7 ms·
The big thing is this isn't really about any real monetary savings. What we get out of these budgets is a bargain: > The biggest single share of the NIH budget
by softwaredoug 2y ago
The big thing is this isn't really about any real monetary savings. What we get out of these budgets is a bargain:
> The biggest single share of the NIH budget goes to the NCI ($7.8 billion in 2024), and the second-most to the NIAID ($6.5 billion) with the National Institute of Aging coming in third at $4.4 billion. (See the tables on numbered pages 11 and 46 of that link at the beginning of the paragraph for the details).
> And to put those into perspective, the largest single oulay for the Federal government is Social Security benefits ($1.4 trillion by themselves), with interest on the national debt coming in second at $949 billion, Medicare comes in third at $870 billion, and the Department of Defense fourth at $826 billion and Medicaid next at $618 billion.
- drivebyhooting 2y agoSocial security and Medicare are inexpugnable liabilities.
- fnordpiglet 2y agoAnd it comes to about $120 per tax payer in total. I’ve had dinners that cost more. Give me my science and medicine please.
- jaredklewis 2y agoSocial security yes, but it seems to me that reducing the cost of Medicare and Medicaid should be very much possible. We need to provide healthcare but it should be possible to make that less expensive
- arrosenberg 2y agoMedicare would become cheaper tomorrow if the government would negotiate drug prices down. Trump isn't going to do that.
- jay_kyburz 2y agoOr manufacture drugs themselves, and distribute "at cost".
- credit_guy 2y agoSomething like this? [1] https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/medicare-drug-price-negotiation https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/med...
- miki123211 2y agoWhat leverage does the US government actually have? Is "we just won't fund your drug, even though people will die and you're the only option on the market" actually something that could happen? Would that be politically palatable to anybody? I guess there's patent invalidation and forced genericization, but that would kill innovation real quick. I think a far better idea would be to impose very strict caps on admin / non-medical costs, potentially at the expense of paying a bit more to fraudsters, changing FDA regulations to minimize (death from side effects + death from no available drugs) instead of just the former, as well as becoming a lot more aggressive about expensive and unnecessary procedures that doctors perform to get rich quick.
- p0ckets 2y agoThe US pays much more for drugs than any other country. I guess one possibility is that no one has any leverage and big pharma is able to charge Americans more because they're richer. But the more popular theory is that countries can negotiate better prices than individuals can (yes, technically insurance companies can negotiate prices, but they seem unmotivated to drive any costs down). It seems the previous administration thought the government can negotiate lower prices: https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/medicare-drug-price-negotiation https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/med....
- nitwit005 2y agoThey are negotiating with drug manufacturers. In the case there is only one, the negotiation just wouldn't go well.
- bad_haircut72 2y agoIm gonna start a downvote party on myself haha but here we go - if you want cheaper healthcare, get rid of the medical licence!! Let the free market work. Of course it wont be better but rich people will pay theough the nose for the top level of care, middle class will get the best care the market can provide for what they can afford and lower class will get someone regurgitating chatGPT - but it _will_ be cheaper. I continue to post this, not even fully convinced - Im scared I wouldnt be able to afford good care without govt subsidies, but I am open to the idea at least. I dont think care in the USA would be worse overall
- mcbutterbunz 2y agoAre medical licenses actually the cause of expensive healthcare?
- bad_haircut72 2y agoI wanna say yes but to be fair, I cant prove it. I think without licencing we would get reduced length degrees & more people like nurses transitioning into primary care physicians - and I think that would be fine for a lot of conditions
- jcrawfordor 2y agoI don't think licensure is really that much of a barrier, though. One of the huge trends going on is that nurses are increasingly replacing doctors in primary care. In my market it's unusual to have an actual doctor as a primary care provider. These nurses just go through some additional training for a PA or NP license and it's still a great deal cheaper than medical school.
- bad_haircut72 2y agoThis happens to me (my PCM is a nurse) but funnily enough my costs haven't gone down. Those nurses still work under a qualified doc, who will never look at your file until youre nearly dead, but theyre still getting a cut believe you me.
- arrosenberg 2y agoWhat needs to be overcome? They're directly paid for through payroll taxes.
- ikiris 2y agoEverything is expungable if no one says no.
- pjc50 2y agoEverything is expendable if you kick in the door and fire everyone, like USAID. I think they're politically smart enough to not cut off the elderly voters, but who knows.
- fgededigo 2y agoUnless you don't need any kind of voter anymore
- zitsarethecure 2y agoWell I mean this is it isn't it? Any election that does not go their way will be called "stolen" and decertified and there is no one left to challenge that. I'd love to be shown how it could be otherwise, someone convince me, please.
- nmz 2y agoHe has to do it, he's already a felon, jail time probably awaits him if a dem is elected.
- piperswe 2y agoAccording to the Supreme Court, he can do whatever he wants in the Oval Office and be immune from prosecution
- scintill76 2y agoI’m not a lawyer, but I think he was sentenced already to serve no time. Unless prosecuted for something else, I think he’s in no danger of prison even if Dems come into power soon.
- adrian_b 2y agoWhat I find ridiculous is that USA spends more on the interest on the national debt than either on Medicare or on the Department of Defense.
- anon84873628 2y agoGee, I'm still waiting for these proclaimed anti-socialists & anti-marxist to kill the most obviously socialist programs in the country.
- kristjansson 2y agoEven quoting the NIH/NSF budgets (or their line items) misses the point of the current actions. Yes, they're smaller fractions of the USG budget, but they not immaterial. This is not an attempt to 'save money' at the NSF and NIH (and USAID). A serious, rational effort to reduce their costs / increase their efficiency does not start with grep-ing manuscripts for 'underrepresented'. Part Five of TFA is on the money. This is an ideological attack on acronyms, and what they symbolize to the attackers. The actual agencies, their relative importance to the budget, etc. do not matter. The iconoclasts are here to smash the icons.
- khazhoux 2y ago[flagged]
- alienthrowaway 2y agoKilling mawmaw to own the libs.
- philosopher1234 2y ago*meemaw
- cubefox 2y ago[flagged]
- jonstewart 2y agoOf course it’s not about saving money. It’s about extinguishing facts. This is Orwell 101.
- Empact 2y agoSo you still believe government-funded research is equivalent to facts in 2025? What about the replication crisis? The political control of research finance e.g. in Alzheimer’s research? It takes either an extreme amount of naïveté or motivated reasoning to maintain that perspective, IMO.
- matwood 2y ago> The big thing is this isn't really about any real monetary savings. Of course not. The big gain is for Trump and Musk to say they did something. Regardless of how someone voted, I can’t believe they are still falling for this shtick.
- timewizard 2y agoThen why are drug prices in the USA higher than anywhere else? We're being robbed by these people.