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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (76292)	7/24/2008 6:04:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543273

I don't understand your point. All federal programs are supposed to pay attention to cost effectiveness. All are supposed to pay attention to cost effectiveness, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do it equally well. I'm not saying NASA can do it better or that it should try, but if for the sake of argument, we imagine it clearly can, then it would be more cost effective to have NASA do it. And if NASA did public assistance, it wouldn't be NASA. Which is closely related to my point. NASA doesn't do it because its not NASA's job. Arguably it isn't the job of the government health insurance and benefit programs we are talking about to pay for drugs for something other than treating a medical condition. Sure the NASA hypothetical is more clear and more extreme, but that's intentional. When trying to come up with an example of an idea, you usually don't want to pick the most muddled or indefinite example.