Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by kelnos 839 days ago
What about direct government funding? Isn't that a reasonable alternative? Maybe not a politically-popular one, but I wouldn't be surprised if health care overall would be cheaper under a system where pharma research is done with public money, and then isn't allowed to be patented. Might even in save enough money to avoid much in the way of extra taxes to fund it.

Hell, a lot of medical research is funded (in part) by public dollars, and then the results get locked up behind patents for years, which is gross.
2 comments
cbeach 837 days ago
Having the government direct funds and choose winners and losers seems a lot more dangerous than leaving it to free market forces.

It's easier to corrupt one or two government officials than it is the entire international capital marketplace.

link
derivative7 838 days ago
Most taxpayers don't have cystic fibrosis and hence don't want to pay to have it cured. Not feasible. This hypothetical is kind of lame.
link
actuallyalys 838 days ago
The U.S. government already funds a lot of research including some on conditions (or non-medical problems) that don’t affect the majority so that doesn’t seem to be an actual barrier. Polls tend to show Americans support existing funding [0].

Obviously there is a limit to how much spending the public will support, but I don’t think it’s a complete nonstarter.

[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/07/03/americans...

link