Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (4126)	1/29/2008 6:30:03 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

There is a non-trivial impact to US competitiveness that comes from sustaining the world's drug R&D budget. True, but there are many other similar non-trivial hits to our economy, or to other countries economies that seem to be sustained for a long time. I would of course rather spread the cost of drug development more evenly. It would help the US. But I'm not sure the current set up is unsustainable. It probably amounts to American's spending a percent or a percent and a half of our GDP extra on prescription drugs. That's a lot of money, as you put it "non-trial", but it can be sustained economically. The only question is can it be sustained politically.

To: slacker711 who wrote (4126)	1/31/2008 3:05:28 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

"There is a non-trivial impact to US competitiveness that comes from sustaining the world's drug R&D budget. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I have to say that giving the rest of the world a free ride on US health care costs isnt very appealing." Thank you. I have been saying that for a long time. The lovers of Socialized Medicine think that if we just socialize that research would be sustained and we would bask in the glow of lower costs. I think it would destroy the research pipeline.