2 ms·

> But there aren't other ways to fund drug research. Yes there are; public money and normal sized salaries for scientists doing the public research for the pub

> But there aren't other ways to fund drug research. Yes there are; public money and normal sized salaries for scientists doing the public research for the public good. Granting monopolies to private corporations is hardly the only way to achieve things. Scientist's aren't in science for the money, science generally pays shit anyway; they're in it for other reasons.

mbreese 13y ago
You can't feed a family on good-will and happy thoughts. Edit: the parent was originally a snarky one-liner "Yes there are"
- gnaritas 13y ago
  You don't need a private monopoly on medicine to feed a family, just a good wage from a publicly funded research institute.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc... There are legitimate problems with the current system, such as Pharma typically doesn't produce drugs for rare diseases - there just isn't enough money in the market to justify the lost opportunity costs. Publicly funded research is supposed to help those instances where the economic incentives aren't there. This can lead to a perverse switch in motive. Instead of trying to help patients who legitimately need help to trying to get as many people to buy a drug as possible, regardless of need. But in case you haven't been paying attention - public funding for science isn't exactly growing. So if we want to see some of these next generation cancer drugs with small markets, you need to have the ability to charge large amounts. But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      > Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc... I didn't say they did; I'm saying they should. Medicine as a business is immoral IMHO, and a good half of this county agrees with me. We want public healthcare, not private healthcare because money is a perverse incentive when it comes to health. > But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own. Agreed, but they should be, and if we want to see a better healthcare system that does more for the general public rather than just the rich, they'll need to be. The free market is not the correct solution for healthcare/medicine. Medicine is a communal good and should be funded by and available to the whole community.

mbreese 13y ago

You can't feed a family on good-will and happy thoughts. Edit: the parent was originally a snarky one-liner "Yes there are"

gnaritas 13y ago
You don't need a private monopoly on medicine to feed a family, just a good wage from a publicly funded research institute.
- mbreese 13y ago
  Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc... There are legitimate problems with the current system, such as Pharma typically doesn't produce drugs for rare diseases - there just isn't enough money in the market to justify the lost opportunity costs. Publicly funded research is supposed to help those instances where the economic incentives aren't there. This can lead to a perverse switch in motive. Instead of trying to help patients who legitimately need help to trying to get as many people to buy a drug as possible, regardless of need. But in case you haven't been paying attention - public funding for science isn't exactly growing. So if we want to see some of these next generation cancer drugs with small markets, you need to have the ability to charge large amounts. But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc... I didn't say they did; I'm saying they should. Medicine as a business is immoral IMHO, and a good half of this county agrees with me. We want public healthcare, not private healthcare because money is a perverse incentive when it comes to health. > But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own. Agreed, but they should be, and if we want to see a better healthcare system that does more for the general public rather than just the rich, they'll need to be. The free market is not the correct solution for healthcare/medicine. Medicine is a communal good and should be funded by and available to the whole community.