Or two.
Or more.
The Federal government spends billions, or more, on medical related research. I haven't a clue what percentage, but I'm positive it's got to be a whole bunch.
Given that...
Since we have all collectively paid for the research, shouldn't we be entitled to it's fruits?
Likewise, what if government funded research provided a seed a knowledge that private research then took to another level?
Wouldn't we, the citizens, own a piece of that as well?
If the answer to either is "Yes.", how can any citizen be denied medical care if they can't afford it out of pocket?
Or, why should we have to afford it out of pocket at all?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Socialist!
can you expand on that, amanda?
"Since we have all collectively paid for the research, shouldn't we be entitled to it's fruits?"
So why do you deprive me of said fruits by banning them from the military?
----
Kidding! I don't like using such epithets, but the pun was too tempting to pass up.
Amanda's right, that is a socialist proposal.
The counter-point is that creating the intellectual property for something doesn't necessarily entitle you to the real property. For example, the fact that government may have paid part of the R&D for Eli Lilly's new chemo drug doesn't entitle you to demand they give you some. It might entitle you to demand that they not charge you for the R&D costs, but not for the drug itself.
Or, to use a NASA example, the fact that you helped pay for the development of solar cells doesn't give you the right to demand Radio Shack give you some for free.
Exodus 20:15, 17
The NIH budget (the last time I looked) was around $42 billion annually. Not trivial, but nowhere near as big as a Medicare, Social Security, or the DoD. (Not that it should be as big as any of those things...just putting it into perspective.)
Speaking only for myself and not my employer, I absolutely think that the answers to your questions are: yes, it often does, yes, and it's complicated.
That said, I don't think that basic research drives the end-user costs of health care as much as you might think. You are also paying for salaries, diagnostic tests, and administrative costs, all of which are huge.
Even if you just look at the drug companies alone--who are in the comparatively simple business of doing research, getting drugs to market, and selling them--a company that spends 20% of its budget on R&D is considered exceptional (when I was looking at working for them, that was what Amgen spent...I don't know if that is still the case.) Most companies spend a much smaller portion of their budgets on R&D.
I think what you are really asking is: are for-profit healthcare companies piggy-backing on publicly funded research and effectively double-dipping when they charge us for products based on said research? That's a very difficult question to answer definitively, because scientific knowledge (not to mention people, equipment, and facilities, all of which are employed in multiple projects at any given time) is not neatly compartmentalized into public vs. proprietary.
I could actually write a lot more on this, but this isn't what you are paying me for... :)
Can you give money to the government and expect to use the roads?
The U.S. Military developed GPS (Global positioning System). Though they did not buy my Hand held Gps or my Car navigator Gps system, I can still benefit from and use the technology that the research and development (that I ultimately paid for). If I were a stock holder for Garmin, then I'd be getting a huge benefit from their research. Gino; what you're saying doesn't work in a capitalist society.
I agree with everything 幸運之神 said.
幸運之神 is a socialist!
"...the comparatively simple business of doing research, getting drugs to market, and selling them..."
If it were easy, then EVERYONE would be doing it.
key word, k-rod: comparatively.
Compared to what? Rocket surgery? Brain science?
Why not first ask the question of why the government is taking tax revenue and giving some to these companies at all?
And if these companies are making such enormous profits, why not buy stocks and reap the profits; rake it up!!!
compared to whole process of delivering the fruits health care research through all stages.
i think most of the govt research money ends up in universities, not phizer.
isnt word verification turned on? if so, how're these bots getting through?
LOL.
I don't have any wonderful arguments to add to this discussion; but, I'd just like to throw in my general opinion on medical research---did you hear my fart.
My uninformed estimate would be that 90% of the researchers out there are bozos who just want to get a paper published and then grant money so they don't have to actually work for a living. Most of today's research goes like this: eating or doing _______, will prevent __________; but, it will damage __________, which will harm or kill you just as if you didn't take care of blank 1. And the circular research of what is or isn't good for you goes on and on.
Wow. Hard not to take THAT personally.
So I'll just say this: you're wrong.
Post a Comment