2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Domina Nostra]

I know you did the winky face...but seriously, when you get down to actually assessing planning, launch, and performance to date of ACA...was the wink necessary, other than to spare the feelings of those who were for the ACA?

Whenever a critical discussion comes up, it spirals into "we had to do something". Well if we had to do "something" I'd rather Dems all have gathered in a circle and.....

Anyway, motion does not = progress toward a solution. Spending more money does not = better service/care.

I agree with you.

But it wasn't to spare feelings. When you type out stuff on the internet, it can read as very harsh. I've started injecting exclamation points in e-mails just so people don't think I'm sad. I started out thinking they were silly (which they are), but they've beome necessary.

The wink was just so people know I'm not typing angry, even if I disagree (and even if they are offended by my opinions, which is pretty often).

 

[Domina Nostra]

I work at an Army lab that focuses on CB defense technologies. The basic research and prototyping of equipment is generally performed at this lab. When the technology is matured, we seek partnerships with industry because the government is not set up to mass produce and distribute the products. Industry generally makes minor tweaks to the technologies to make them more marketable, and when the products hit the market, the Army can purchase them for use. I'm certain that the development of drugs works the same way. I can see the building where much of that research takes place out of my office window n post. It is a really crazy system when the government pays the R&D and the consumer costs for these products, but that is government inefficiency at its finest. Of course, industry seeks other uses for these technologies to expand the customer base. A gas mask developed for the military, for example can be adapted for use by first responders. These products are generally sold at a higher price because nobody has the purchasing power of the US government. This s similar to my medication example above. Some pay a lot more than others.

Industry is not concerned with fairness or even getting the most drugs on the market. They are concerned with maximizing profits.nif that means producing fewer drugs and jacking the price up by 5000 percent like the douche who cornered the market on one of the primary AIDS drugs a few months back, that is what they do. So all the people who need that drug to survive either pay up or die. It is appalling.

Great post.

But I would say (1) not everyone in every industry defines maximizing profits the same way, and (2) the worst examples don't often make the best policies.

That "AIDS" drug is not good example, for a number of reasons. First of all, its a story because it sticks out. Not every drug is ridiculously over-piced. Second, as I understand it, its been around for over 60 years and its patent is expired. Its not really an example where a drug company got a new drug on the market and is now gouging people for something new. It was some young jerk who bought the company and is trying to make quick cash. Third, the company is facing a probe from the Attorney General, in addition to incredible media backlash. There are protections in place.

The hard part about medicine is that you can't regulate it like a utility that has a constant and completely predictable income stream. You have to justify investments that are made with very little coming back for years.

 

[GoIrish41]

The hard part about medicine is that you can't regulate it like a utility that has a constant and completely predictable income stream. You have to justify investments that are made with very little coming back for years.

But my point is that the "investment" by drug manufacturers in the system is grossly overstated. They are starting with a working product. It is not as if they started with an idea and created anything. Most drugs are created by the government for a specific purpose. Drug companies already have a built in customer base so they know they will get any investment they do make back easily when they mass produce it and sell it back to the government. The other customers they find my making minor formula tweaks and marketing it as a "new product" get gouged. Their lobbyists and spin doctors convince everyone that they have piles of cash in R&D when really the government funds nearly all of that and we pick up the tab. And on the other side consumers pay top dollar for "their" product. It's a racket funded by often desperate sick people. And our elected representatives who live and die by pharm industry campaign donations are in on it!

 

[potownhero]

A lot of people just assume that the U.S. is the best when it comes to the medical industry. A recent study found that out of eleven major, industrialized countries, the U.S. ranked dead last overall. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally - The Commonwealth Fund

I agree that there should still be some profit-motive with the innovation and advancement in technology/devices. But it should be within reason and not price-gauged. The rest of the healthcare system needs to overhauled though, imo. It's not as great as what everyone likes to think.

The Commonwealth Fund is not the best of sources...

Apparently that study is very misleading.

Last in Credibility | The Weekly Standard

 

[potownhero]

But my point is that the "investment" by drug manufacturers in the system is grossly overstated. They are starting with a working product. It is not as if they started with an idea and created anything. Most drugs are created by the government for a specific purpose. Drug companies already have a built in customer base so they know they will get any investment they do make back easily when they mass produce it and sell it back to the government. The other customers they find my making minor formula tweaks and marketing it as a "new product" get gouged. Their lobbyists and spin doctors convince everyone that they have piles of cash in R&D when really the government funds nearly all of that and we pick up the tab. And on the other side consumers pay top dollar for "their" product. It's a racket funded by often desperate sick people. And our elected representatives who live and die by pharm industry campaign donations are in on it!

Not sure what you mean by grossly overstated. According to the most recent numbers I've seen - the private industry spends more than the government does. That's not an overstatement.

And I'm sure they want to get some sort for that investment and risk taken. What's wrong with that? If they've created or discovered something that will help a group of people, why not let them profit from it? Isn't that better than them not discovering/creating something to help people in the first place?

 

[phgreek]

I agree with you.

But it wasn't to spare feelings. When you type out stuff on the internet, it can read as very harsh. I've started injecting exclamation points in e-mails just so people don't think I'm sad. I started out thinking they were silly (which they are), but they've beome necessary.

The wink was just so people know I'm not typing angry, even if I disagree (and even if they are offended by my opinions, which is pretty often).

understood...I could learn from that approach...

 

[Cackalacky]

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors | Mother Jones

Mother Jones

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.
—Bryan Schatz on Thu. May 28, 2015 5:00 AM PDT

Listening tour: Hillary Clinton and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in March 2012 Hassan Ammar/AP
In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom's troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.

The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department. IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses.

From the IBT investigation:

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of "an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority." She declared that "Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region." She said the Kuwaiti government was "less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks." She noted that "UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups." All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department...

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.

The following tables created by the International Business Times show the flow of money and arms deals involving 20 nations, the Clinton Foundation, and the State Department:

Clinton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals
17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton's State Department.

Country Donation Min. ($) FY2006-FY2008 ($) FY2010-FY2012 ($) Difference (%)
Algeria 250,000 649,943,709 2,431,535,005 274
Australia 10,000,000 8,030,754,085 23,953,849,391 198
Bahrain 50,000 219,718,802 630,586,020 187
Brunei 250,000 101,239,902 19,256,846 -81
Canada 250,000 20,975,621,915 24,844,128,294 18
Germany 100,000 9,147,637,319 9,839,619,231 8
Ireland 5,000,000 144,929,678 107,064,341 -26
Italy 100,000 6,195,891,571 12,274,692,168 98
Jamaica 50,000 18,572,209 11,360,582 -39
Kuwait 5,000,000 1,895,298,212 2,109,893,611 11
Morocco 2,000,000 250,045,824 253,096,156 1
Netherlands 5,000,000 3,069,131,994 4,655,490,802 52
Norway 10,000,000 2,718,237,833 3,351,140,380 23
Oman 1,000,000 170,597,237 547,003,781 221
Qatar 1,000,000 271,325,915 4,291,824,236 1,482
Saudi Arabia 10,000,000 4,105,561,815 8,094,719,012 97
Taiwan 500,000 2,612,251,394 3,811,233,565 46
Thailand 250,000 656,266,680 1,113,283,489 70
UAE 1,000,000 2,261,801,903 24,998,754,760 1,005
United Kingdom 1,000,000 26,225,307,395 38,015,933,065 45

 

[BGIF]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ons-claim-that-she-tried-to-join-the-marines/

By Glenn Kessler November 12 at 3:00 AM

“He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you. And I said, ‘Well I am 26, I will be 27.’ And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.’ And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, ‘Maybe the dogs will take you,’ meaning the Army.”

–Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a breakfast, Manchester, N.H., Nov. 10, 2015

One Clinton story that has often been greeted with skepticism is her claim, first made in 1994, that she once tried to join the Marines in 1975. On the campaign trail, she brought up the story again. (Go to the 1:35 mark.)

Although she was "old" for a boot, she would have gone straight to JAG. See details at the link.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The Commonwealth Fund is not the best of sources...

Apparently that study is very misleading.

Last in Credibility | The Weekly Standard

Thank you for this. I had questions regarding the study and this article had answers for me. Below are some quotes from that article that I found helpful and interesting.

But how about cancer survival rates? Or access to the latest technology or the newest medicines? Or where the cutting-edge research and development is occurring? Commonwealth Fund studies don’t ask such questions.

While France excels in treating women’s and Japan in men’s colorectal cancer, the U.S. clearly leads other nations in overall survival. These international results replicate those that appeared in a broader cancer review of Europe and the United States.

And what about Canadians’ universal care and access to free preventative services? In a review of survey data, economists June and David O’Neill find that Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. Even more surprising: Canadian poor (covered by the public system) are less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts

American health care is far from perfect. It needs reforms. And, yes, some of the harshest criticisms offered by the Obama White House are true: Costs are rising; quality is uneven; transparency is limited.

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[GoIrish41]

Not sure what you mean by grossly overstated. According to the most recent numbers I've seen - the private industry spends more than the government does. That's not an overstatement.

And I'm sure they want to get some sort for that investment and risk taken. What's wrong with that? If they've created or discovered something that will help a group of people, why not let them profit from it? Isn't that better than them not discovering/creating something to help people in the first place?

Sorry for the late response. I was on my phone didn't have access to a computer last night.

I think there is a lot of disagreement on the funding issue. Below, I've linked an article about the topic that discusses how researchers are extremely worried about how government funding will negatively impact the scientific community.

History and Future of Funding for Scientific Research | Research

There has also been a fairly pronounced decline in R&D funding among defense contractors over the past few years, and the DoD has been vocal about having them spend more of their own dollars ... DoD's Kendall wants more research spending from industry

Overall, I think R&D by companies like Apple to develop the next big thing to sell to teenagers and tech geeks skews the numbers of R&D expenditures by industry. Their spending increased from 2% of their net sales revenue in 2012 to 3% in (2013 $4.8 billion). They spent something like $6 billion on R&D in 2014. Apple spent record $1.7B on research & development last quarter, $6B in fiscal 2014

In 2015, the federal R&D budget request from the White House was $136.5 billion, with nearly half of that ($65.7 billion) going to the Departnemt of Defense. This, as I have said, is where I work, and in the DoD, it is widely known by industry that it is a waste of resources to develop anything from scratch when the government will do all the heavy lifting to develop what they want, and pass it on so industry can shine it up and put it on the shelf and make a boat load of money.

Overall industry expenditures are harder to find because there are so many, but one can find expenditures of individual companies. I did that below, to illustrate a point about where big pharm companies are really spending their money ... marketing. Their marketing budgets are fall outpacing R&D budgets ...
- Johnson and Johnson spent about $8.2B on R&D last year, compared to more than $17.5B on marketing.
- Merck spent about $7.5B on R&D and $9.5B on marketing.
- AstraZeneca spent about $4.3B and $7.3B.
- Phizer, $6.6B and $11.4B.
etc., etc.

The price people pay for medications is more about how much these companies spend advertising the products (tacking on, of course, astronomical profits) than developing them. IMO, the "its only fair that we allow them to make money" argument is more spin than substance. All the medical commercials that say "ask your doctor if XXX is right for you" are pushing the cost of medications through the roof and consumers are taking it on the chin.

 

[kmoose]

Sorry for the late response. I was on my phone didn't have access to a computer last night.

I think there is a lot of disagreement on the funding issue. Below, I've linked an article about the topic that discusses how researchers are extremely worried about how government funding will negatively impact the scientific community.

History and Future of Funding for Scientific Research | Research

There has also been a fairly pronounced decline in R&D funding among defense contractors over the past few years, and the DoD has been vocal about having them spend more of their own dollars ... DoD's Kendall wants more research spending from industry

Overall, I think R&D by companies like Apple to develop the next big thing to sell to teenagers and tech geeks skews the numbers of R&D expenditures by industry. Their spending increased from 2% of their net sales revenue in 2012 to 3% in (2013 $4.8 billion). They spent something like $6 billion on R&D in 2014. Apple spent record $1.7B on research & development last quarter, $6B in fiscal 2014

In 2015, the federal R&D budget request from the White House was $136.5 billion, with nearly half of that ($65.7 billion) going to the Departnemt of Defense. This, as I have said, is where I work, and in the DoD, it is widely known by industry that it is a waste of resources to develop anything from scratch when the government will do all the heavy lifting to develop what they want, and pass it on so industry can shine it up and put it on the shelf and make a boat load of money.

Overall industry expenditures are harder to find because there are so many, but one can find expenditures of individual companies. I did that below, to illustrate a point about where big pharm companies are really spending their money ... marketing. Their marketing budgets are fall outpacing R&D budgets ...
- Johnson and Johnson spent about $8B on R&D last year, compared to more than $17B on marketing.
- Merk spent about $6B on R&D and $9B on marketing.
- AstraZeneca spent about $4B and $7.5B.
- Phizer, $6.5B and $11.5B.
etc., etc.

The price people pay for medications is more about how much these companies spend advertising the products (tacking on, of course, astronomical profits) than developing them. IMO, the "its only fair that we allow them to make money" argument is more spin than substance. All the medical commercials that say "ask your doctor if XXX is right for you" are pushing the cost of medications through the roof and consumers are taking it on the chin.

Not all government research funding comes from earmarked R&D money. For instance, in my industry; there are about 3 or 4 major manufacturers of security screening equipment. TSA buys certain levels from ALL of them, partially to ensure that each of the manufacturers has funds for R&D(finding/developing the next great screening technology). I'm not sure if this is different from what some term "corporate welfare" or not, but that is the way the government does business.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Sorry for the late response. I was on my phone didn't have access to a computer last night.

I think there is a lot of disagreement on the funding issue. Below, I've linked an article about the topic that discusses how researchers are extremely worried about how government funding will negatively impact the scientific community.

History and Future of Funding for Scientific Research | Research

There has also been a fairly pronounced decline in R&D funding among defense contractors over the past few years, and the DoD has been vocal about having them spend more of their own dollars ... DoD's Kendall wants more research spending from industry

Overall, I think R&D by companies like Apple to develop the next big thing to sell to teenagers and tech geeks skews the numbers of R&D expenditures by industry. Their spending increased from 2% of their net sales revenue in 2012 to 3% in (2013 $4.8 billion). They spent something like $6 billion on R&D in 2014. Apple spent record $1.7B on research & development last quarter, $6B in fiscal 2014

In 2015, the federal R&D budget request from the White House was $136.5 billion, with nearly half of that ($65.7 billion) going to the Departnemt of Defense. This, as I have said, is where I work, and in the DoD, it is widely known by industry that it is a waste of resources to develop anything from scratch when the government will do all the heavy lifting to develop what they want, and pass it on so industry can shine it up and put it on the shelf and make a boat load of money.

Overall industry expenditures are harder to find because there are so many, but one can find expenditures of individual companies. I did that below, to illustrate a point about where big pharm companies are really spending their money ... marketing. Their marketing budgets are fall outpacing R&D budgets ...
- Johnson and Johnson spent about $8B on R&D last year, compared to more than $17B on marketing.
- Merk spent about $6B on R&D and $9B on marketing.
- AstraZeneca spent about $4B and $7.5B.
- Phizer, $6.5B and $11.5B.
etc., etc.

The price people pay for medications is more about how much these companies spend advertising the products (tacking on, of course, astronomical profits) than developing them. IMO, the "its only fair that we allow them to make money" argument is more spin than substance. All the medical commercials that say "ask your doctor if XXX is right for you" are pushing the cost of medications through the roof and consumers are taking it on the chin.

I didn't know about those advert vs R&D figures. God damn.

 

[GoIrish41]

Not all government research funding comes from earmarked R&D money. For instance, in my industry; there are about 3 or 4 major manufacturers of security screening equipment. TSA buys certain levels from ALL of them, partially to ensure that each of the manufacturers has funds for R&D(finding/developing the next great screening technology). I'm not sure if this is different from what some term "corporate welfare" or not, but that is the way the government does business.

That is true. And it just punctuates the point that the government is funding more research and development than people understand and industry is the recipient. Consumers are the unwitting benefactors as well as the victims of a broken system.

 

[GoIrish41]

I didn't know about those advert vs R&D figures. God damn.

It is insane. Fixing healthcare has more to do reining in the shameless profiteering of industry and the corrupt politicians who clear the way for them. Add in the obscene salaries of corporate execs and the enabling behaviors of insurance companies and medical professionals and the problems we have with healthcare begins to become a little clearer. We need to get the money out of politics.

 

[kmoose]

That is true. And it just punctuates the point that the government is funding more research and development than people understand and industry is the recipient. Consumers are the unwitting benefactors as well as the victims of a broken system.

But the government is also the recipient. The government gets technologies that allow a plane flying at 65,000 feet to listen in on a cell phone conversation between terrorists; or explosive detection equipment that is so good that, if you took a block of C4 explosive and cut off the largest piece that is too small for the human eye to see, and then broke that piece up into one BILLION pieces, the equipment could detect just ONE of those billion pieces. I would charge that the competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry is more to blame than greed. With margins per dose so small, you have to sell A LOT of doses to make money. That means that advertising is an absolutely ESSENTIAL ingredient in your business. If chemists can't make money in the pharmaceutical industry, there will be A LOT more meth on the street....

 

[Cackalacky]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tvp97SMZc6M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[GoIrish41]

But the government is also the recipient. The government gets technologies that allow a plane flying at 65,000 feet to listen in on a cell phone conversation between terrorists; or explosive detection equipment that is so good that, if you took a block of C4 explosive and cut off the largest piece that is too small for the human eye to see, and then broke that piece up into one BILLION pieces, the equipment could detect just ONE of those billion pieces. I would charge that the competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry is more to blame than greed. With margins per dose so small, you have to sell A LOT of doses to make money. That means that advertising is an absolutely ESSENTIAL ingredient in your business. If chemists can't make money in the pharmaceutical industry, there will be A LOT more meth on the street....

Sure they are the recipients ... they develop the technologies, hand them over to industry, who, in turn, sells them back to us as finalized products. We develop new technologies to fill capability gaps, so industry knows we need these products. They have a built in customer base before they invest a nickle in ramping up a mass production facility to make anything. My lab developed a technology that can extract microscopic traces of explosives in the human fingerprint, and that technology will be sold to forensic labs around the world to catch bomb makers ... and the company who sells it will make a boat load of money having done little to no R&D on their own. We'll buy thousands and thousands of these units to provide this capability to soldiers in the field, making the company who sold them a huge profit -- all for technology that we developed with government funding.

I posted yesterday about the medication that I take. If I bought it out of pocket it would cost $7600. But, my insurance company pays only $2500. Do you think for a moment that the drug manufacturer isn't getting a huge profit off of every dose of medicine that they sell me? Why is the out of pocket price so high if they can still make a tidy profit selling it for a third of the price? There is a lot of competition because there is an insane amount of money to be made and people either pay up or stay sick or even die.

 

[kmoose]

Sure they are the recipients ... they develop the technologies, hand them over to industry, who, in turn, sells them back to us as finalized products.

In the case of my industry, and I am speaking ONLY from my perspective, this is not only not true, it is borderline slander. Government labs might prove that something is possible. But it is the private sector that makes it efficient enough to bring it to market. The government version would be the size of an SEC stadium, take 400 people to operate, another 200 to monitor the people operating it, and then about 1,000 people to service it. It would require so much service that it would be in operation for about 10 minutes before you had to shut it down and perform a month's worth of maintenance on it. The owners of my company used to work at Lawrence Livermore, and they will be the first to tell you.... if the government tried to make it............ you can multiply the highest cost estimate for manufacturing by about 1000. The National Labs do great theoretical work. But often times it is private industry that takes some theoretical work that the labs have done, applies it to some other facet of life, and then produces a product that no one in the government had ever even considered.

 

[GoIrish41]

In the case of my industry, and I am speaking ONLY from my perspective, this is not only not true, it is borderline slander. Government labs might prove that something is possible. But it is the private sector that makes it efficient enough to bring it to market. The government version would be the size of an SEC stadium, take 400 people to operate, another 200 to monitor the people operating it, and then about 1,000 people to service it. It would require so much service that it would be in operation for about 10 minutes before you had to shut it down and perform a month's worth of maintenance on it. The owners of my company used to work at Lawrence Livermore, and they will be the first to tell you.... if the government tried to make it............ you can multiply the highest cost estimate for manufacturing by about 1000. The National Labs do great theoretical work. But often times it is private industry that takes some theoretical work that the labs have done, applies it to some other facet of life, and then produces a product that no one in the government had ever even considered.

At my laboratory, we develop working prototypes through our engineering directorate. Industry certainly makes efficiency and cost consideration improvements to these prototypes, but usually when idustrial partners are involved, they already have something in hand that will work. Now, the cost of manufacturing the item would be substantially higher if the government had to stand up a production facility with equipment to mass produce a product, but that is not the business we are in. That is why industry is involved in the first place.

Sometimes we don't involve industry at all. Case in point: the Field Deployable Hydrolysis System that was used to destroy the Syrian chemical stockpile at sea. We didn't have time to go through the normal acquisition lifecycle for obvious reasons, so we used the prototype and a copy of the prototype to do the work. That shows that when we deliver something to industry, it is a workable solution. That's not saying they can't make improvements in efficiency, and it certainly isn't saying that they can produce it cheaper than we do -- they absolutely can. But, prototypes are almost always far more costly than end products.

I said in previous posts on the topic that industry often adapts products for other uses/users. There is no doubt that is true. But the fact remains, they are using technology that was developed with government funds to undertake that adaptation.

 

[kmoose]

At my laboratory, we develop working prototypes through our engineering directorate. Industry certainly makes efficiency and cost consideration improvements to these prototypes, but usually when idustrial partners are involved, they already have something in hand that will work. Now, the cost of manufacturing the item would be substantially higher if the government had to stand up a production facility with equipment to mass produce a product, but that is not the business we are in. That is why industry is involved in the first place.

Sometimes we don't involve industry at all. Case in point: the Field Deployable Hydrolysis System that was used to destroy the Syrian chemical stockpile at sea. We didn't have time to go through the normal acquisition lifecycle for obvious reasons, so we used the prototype and a copy of the prototype to do the work. That shows that when we deliver something to industry, it is a workable solution. That's not saying they can't make improvements in efficiency, and it certainly isn't saying that they can produce it cheaper than we do -- they absolutely can. But, prototypes are almost always far more costly than end products.

I said in previous posts on the topic that industry often adapts products for other uses/users. There is no doubt that is true. But the fact remains, they are using technology that was developed with government funds to undertake that adaptation.

But you are talking about a military product. Of course the government is the one to design it and field the first prototype. And they SHOULD be. They are charged with the defense of this nation. We shouldn't expect them to be looking for COTS answers to biochemical weapon destruction.

 

[MJ12666]

Sorry for the late response. I was on my phone didn't have access to a computer last night.

I think there is a lot of disagreement on the funding issue. Below, I've linked an article about the topic that discusses how researchers are extremely worried about how government funding will negatively impact the scientific community.

History and Future of Funding for Scientific Research | Research

There has also been a fairly pronounced decline in R&D funding among defense contractors over the past few years, and the DoD has been vocal about having them spend more of their own dollars ... DoD's Kendall wants more research spending from industry

Overall, I think R&D by companies like Apple to develop the next big thing to sell to teenagers and tech geeks skews the numbers of R&D expenditures by industry. Their spending increased from 2% of their net sales revenue in 2012 to 3% in (2013 $4.8 billion). They spent something like $6 billion on R&D in 2014. Apple spent record $1.7B on research & development last quarter, $6B in fiscal 2014

In 2015, the federal R&D budget request from the White House was $136.5 billion, with nearly half of that ($65.7 billion) going to the Departnemt of Defense. This, as I have said, is where I work, and in the DoD, it is widely known by industry that it is a waste of resources to develop anything from scratch when the government will do all the heavy lifting to develop what they want, and pass it on so industry can shine it up and put it on the shelf and make a boat load of money.

Overall industry expenditures are harder to find because there are so many, but one can find expenditures of individual companies. I did that below, to illustrate a point about where big pharm companies are really spending their money ... marketing. Their marketing budgets are fall outpacing R&D budgets ...
- Johnson and Johnson spent about $8B on R&D last year, compared to more than $17B on marketing.
- Merk spent about $6B on R&D and $9B on marketing.
- AstraZeneca spent about $4B and $7.5B.
- Phizer, $6.5B and $11.5B.
etc., etc.

The price people pay for medications is more about how much these companies spend advertising the products (tacking on, of course, astronomical profits) than developing them. IMO, the "its only fair that we allow them to make money" argument is more spin than substance. All the medical commercials that say "ask your doctor if XXX is right for you" are pushing the cost of medications through the roof and consumers are taking it on the chin.

I will only address the balances you are quoting above as they relate to Pfizer (PFE), although I suspect that my conclusion applies to all of the above listed companies. In 2014 PFE spent $8.4B on R&D or approximately 17% of sales. PFE's "Selling, Information, and General" expenses totaled $14.1B. Included in the $14.1B is advertising and marketing which they DO NOT break out on their income statement. If you dig into the footnotes they do make reference to spending $3B on advertising which is considerably less then the $14.1B in SI&G. Further, just an FYI, PFE and all other major pharmaceutical companies have "indigent care" programs where they provide qualified individuals drugs for free or at greatly reduced prices. I believe last year PFE distributed a little less the $1B under this program. While I do not know where you pulled the $11.5B you quote in your post, I suspect that included much more than "marketing".

Further, unlike the defense industry, pharmaceutical companies DO NOT benefit from government R&D. Government RX R&D is generally done via grants. Unfortunately you are correct in that when the scientist discover a drug under these grants they will apply for a patent either in their name or the institution that they work for and then form a company to develop and market the product (possibly paying a licensing fee back to the institution). This I agree is a ripoff as it pertains to the taxpayer. Any products developed under a government grant should be provided to citizens at cost. This quite frankly is the reason I will never give money to ANY charity that associated with finding a cure for any sickness or disease. You donate the money, they find a cure, then you get to pay them to purchase the treatment if you need it; making the owners rich even though they used your money to develop the cure. No thanks.

Anyway, I am curious, what is the source of the $11.5B you quote in your post?

 

[GoIrish41]

But you are talking about a military product. Of course the government is the one to design it and field the first prototype. And they SHOULD be. They are charged with the defense of this nation. We shouldn't expect them to be looking for COTS answers to biochemical weapon destruction.

I would argue the same logic should apply to researchers in the field of medicine. These researchers, afterall, are charged with the betterment of human health through the pursuit of knowledge. It is not as if there is no precedent.

In 1955, Jonas Salk was interviewed by Edward R. Morrow and asked who owned the patent for his newly approved polio vaccine. His answer: “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” Lawyers for his foundation had investigated the possibility of patenting the vaccine but did not pursue it, in part because of Salk’s reluctance.

Think of how many people in this world could be freed from needless suffering if there were more people like that. Instead we protect -- through our laws and our rhetoric -- the greedy bastards who want to capitalize on human misery, fear and desperation to enrich themselves. It is a sad and disturbing commentary on our priorities.