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

I don't know, many of the major drugs, like penicillin, insulin, thorazine, birth control etc were developed without those hurdles, and not in the USA. But US gave us Viagra)

amf12 4y ago

> It will also massively hurt global drug and medical research. I doubt it would. Private drug companies would still exist and charge the same money regardless of whether the insurance is paying for it or "the single payer system".