[Sam_Odio]

I wish conversations about public healthcare in the US included discussions about innovation in the healthcare industry.

We don't need to argue that consolidating buyers (e.g. single payer) has more market power and can negotiate prices down. This is an accepted principle among economists.

I am very curious about what affects single-payer in the US would have on global healthcare innovation. E.g. concepts like:

> the high spending of health care consumers in the United States is arguably funding not only global pharmaceutical innovation but is also facilitating the availability of new medicines to other countries at much lower prices than domestic consumers pay.

https://arcdigital.media/u-s-health-care-reality-check-1-pha...

[desertedisland]

Well it's an interesting question and the answer is not ambiguous as far as I can tell. The US share of global R&D spending on pharmaceuticals is approaching 60%: https://www.abpi.org.uk/facts-and-figures/science-and-innova...

To answer your question I think there's little doubt that dramatically cutting health (and pharmaceutical) costs per person in the US (i.e. with a single payer model) would dramatically impact global R&D spending on pharmaceuticals.

But are you saying that the average American citizen is ok paying ridiculous health care costs (with only a limited number of citizens having coverage) because their payments are subsidising global health R&D? I really, really doubt that. Also this idea is clearly socialist which is one of the main arguments against universal health coverage in the US.

[henrikschroder]

Is there any serious research that shows this to be true?

In America, the Big Lie that all Americans tell about themselves and their country, is that the US is #1 in everything. And, if statistics happen to show that the US isn't #1, there's always a reason, an excuse, as to why in this instance the US isn't #1, but it totally could be, it just doesn't want to, or it has to deal with some exceptional circumstance that lesser countries just don't have to deal with.

To me, the idea that the US subsidizes global healthcare innovation feels just like such an excuse. It gives Americans an opportunity to martyr themselves. "We could have cheaper healthcare, but we bear this burden, for you."

Come on. It's a load of horseshit.

And even if it were true, why would you accept it? America hates altruism, deriding it as socialism, so much so that "socialized" healthcare is seen as a horrible thing. It's not ok for Americans to pay for each other's healthcare, but it's suddenly perfectly ok to pay for the development of healthcare for other countries?!? You're happily spending healthcare money for the benefit of other countries, but not your own population?

This makes no sense. This can't be true. It's a bad excuse to cover up failed exceptionalism, because the truth is simply that a lot of people with money to pay for lobbyists are benefiting from the current system.

[colinmhayes]

1. American culture may be anti-altruism, but I can still argue that altruism is a good thing. Developing life saving drugs is a good thing. I'd like to think that on this forum everyone can agree that technological innovation is incredibly important. Of course I would prefer everyone contributes to drug research costs, but if others aren't willing to pick up the slack I am.

2. Drugs cost upwards of a billion dollars to develop. Plenty of failed drugs cost a billion dollars before they fail. If drug companies don't make money they will stop developing drugs.

[WalterSear]

> 9 of 10 top drugmakers spend more on marketing than research

> These spending numbers are at odds with a common claim by pharmaceutical companies that they need to patent drugs for extraordinary amounts of time to justify the massive amounts of money spent on research. Not only do many top drugmakers appear to spend more on advertising, but their profit margins, the BBC noted, are often larger than their research spending.

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8018691/big-pharma-research-ad...