[lavrov]

The argument that "if the US goes socialized, you will see almost a complete halt to medical innovation over time," and therefore that private funding of research is preferred, is a bad one. It rests on the premise that the profit motive for pharma companies and the imperative to improve health care outcomes for the greatest number of people are aligned, which they are not.

Public funding of drug research is a better driver for the discovery of improved treatments than private pharma investment - under the current model, drug companies aren't incentivized to develop novel treatments (see Nexium), or to develop treatments that would improve outcomes for the greatest number of people (see Pfizer abandoning research into Alzheimer's and Parkinson's treatments).

Since the Bayh-Dole Act passed in 1980, pharma companies have profited hugely by purchasing patents held by publicly-funded researchers, and commercializing them with virtually no controls on the resulting drug prices. Even private development of drugs still relies on publicly-funded and publicly-available research. The assertion that the institution of stricter price controls would eliminate innovation seems to be untrue - I don't think that scientists are incentivized to do research solely by the promise of lucrative patents. Stricter price controls would likely mean that the government would have to participate more directly in the clinical trial phase, which would be a good thing, as there are minimal checks against manipulation of clinical trials.

[Scoundreller]

On the other hand, streams of interesting new oral Type-2 diabetes medications have been coming out. E.g. Gliptins and gliflozins

Unfortunately, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's treatments have been a black-hole for research funding. Many have tried, most have failed.