3 ms·

The US military budget is 12% of the total. > I want affordable housing. Affordable healthcare. High speed rail. Better zoning laws. New subway lines. Are you

The US military budget is 12% of the total. > I want affordable housing. Affordable healthcare. High speed rail. Better zoning laws. New subway lines. Are you saying we only need 12% of the budget to fix these things? Note that coincidentally medicare is already accounting for ~12% of the total. Say the military budget goes to zero (which it can't), and we spend half of that on medicare (it would be 18%). Will it fix the problem? I think the problem is much deeper than wasting this 12%.

tkpk 3y ago
This would be true if the only way to improve healthcare was to throw more money at it. The US could have the best healthcare system if it chose to spend those 12% on something else than pharma's pockets.
- opo 3y ago
  There isn't some simple silver bullet here. While the US ends up subsidizing other industrialized countries for prescription drugs (and that should be stopped), it is a small percentage of overall healthcare costs: >While prescription drug costs only accounted for 8 percent of total U.S. healthcare spending in 2020, the price of such drugs has risen substantially over the last few decades. ... The U.S. spends twice as much on prescription drugs as other comparatively wealthy nations, on average. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/11/how-much-does-the-united-states-spend-on-prescription-drugs-compared-to-other-countries https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/11/how-much-does-the-united-s...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
idontwantthis 3y ago
The government doesn’t need to and shouldn’t spend a dime on housing. It’s up to each state to just make it possible to build more homes. If the government can somehow compel that then great. We can fix the housing crisis and grow GDP at the same time.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
American healthcare is unusually expensive. We spend more public money as a percentage of GDP than most other developed countries on it. Clearly something else is going on beyond money spent.
- raccoonDivider 3y ago
  I can't say if it's correct or not, but here's an argument [1] that I've heard multiple times: > Pharmaceutical breakthroughs are financed by the high prices paid by American patients (and backed by abundant venture capital); government-run health systems in Europe then bulk-buy the same drugs for much less. Europe has had some successes—German companies were among those pioneering mrna vaccines—but most of the cutting-edge research in science and technology is done at universities and companies elsewhere. [1] https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/26/europe-is-the-free-rider-continent https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/26/europe-is-the-fr...
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    European drug-makers benefit from those high prices in the US, too. But anyway, I’ve heard that only 11-14% of new drugs are therapeutically important. The rest compete with pre-existing treatments, which I believe is how generic forms bring costs down. I’m ok with universities doing this; bringing costs down does save the lives of poor people.

tkpk 3y ago

This would be true if the only way to improve healthcare was to throw more money at it. The US could have the best healthcare system if it chose to spend those 12% on something else than pharma's pockets.

opo 3y ago
There isn't some simple silver bullet here. While the US ends up subsidizing other industrialized countries for prescription drugs (and that should be stopped), it is a small percentage of overall healthcare costs: >While prescription drug costs only accounted for 8 percent of total U.S. healthcare spending in 2020, the price of such drugs has risen substantially over the last few decades. ... The U.S. spends twice as much on prescription drugs as other comparatively wealthy nations, on average. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/11/how-much-does-the-united-states-spend-on-prescription-drugs-compared-to-other-countries https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/11/how-much-does-the-united-s...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

idontwantthis 3y ago

The government doesn’t need to and shouldn’t spend a dime on housing. It’s up to each state to just make it possible to build more homes. If the government can somehow compel that then great. We can fix the housing crisis and grow GDP at the same time.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

American healthcare is unusually expensive. We spend more public money as a percentage of GDP than most other developed countries on it. Clearly something else is going on beyond money spent.

raccoonDivider 3y ago
I can't say if it's correct or not, but here's an argument [1] that I've heard multiple times: > Pharmaceutical breakthroughs are financed by the high prices paid by American patients (and backed by abundant venture capital); government-run health systems in Europe then bulk-buy the same drugs for much less. Europe has had some successes—German companies were among those pioneering mrna vaccines—but most of the cutting-edge research in science and technology is done at universities and companies elsewhere. [1] https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/26/europe-is-the-free-rider-continent https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/26/europe-is-the-fr...
- ttyprintk 3y ago
  European drug-makers benefit from those high prices in the US, too. But anyway, I’ve heard that only 11-14% of new drugs are therapeutically important. The rest compete with pre-existing treatments, which I believe is how generic forms bring costs down. I’m ok with universities doing this; bringing costs down does save the lives of poor people.