Shouldn't Funding Medical Research Be A Top Priority?

[molson_golden2002]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...04820-8232r.htm

 

1) I don't get how this isn't more of a political issue. What politician would be against funding cancer research?

 

2) You would think politicians, being human, would want to see more research done.

[/dev/null]

i thought getting out of iraq was the top priority. or was universal health care the top priority? or was it global warming

[molson_golden2002]

i thought getting out of iraq was the top priority. or was universal health care the top priority? or was it global warming

"A" top priority. As in you draw up a list of top priorities and act on them.

[pdh1]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...04820-8232r.htm

 

1) I don't get how this isn't more of a political issue. What politician would be against funding cancer research?

 

2) You would think politicians, being human, would want to see more research done.

 

If liberals get their way and put a cap on drug prices and create a national health plan, watch drug research slow to a crawl.

 

There used to over twenty drug companies working on vaccines, then the government got in the way.

Now there is two.

[JimBob2232]

Ugh....you dont want to government funding medical research. At least not in the method typically talked about. Perhaps put a 10M award or whatever out there to the person or corporation who finds a cure for cancer, but to just have the government fund research....it sounds good, but in practice, it would be a huge and inefficient burden on our tax system. There is very few thing the government should be publiclly funding. Medical research is not one.

[molson_golden2002]

1) If liberals get their way and put a cap on drug prices and create a national health plan, watch drug research slow to a crawl.

 

2) There used to over twenty drug companies working on vaccines, then the government got in the way.

Now there is two.

1) Smoke screan. Simply a cheap way to blame liberals because it feels good to blame liberals.

 

2) Link?

[JimBob2232]

1) Smoke screan. Simply a cheap way to blame liberals because it feels good to blame liberals.

 

2) Link?

 

1) Lets say you own a company. You know if you develop a cure for cancer, you can only sell it for a dollar a tablet....how much money are you willing to invest into finding this cure? Is it more or less than if you could sell it for $5/tablet?

[molson_golden2002]

1) Lets say you own a company. You know if you develop a cure for cancer, you can only sell it for a dollar a tablet....how much money are you willing to invest into finding this cure? Is it more or less than if you could sell it for $5/tablet?

Let's say you own a company and Harvard University medical researchers had developed a pill to cure cancer, with money they got from a government grant. The government asks for bids from companies to manufacture and sell that pill. Would you bid on a pill that guarantees a profit?

[GG]

Let's say you own a company and Harvard University medical researchers had developed a pill to cure cancer, with money they got from a government grant. The government asks for bids from companies to manufacture and sell that pill. Would you bid on a pill that guarantees a profit?

 

Wrong question. Manufacturing drugs is dirt cheap. The hardest part of the puzzle, developing a viable drug to treat a malady, had already been solved. The point is that to develop that one drug that works, you probably have a dozen of parallel projects to find that drug, and 11 will fail. Who foots the cost for the failed projects?

[molson_golden2002]

Wrong question. Manufacturing drugs is dirt cheap. The hardest part of the puzzle, developing a viable drug to treat a malady, had already been solved. The point is that to develop that one drug that works, you probably have a dozen of parallel projects to find that drug, and 11 will fail. Who foots the cost for the failed projects?

With the benefits so great its worth the cost of the 11 failures. So the feds should fund it. Looking for alternative forms of energy is the same thing. If I was in charge we would be wasting hundreds of billions to find a solution for cancer and energy, and it would be worth it in the end.

[Wacka]

You have no idea how new drugs are discovered and tested before being sold to the public.

[GG]

If I was in charge we would be wasting hundreds of billions to find a solution for cancer and energy, and it would be worth it in the end.

 

[Drumroll, please]

 

And that's why you're not in charge.

 

[/Drumroll, please]

 

Why is finding a cure for cancer and energy more important than clean water and ample food? Clothing? Housing?

 

Let me guess, those are priorities too. How will you stack the priorities? Will you also pick the winners and the losers? Under what criteria?

 

Maybe if you could answer those questions in a way that produces a better outcome from what exists today, we may consider putting you in charge.

[molson_golden2002]

You have no idea how new drugs are discovered and tested before being sold to the public.

And you are Wacka

[molson_golden2002]

[Drumroll, please]

 

1) And that's why you're not in charge.

 

[/Drumroll, please]

 

2) Why is finding a cure for cancer and energy more important than clean water and ample food? Clothing? Housing?

 

3) Let me guess, those are priorities too. How will you stack the priorities? Will you also pick the winners and the losers? Under what criteria?

 

Maybe if you could answer those questions in a way that produces a better outcome from what exists today, we may consider putting you in charge.

1) No, it probably has more to do with the all the people I'd have shot if I was in power

 

2) Why in the world can't we do all of that? The money we spent on Iraq would have advanced the goals of cancer research and energy research farther than it has ever gone. And Iraq is going to keep on costing us. 180,000 vets to date have filed for disability from Iraq and Afganistan. What a clusterfok!

 

3) No need to pick winners and losers, we can have our cake and eat it too

[VABills]

1) No, it probably has more to do with the all the people I'd have shot if I was in power

 

2) Why in the world can't we do all of that? The money we spent on Iraq would have advanced the goals of cancer research and energy research farther than it has ever gone. And Iraq is going to keep on costing us. 180,000 vets to date have filed for disability from Iraq and Afganistan. What a clusterfok!

 

3) No need to pick winners and losers, we can have our cake and eat it too

1) And yet you got upset when Cheney did it.

 

2) The money we spend in Iraq would not pay for everything on your "list of priorities". Also, in the case of medical research, who benefits if the government funds a cure? Why should a pharmo comp reap the benefits of public funding? And which do you propose gets it, the one who contributes the most to your campaign? I'd like to see the facts on your 180,000. Everything I have read has that number closer to 20,000.

 

3) See #2. There is only so much time, money and people to do the work. You must prioritize.

[Taro T]

1) No, it probably has more to do with the all the people I'd have shot if I was in power

 

2) Why in the world can't we do all of that? The money we spent on Iraq would have advanced the goals of cancer research and energy research farther than it has ever gone. And Iraq is going to keep on costing us. 180,000 vets to date have filed for disability from Iraq and Afganistan. What a clusterfok!

 

3) No need to pick winners and losers, we can have our cake and eat it too

By definition, when government throws money at something, they have picked the winners (those that get money +/or rules to keep their competition at bay) and losers (those competing with the "winners").

 

In your utopia, I'd expect there'd still be a thriving buggy whip industry.

[molson_golden2002]

1) And yet you got upset when Cheney did it.

 

2) The money we spend in Iraq would not pay for everything on your "list of priorities". Also, in the case of medical research, who benefits if the government funds a cure? Why should a pharmo comp reap the benefits of public funding? And which do you propose gets it, the one who contributes the most to your campaign? I'd like to see the facts on your 180,000. Everything I have read has that number closer to 20,000.

 

3) See #2. There is only so much time, money and people to do the work. You must prioritize.

 

1) Well, ya know

 

2) You don't know that. And the Pharmo should benefit from the research because they are the most efficient at distributing. You want the government to do it? Bill Gates benefited from internet and computer research the government did in the space and military programs. Is that so bad? I read the 180,000 somewhere, I'll pass it along if I run into it again.

[Bungee Jumper]

2) You don't know that. And the Pharmo should benefit from the research because they are the most efficient at distributing.

 

And when that happens, you'll be first in line bitching about "corporate welfare".

[Taro T]

1) Well, ya know

 

2) You don't know that. And the Pharmo should benefit from the research because they are the most efficient at distributing. You want the government to do it? Bill Gates benefited from internet and computer research the government did in the space and military programs. Is that so bad? I read the 180,000 somewhere, I'll pass it along if I run into it again.

 

If you're allocating the profits from the research to "the most efficient at distributing", why not just let Walmart do it and do away with the pharmaceutical industry all together?

 

I'm still not sure from where / to whom you are allocating the costs and more importantly the managerial decisions (i.e., which potential drugs get funded and to what stage).

 

[Bungee Jumper]

 

If you're allocating the profits from the research to "the most efficient at distributing", why not just let Walmart do it and do away with the pharmaceutical industry all together?

 

I'm still not sure from where / to whom you are allocating the costs and more importantly the managerial decisions (i.e., which potential drugs get funded and to what stage).

 

 

 

No, you're not getting it. The plan is: tax the rich to help those in need. "Those in need" include not only the poor, but the rich corporations you're taxing to help the poor. So the plan is basically tax the rich and redistribute it to everyone.