> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:08 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: U.S. health care > >Well, it would put the small pharm out of business too. And, then, who > >would develop new drugs? I assume you favor governments? Historically, > >governments have had a much worse track record in technical innovation > than > >private concerns. Planned economies tend to be ponderous and very bad at > >reacting to changes in demand, available possibilities, etc. They are > >particularly bad at innovation. > > > So who do you see who should/will make vaccines, search for new > antibiotics, search for _cures_ for diseases etc., when the profit > lies in coming up with pills which must be taken every day for the > rest of the patient's life in hopes of warding off some future serious > disease?
Well, a couple things come to mind. First, countries with government health care could invest in research in vaccines to see if they can prove me wrong....that government sponsored drug development can be effective. It would be nice to have other developed countries take up more of the burden of paying for medical developments. If they wanted to sell it in the US to recoup some of their costs....that's not a problem with me. Using a capitalistic model, the first thing that comes to mind is reduce the risks inherent in developing new vaccines. Protection from liability...as long as the company was above board in providing the results of studies to authorities, and guaranteed purchase of vaccines for X sound like some possibilities. As for preventing diseases....some of the medicines people take everyday now do that. High cholesterol is not the disease, clogged arteries is....so that is really prevention. I don't think most prevention would be a one-shot....but allowing for big payments for a one-shot makes sense. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l