4 ms·

If funding pharmaceutical research is a common public interest, then it should be funded the way all common public interests should be: taxes. Taxes pay for the

by saulrh 2y ago

If funding pharmaceutical research is a common public interest, then it should be funded the way all common public interests should be: taxes. Taxes pay for the weather predictions that make modern agriculture possible. Taxes pay for the basic physics research that keeps Moore's Law on track. Taxes pay for the transportation and logistics infrastructure that make the modern economy possible. Taxes pay for the fire engines that might keep your house from burning down some day. Taxes can and should pay for the pharmaceutical research that makes modern medicine effective. This kind of generalized "everybody needs it but no single person can pay for it and trying to do it through capitalism distorts everything" benefit is precisely what taxes are designed for.

gruez 2y ago
Right, but what sort of taxes? If the answer is "just an overall tax on everything", then that's basically the status quo, with all the accompanying "socializing the costs and privatizing the profits" (eg. [1]). If it's tax on the industry in question specifically, then that's something that's not usually done. For instance, you mention "Taxes pay for the basic physics research that keeps Moore's Law on track", but to my knowledge there's no semiconductor tax to attempt to recoup the cost of that research. The same goes for agriculture. You might have a point for roads since they're financed via a fuel excise tax, but it doesn't generalize to ocean/air freight. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41351872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41351872
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  Half-joking, half-serious counter: why not socialize the costs and socialize the profits, too? Think big!
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    Public universities and their hospital systems are the largest employers in many cities and states. The status quo is already somewhat socialized. Like some dollars from expensive hospital procedures and drug research royalties go to the insanely bloated admins of these university-hospital systems, paying salaries of people who basically could be eliminated overnight and no one would notice, who are working 11am to 4pm 3 days a week, and whose primary qualification is graduating the same university system and occasionally being the partner or relative of another employee of it. On the one hand you imagine something that is Socialized, in some imaginary way, in your head, that only you know, fine. But think critically about whom is employed by pharmaceuticals, how did they get to that station in life, and maybe it starts to look like things being socialized more than they seem.
firesteelrain 2y ago
Taxes do pay for pharmaceutical research though private funding makes up the majority of the funding. For example, NIH, DoD and CDC all provide funding. NIH has an annual budget of $45 billion - all taxes. [1] https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775400 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775400
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Then why do legislators not finish funding the "minority" of the funding? The clinical trials are the most expensive and risky part. There is a reason the US government (and other governments) step away at that point.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    Well think about it. You are asking for nationalization of drug research and production. Clinical trials are expensive and private companies specialize in the later stages. There is also the idea of shared risk. Government does not want to take on the entire risk
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      I don’t get what point you are trying to make. If the people of a country want the lowest prices for medicine, they can pay for them via taxes, and that includes clinical trials. Then there would be no middleman with a patent to collect profit. If taxpayers do not want the risk, then of course they will have to compensate businesses to take the risk. And there is no “nationalizing”. The government paying for clinical trials and FDA approval does not preclude pharmaceutical businesses from doing the same.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        I’ll repeat again: USG does not want to take on the risk and Congress will not fund the full cost. USG does not want to be in the drug production business either.
BurningFrog 2y ago
Pharmaceutical research is a common global interest. But there is no way to levy any global taxes to pay for it. That makes this idea practically impossible.

by saulrh 2y ago

gruez 2y ago

Right, but what sort of taxes? If the answer is "just an overall tax on everything", then that's basically the status quo, with all the accompanying "socializing the costs and privatizing the profits" (eg. [1]). If it's tax on the industry in question specifically, then that's something that's not usually done. For instance, you mention "Taxes pay for the basic physics research that keeps Moore's Law on track", but to my knowledge there's no semiconductor tax to attempt to recoup the cost of that research. The same goes for agriculture. You might have a point for roads since they're financed via a fuel excise tax, but it doesn't generalize to ocean/air freight. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41351872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41351872

spondylosaurus 2y ago
Half-joking, half-serious counter: why not socialize the costs and socialize the profits, too? Think big!
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  Public universities and their hospital systems are the largest employers in many cities and states. The status quo is already somewhat socialized. Like some dollars from expensive hospital procedures and drug research royalties go to the insanely bloated admins of these university-hospital systems, paying salaries of people who basically could be eliminated overnight and no one would notice, who are working 11am to 4pm 3 days a week, and whose primary qualification is graduating the same university system and occasionally being the partner or relative of another employee of it. On the one hand you imagine something that is Socialized, in some imaginary way, in your head, that only you know, fine. But think critically about whom is employed by pharmaceuticals, how did they get to that station in life, and maybe it starts to look like things being socialized more than they seem.

firesteelrain 2y ago

Taxes do pay for pharmaceutical research though private funding makes up the majority of the funding. For example, NIH, DoD and CDC all provide funding. NIH has an annual budget of $45 billion - all taxes. [1] https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775400 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775400

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Then why do legislators not finish funding the "minority" of the funding? The clinical trials are the most expensive and risky part. There is a reason the US government (and other governments) step away at that point.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Well think about it. You are asking for nationalization of drug research and production. Clinical trials are expensive and private companies specialize in the later stages. There is also the idea of shared risk. Government does not want to take on the entire risk
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I don’t get what point you are trying to make. If the people of a country want the lowest prices for medicine, they can pay for them via taxes, and that includes clinical trials. Then there would be no middleman with a patent to collect profit. If taxpayers do not want the risk, then of course they will have to compensate businesses to take the risk. And there is no “nationalizing”. The government paying for clinical trials and FDA approval does not preclude pharmaceutical businesses from doing the same.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      I’ll repeat again: USG does not want to take on the risk and Congress will not fund the full cost. USG does not want to be in the drug production business either.

BurningFrog 2y ago

Pharmaceutical research is a common global interest. But there is no way to levy any global taxes to pay for it. That makes this idea practically impossible.