4 ms·

The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet. Who do you think pays for medical research and why?

by blhack 17y ago

run4yourlives 17y ago
Prove this. This is nothing more than conjecture and PR taken to laughing stock levels (outside of the US at least). Even in the US, the largest research funder is in fact the US government, just like every other country.
- blhack 17y ago
  This is common knowledge to anybody that works in medical research. I don't know of a way to prove other than telling you to go to a medical research laboratory and ask some of the people that work there. Most of them are going to chuckle a bit at your suggestion that I'm wrong. I would also suggest looking at the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, which are the premier medical research institutions in the world. (I'm sorry, this is also common knowledge...I can't offer you any 'proof' of it other than...look).
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    This is common knowledge to anybody that works in medical research. Then it should be easy to support. Let's talk fact here, common knowledge is often wrong. For reference, the largest medical research funder in the world is actually NIH; an arm of the US government.
    - blhack 17y ago
      Then it should be easy to support. Let's talk fact here, common knowledge is often wrong. Sure! In 2003 the United States spent about $94 Billion Dollars on medical reseearch. About 28% of this came from the National Institute of health. Yes, you are technically correct, this makes them the largest "single" contributor. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/1767 http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/...) In 2002/2003 the UK (the largest EU contributor to health research) spent about $480 Million (400 Million Euro) on cancer research. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1513045 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=15...) In this same period, the United States spent about $1.9 Billion. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-fu...) I understand that these sorts of things are inconvenient, and I apologize for not citing sources earlier. Like I said, this is pretty much common knowledge to anybody even remotely familiar with medical research. In the future, I suggest using this website: http://www.google.com http://www.google.com .. it is really great for helping you find things that support "common" knowledge.
      - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        I have to laugh at the misplaced smugness of your reply. With your own quoted figures: $480 million / 60 million population = $8 per person in the UK $1.9 billion / 300 million population = $6.33 per person in the US Nice try!
        CWuestefeld 17y ago
        Luckily, research isn't done per capita. Find a cure, it's applicable to (pretty much) everyone. You might say that other, smaller governments spend at a comparable per-capita rate. But that doesn't change the fact that the USA is still spending much more and accomplishing more research.
        ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        So we've gone from "The US not having socialised medicine makes it a reseach powerhouse that the rest of the world has to leech off because of their backwards programs" to "The US has more citizens than other 1st world countries". Hardly a great argument, but at least the latter actually is "common knowledge".
        CWuestefeld 17y ago
        The original claim was "The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet." When some evidence was provided, you stated that per capita they're only doing 1/3 more than the UK. The thing is, that original claim that others were arguing with had nothing to do with per capita. The proposition is based on absolute numbers. And for the larger argument about what current proposals would do to innovation in medical treatments, what we're really talking about is the total amount of research, not per capita -- the latter is a red herring. The fear is that, if the USA clamps down on healthcare spending, then much of the research that's done in the USA won't continue. And if that's the case, then the pace of improvements in healthcare will slow, and in the long run that's a very bad thing. That proposition is certainly open to debate. But decomposing the facts into per capita data is a red herring that does nothing to resolve the question one way or another.

The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet. Who do you think pays for medical research and why?

by blhack 17y ago

The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet. Who do you think pays for medical research and why?

run4yourlives 17y ago

Prove this. This is nothing more than conjecture and PR taken to laughing stock levels (outside of the US at least). Even in the US, the largest research funder is in fact the US government, just like every other country.

blhack 17y ago
This is common knowledge to anybody that works in medical research. I don't know of a way to prove other than telling you to go to a medical research laboratory and ask some of the people that work there. Most of them are going to chuckle a bit at your suggestion that I'm wrong. I would also suggest looking at the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, which are the premier medical research institutions in the world. (I'm sorry, this is also common knowledge...I can't offer you any 'proof' of it other than...look).
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  This is common knowledge to anybody that works in medical research. Then it should be easy to support. Let's talk fact here, common knowledge is often wrong. For reference, the largest medical research funder in the world is actually NIH; an arm of the US government.
  - blhack 17y ago
    Then it should be easy to support. Let's talk fact here, common knowledge is often wrong. Sure! In 2003 the United States spent about $94 Billion Dollars on medical reseearch. About 28% of this came from the National Institute of health. Yes, you are technically correct, this makes them the largest "single" contributor. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/1767 http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/...) In 2002/2003 the UK (the largest EU contributor to health research) spent about $480 Million (400 Million Euro) on cancer research. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1513045 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=15...) In this same period, the United States spent about $1.9 Billion. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-fu...) I understand that these sorts of things are inconvenient, and I apologize for not citing sources earlier. Like I said, this is pretty much common knowledge to anybody even remotely familiar with medical research. In the future, I suggest using this website: http://www.google.com http://www.google.com .. it is really great for helping you find things that support "common" knowledge.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      I have to laugh at the misplaced smugness of your reply. With your own quoted figures: $480 million / 60 million population = $8 per person in the UK $1.9 billion / 300 million population = $6.33 per person in the US Nice try!
      - CWuestefeld 17y ago
        Luckily, research isn't done per capita. Find a cure, it's applicable to (pretty much) everyone. You might say that other, smaller governments spend at a comparable per-capita rate. But that doesn't change the fact that the USA is still spending much more and accomplishing more research.
        ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        So we've gone from "The US not having socialised medicine makes it a reseach powerhouse that the rest of the world has to leech off because of their backwards programs" to "The US has more citizens than other 1st world countries". Hardly a great argument, but at least the latter actually is "common knowledge".
        CWuestefeld 17y ago
        The original claim was "The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet." When some evidence was provided, you stated that per capita they're only doing 1/3 more than the UK. The thing is, that original claim that others were arguing with had nothing to do with per capita. The proposition is based on absolute numbers. And for the larger argument about what current proposals would do to innovation in medical treatments, what we're really talking about is the total amount of research, not per capita -- the latter is a red herring. The fear is that, if the USA clamps down on healthcare spending, then much of the research that's done in the USA won't continue. And if that's the case, then the pace of improvements in healthcare will slow, and in the long run that's a very bad thing. That proposition is certainly open to debate. But decomposing the facts into per capita data is a red herring that does nothing to resolve the question one way or another.