• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

As I said.

Any attempts to cut spending without drastic cuts to defense spending is simply not being serious and is nothing more than an attempt at a partisan hack job.
Any attempts to eliminate the deficit without returning the tax rates to prior sustainable levels is simply not being serious.

I'll add that implementing "austerity" measures would just be REALLY stupid right now.

Oh by the way, apparently the Republicans are trying to repeal the Medicare reform measures that attack waste, fraud and abuse without changing benefits. Now why would the Republicans wan't to block nearly $500,000,000,000 in savings for ANY reason?

Could it be that they are simply not serious about actually cutting the budget and just want to go after wildly popular and hugely successful social programs? Hmmm?

What we do not have from the Democrats is a plan that fixes things. You can "blah ... blah... blah .... " about things you do not like in the current proposal from one or more Republicans, but that is all the Democrats are doing right now ... demonizing a detailed proposed solution put forth by approximately one-half of the political persuasion, while having no solution themselves !

As I have noted in past discussions, I have no doubt that a comprehensive plan will include tax increases. Of note is that Ryan's plan, while appearing to reduce rates, also eliminates loopholes and exemptions such that the actual net taxes paid goes up. Reagan did similar things when he "lowered rates", the result being substantial increases in revenue.

Bottom line: No plan from the Democrats that reaches the mathematical goals.
 
No, I don't think it does. A single payer system can be done more than a few ways, and it really doesn't have to effect profit much at all. Not in this way anyhow. And You agree it is not direct. Would you argue anything we do more of is an indirect subsidy? I wouldn't. And I don't here.

...nearly all of those ways involve price regulation.

And what a silly counter-argument. No, not everything is an indirect subsidy. The United States also happens to be the leading corn producer in the world. But the vast majority is consumed domestically, never to be seen again. Corn is finite. If you eat corn, there's no more corn.

Intellectual labor? R&D? All the overhead that goes into making a good that, only once the research is done, becomes cheaply replicable? Not so much.

I didn't mention Canda at all. I merely point out that this happens all over, and both ways with many countries. We all share what others do.

But I did, and I was merely using your logic to show how it really doesn't affect my example.

And government. With pharma-research as well. I'm not clueless either, having spent 10n years at the Univeristy of Iowa hospital and clinics.

...and yet here you are, making it seem like the government was the sole driver behind university hospital pharma research. My point was that the main mover in pharma research are for-profit entities, with research councils, charities, and government also playing a part. Government funding does *shock* exist. But that's much different than what you were implying.
 
An update from Reuters:

A default would have severe reverberations in global markets, a top Federal Reserve official said just hours after Fitch Ratings warned it could slash credit ratings if the government misses bond payments.

St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard told Reuters on Wednesday "the U.S. fiscal situation, if not handled correctly, could turn into a global macro shock.

Fed: Default would be dangerous; Fitch may cut rating | Reuters

The ratings agency also noted that were the U.S. to fail to pay $30 billion in maturing Treasury bills on August 4, those specific securities would be downgraded to B+. Were the government to fail to pay an additional $52 billion in maturing Treasury securities on August 15, it would downgrade all classes of Treasury Securities to B+. Afterward, even if the government repaid those securities, it would not restore the U.S. credit rating to AAA through at least the short or medium-term.
 
it will only be raised with an equal amount of cost cut, I think the GOP has been very clear on that

nice having the numbers isnt it OBAMA
 
...nearly all of those ways involve price regulation.

And what a silly counter-argument. No, not everything is an indirect subsidy. The United States also happens to be the leading corn producer in the world. But the vast majority is consumed domestically, never to be seen again. Corn is finite. If you eat corn, there's no more corn.

Intellectual labor? R&D? All the overhead that goes into making a good that, only once the research is done, becomes cheaply replicable? Not so much.

Nearly or all? The point is they don't have to involve price regulation.

However, there is R&D in corn production as well. I live in iowa, remember. ;)

And once done, it is replicated if successful. Profit is usually made, if successful. There is a risk, and risk is often subzidized by someone. Here that risk is often subidized by more than one area. Government, business, charities, churches, depending on the interest. There is similar processes elsewhere.



But I did, and I was merely using your logic to show how it really doesn't affect my example.

Didn't and don't see that. As the process works both ways, us doing more at the moment doesn't mean we're subsidizing them.


...and yet here you are, making it seem like the government was the sole driver behind university hospital pharma research. My point was that the main mover in pharma research are for-profit entities, with research councils, charities, and government also playing a part. Government funding does *shock* exist. But that's much different than what you were implying.

It was never my intention to say sole driver, but only that they contribute. And not insignificantly. R&D wouldn't stop without government involvment, but providing the place and some of the funding helps a lot, and without it, I suspect it would hurt R&D a lot.
 
Nearly or all? The point is they don't have to involve price regulation.

Examples?

However, there is R&D in corn production as well. I live in iowa, remember. ;)

And once done, it is replicated if successful. Profit is usually made, if successful. There is a risk, and risk is often subzidized by someone. Here that risk is often subidized by more than one area. Government, business, charities, churches, depending on the interest. There is similar processes elsewhere.

The marginal cost curve for traditional corn production simply does not work the same way for pharma and tech as it does for corn. The R&D involved in corn now has more to do with all the bio-engineered agriculture stuff, but that's different. You can pretty much take any pick of stuff we do more of that doesn't act as subsidy -- whatever industry pays most of its overhead to production for a consumable good. The for-profit environment of this country is what has allowed us to "do more" of this particular kind of work, and has therefore made us incur the bulk of the cost when you're talking about a cradle-to-grave process from initial release of a drug to its relegation and replication as a generic. We're not talking about a good that's researched here and then later on mimicked by corporations somewhere else after the patent ran out. We're talking about foreign government, and we're talking about healthcare. For example: If Microsoft spends tons of R&D on something, and then a foreign software company mimics it later on by making a generic version, those foreign people won't stop buying Microsoft products. But healthcare provision does not cross borders. US healthcare doesn't compete with Taiwanese healthcare for customers. Thus, we're shoulder the R&D costs for generics in systems that can only be used by other people, despite footing the bill. They gain comparable profits for the same good, without the R&D. And the drug in its initial form may have been too expensive to be on the single-payer plan of their country immediately.

That, to me, is indirect subsidy.

Didn't and don't see that. As the process works both ways, us doing more at the moment doesn't mean we're subsidizing them.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...am-flirts-brief-default-8.html#post1059552280

It was never my intention to say sole driver, but only that they contribute. And not insignificantly. R&D wouldn't stop without government involvment, but providing the place and some of the funding helps a lot, and without it, I suspect it would hurt R&D a lot.

Okay. So they contribute. And people wouldn't like to see them just stop giving money altogether. So what? You told me to go look up university hospitals as an example of government run research with a winky face, as though you were directing me toward a clear and present example of government-sponsored innovation.

Congratulations. You've rendered your own argument useless.
 
From Reuters:



http://www.reuters.c...E75700720110608


IMO, this would be a reckless move. First, the amount of spending reductions necessary to immediately balance the budget would wipe out economic growth, therefore, if sustained they would produce a significant self-inflicted national recession. Second, in theory, the Republicans might gain from a short default-large fiscal consolidation deal, but such a deal would not be very likely. A long default would cut against the Republicans. Raising the debt ceiling with little meaningful fiscal consolidation would be perilous, as Republicans would have to defend their fiscal credibility, but that would be a fight they could wage without inflicting harm on the nation. A short default followed by significant fiscal consolidation is not likely, precisely because the Republicans backing such a notion have repeatedly and widely displayed their cards. Hence, the Democrats know that there is a limit to how long they would hold out. As a result, they would not capitulate, and then the Republicans would be faced by a bad choice and an awful one: yield and receive blame for inflicting lasting damage on U.S. credit or persist and receive blame for damaging U.S. credit and engineering a steep recession, possibly of global magnitude.

To push the U.S. acros a line it has never before crossed will, despite the Druckenmiller hypothesis (which is not widely shared), damage U.S. credit. Once a red line is crossed, few would have reason to believe that political leaders might, when things become even more difficult, cross additional red lines. In effect, the psychological barriers that were assumed to exist and preclude U.S. default would be shattered as far as the markets are concerned. Those responsible for the reckless move will bear full accountability for its consequences. Their electoral prospects would very likely be severely damaged. Perceptions of their fitness to govern would be greatly undermined. They would be viewed as the persons who deliberately damaged American credit. All of those consequences would be deserved.

In the end, I do expect an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, because no responsible political leader would be willing to take the default course. I do worry that the deal will come with fiscal consolidation that is on the weak side. That will be a fair battle for the 2012 campaign. It will be far more responsible than pushing the U.S. across a red line into technical default on some of its obligations, even if debt payments are made on time.

Today's Republican mainstream would have been called lunatics by the Republican mainstream 20 years ago.
 
What about medical research?
Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of “product development,” the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.
Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
It is also important to note that studies show that, in the U.S., the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas where high HMO penetration has enforced a more business-oriented approach to health care.
Finally, it appears that the increasing commercialization of research is beginning to slow innovation. Drug firms’ increasing reliance on contract research organizations (and for-profit ethical-review boards) has coincided with a sharp drop in innovative new drugs and a spate of “me-too” drugs - minor variations on old drugs that offer little benefit other than extended patent life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
What about medical research?
Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of “product development,” the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.
Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
It is also important to note that studies show that, in the U.S., the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas where high HMO penetration has enforced a more business-oriented approach to health care.
Finally, it appears that the increasing commercialization of research is beginning to slow innovation. Drug firms’ increasing reliance on contract research organizations (and for-profit ethical-review boards) has coincided with a sharp drop in innovative new drugs and a spate of “me-too” drugs - minor variations on old drugs that offer little benefit other than extended patent life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

...

From Physicians for a National Health Program?

:2rofll:

Nice googling, breh.
 
Last edited:
Today's Republican mainstream would have been called lunatics by the Republican mainstream 20 years ago.

And today's Liberal mainstream would have been called Soviet style socialists by the Liberal mainstream 20 years ago. Big whup.
 
We'll just ignore the 6 years that the Republicans had control of Congress AND the White House.

the WHIP today:

"we can talk all we want about the failed policies of the previous administration but the fact is we now have a president in a position of power with his economic policies and he's going to be held accountable, we know that"

RealClearPolitics - Video - Durbin: This Is Obama's Economy Now

watch the youtube, see the graphic behind the WHIP, the findings of yesterday's wapo/abc poll:

"americans on the economy: 89% negative view, 11% positive"

"obama's handling of the economy: 59% disapprove, 40% approve"

seeya at the polls, progressives
 
Could it be that they are simply not serious about actually cutting the budget and just want to go after wildly popular and hugely successful social programs?

hugely successful?

wow

usa today, yesterday:

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $527,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

as stupefyingly outta touch as the party in power

it will be three years now that the united states senate has even proposed a budget---in times like these

if something isn't done imminently to fundamentally reform our budgets, our big 3 federal programs (as well as state pensions) will simply cease to exist as we know them for our next generation

leadership, anyone?
 
Because all the spending that got us here was well reasoned and intelligent.

How so? Please explain not just from your own perspective, but provide sources/data.

I'm asking not to be a pain in the butt; I'm really trying to understand the argument from all sides.
 
I searched the web for more information on the debt ceiling and here were the best two explanations I could find that made the most sense to me:

From YahooAnswers.com:

What is a "debt ceiling"? What is the current debt ceiling of the United States? What is the definition of a debt ceiling?

The concept is a debt ceiling is pretty simple.

A "debt ceiling" is the maximum amount of debt that a government can take on.

For instance, the United States currently has a debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion dollars.

Considering that the country currently owes $12.09 trillion dollars, this is obviously a problem.

In order to spend past this ceiling, Congress must agree to raise it.

Since 2002, Congress has had to raise the ceiling seven times, with an eighth expected sometime during the next month.

As it stands right now, Democrats are calling for a $1.8 trillion dollar hike in the debt ceiling, while Republicans are trying to freeze the ceiling.

The purpose of the debt ceiling is to try to limit out-of-control spending, but it certainly hasn't had the desired effect over the past 6-7 years.

I'm not sure how old the above explanation is as there was no date on the article, but the information seems pretty sound. However, I found this explanation that goes into detail on how the debt ceiling affects our credit worthiness, our ability to borrow money and what the consequences would be if we defaulted on our loans if we didn't raise the debt ceiling:

From www.davemanuel.com (investor):

The debt ceiling is self-imposed. It's more like telling yourself that you won't accumulate more than $500 on your credit card than it is like your actual credit limit.

Our actual credit is limited by our ability to pay our creditors' interest back (our creditors, incidentally, aren't some kind of world bank, but instead are millions of individual investors who buy bonds). Countries have credit ratings, as do currencies - if we started defaulting on our debt, investors worldwide would no longer consider it wise to buy bonds and currency from the United States, and we would no longer be able to spend into the deficit, since we would have nowhere to get credible money. (Deficit spending, contrary to what some [edit] believe, has nothing to do with 'printing money' in the United States.)

There's no set numerical limit at which point the United States' credit rating suddenly collapses - it's a matter of whether we can make good on our interest, not a matter of whether we have $10 trillion in our pockets (just like your mortgage - not having your house's value in cash on hand doesn't hurt your credit rating; falling behind on your payments would). The only concrete and immediate drawback is that the more we borrow, the more we have to pay in interest. Currently interest consumes about 7% of the federal budget.

Now, I've heard different versions of who our creditors are from China being our biggest creditor to Europe and the IMF. I've also heard that it's not the amount that we owe that's the problem but rather it's the current amount we owe in interest on the debt we owe. If it's a matter of paying the interest on our debt, then the lower more detailed explanation would make more sense. But if it's the actually deficit itselt, then it would make sense to pay down our debt. But just as with a credit card, the interest payment doesn't go away. It remains no matter how much debt we pay off. The interest rate may change over time, but that interest payment doesn't go away until the debt is paid. Therefore, I can see both sides of the issue - paying down the debt and also making those interest payments. But here's a question: What if we have the actual payment but not enough to cover the interest? Our inability to pay...isn't that the same as not having enough money to pay your mortgage? I mean, your creditor doesn't care whether you have enough cash just to pay the note; they want the interest on the loan, too. So, what happens if we don't make the interest payment? Does that not make us more of a credit risk?

And considering that we've become a creditor nation based mostly on consumer markets moreso than a manufacturing nation that does alot of product exporting, wouldn't not raising the debt limit have very significant negative impact on our ability to generate revenue (i.e., sell more loan interest bonds to pay off our debts?)

Does this make sense?

Note: "'[Edit]' removed a political insult. No information was removed the quoted text, nor was the explanation altered in any way.
 
Last edited:
CORRECTION:

In the above post, I meant "low interest bonds" not "loan interest bonds".

Those late night posts...:lol:
 
...

From Physicians for a National Health Program?

:2rofll:

Nice googling, breh.

Are you suggesting they couldn't possibly be correct? Seriously?
 
Now, I've heard different versions of who our creditors are from China being our biggest creditor to Europe and the IMF. I've also heard that it's not the amount that we owe that's the problem but rather it's the current amount we owe in interest on the debt we owe. If it's a matter of paying the interest on our debt, then the lower more detailed explanation would make more sense. But if it's the actually deficit itselt, then it would make sense to pay down our debt. But just as with a credit card, the interest payment doesn't go away. It remains no matter how much debt we pay off. The interest rate may change over time, but that interest payment doesn't go away until the debt is paid. Therefore, I can see both sides of the issue - paying down the debt and also making those interest payments. But here's a question: What if we have the actual payment but not enough to cover the interest? Our inability to pay...isn't that the same as not having enough money to pay your mortgage? I mean, your creditor doesn't care whether you have enough cash just to pay the note; they want the interest on the loan, too. So, what happens if we don't make the interest payment? Does that not make us more of a credit risk?
The short version is that we currently borrow money to pay the interest on our debt. Stupid, yes, but that's what we do.
If we cannot borrow money, it is said, we cannot pay the interest on our debt, and so we default on that debt.

However, this is not necessarily so. Federal revenue is an order of magnitude higher than our interest payment on the debt, and so there's no way to argue that failing to raise the ceiling -necessarily- leads to a default. It will lead to a default if the status quo is maintained, but, again, that doesn't have to happen.

Depriving the government of the ability to borrow money means that the government must live within its means and spend no more than the revenue it takes in. That only leads to default if you decide that you'd rather default than cut spending.
 
Today's Republican mainstream would have been called lunatics by the Republican mainstream 20 years ago.

Of course, you're the sort of person we should listen to on how the GOP should act, after all... you're a Barry Goldwater Conservative! (who happens to take the oh so solid pro-union approach Barry backed.. :roll: )
 
How so? Please explain not just from your own perspective, but provide sources/data.

I'm asking not to be a pain in the butt; I'm really trying to understand the argument from all sides.

I was being sarcastic.
 
Of course, you're the sort of person we should listen to on how the GOP should act, after all... you're a Barry Goldwater Conservative! (who happens to take the oh so solid pro-union approach Barry backed.. :roll: )

glad to see others recognize him as the poser he is.
 
From Reuters:



http://www.reuters.c...E75700720110608

IMO, this would be a reckless move. First, the amount of spending reductions necessary to immediately balance the budget would wipe out economic growth, therefore, if sustained they would produce a significant self-inflicted national recession. Second, in theory, the Republicans might gain from a short default-large fiscal consolidation deal, but such a deal would not be very likely. A long default would cut against the Republicans. Raising the debt ceiling with little meaningful fiscal consolidation would be perilous, as Republicans would have to defend their fiscal credibility, but that would be a fight they could wage without inflicting harm on the nation. A short default followed by significant fiscal consolidation is not likely, precisely because the Republicans backing such a notion have repeatedly and widely displayed their cards. Hence, the Democrats know that there is a limit to how long they would hold out. As a result, they would not capitulate, and then the Republicans would be faced by a bad choice and an awful one: yield and receive blame for inflicting lasting damage on U.S. credit or persist and receive blame for damaging U.S. credit and engineering a steep recession, possibly of global magnitude.

To push the U.S. acros a line it has never before crossed will, despite the Druckenmiller hypothesis (which is not widely shared), damage U.S. credit. Once a red line is crossed, few would have reason to believe that political leaders might, when things become even more difficult, cross additional red lines. In effect, the psychological barriers that were assumed to exist and preclude U.S. default would be shattered as far as the markets are concerned. Those responsible for the reckless move will bear full accountability for its consequences. Their electoral prospects would very likely be severely damaged. Perceptions of their fitness to govern would be greatly undermined. They would be viewed as the persons who deliberately damaged American credit. All of those consequences would be deserved.

In the end, I do expect an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, because no responsible political leader would be willing to take the default course. I do worry that the deal will come with fiscal consolidation that is on the weak side. That will be a fair battle for the 2012 campaign. It will be far more responsible than pushing the U.S. across a red line into technical default on some of its obligations, even if debt payments are made on time.

i completely agree. defaulting would not only damage us fiscally, it would damage america's reputation in the world, and that's already beat up enough. republicans would take the blame, and rightly so. if we extend the ceiling, and the economy still doesn't improve, the republicans should be in the catbird seat for 2012. as long as, of course, they run someone capable.
 
What about medical research?
Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of “product development,” the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.
Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
It is also important to note that studies show that, in the U.S., the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas where high HMO penetration has enforced a more business-oriented approach to health care.
Finally, it appears that the increasing commercialization of research is beginning to slow innovation. Drug firms’ increasing reliance on contract research organizations (and for-profit ethical-review boards) has coincided with a sharp drop in innovative new drugs and a spate of “me-too” drugs - minor variations on old drugs that offer little benefit other than extended patent life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

Yeah....no.
Medical Progress Today

Or take the gap between Europe and the U.S. biotech industries: the U.S. biotechnology industry employs twice as many people as the European biotechnology industry (190,000 compared to 96,500) and earns twice as much revenue as Europe (€41.5 billion in the U.S. vs. €21.5 in Europe.). The extra employees and revenues translate into more research: indeed, U.S. bio–techs spend on average three times as much on R&D, according to EuropaBio.

In the financial realm, American bio–techs have better access to capital than their European competitors. In recent years European biotech companies have had access to only one–fifth of the private equity available to their U.S. rivals, restricting their sources of funding and, consequently, their research. Moreover, U.S. biotechs have access to 10 times as much debt financing as their European counterparts.

That quote would seem to speak to US medical costs being at least in part due to R&D. The article in its entirety speaks about declining medical innovation in Europe.

Yes I know, but is it any more lopsided than your source? Probably not.

This sheds more light on the NIH/Industry relationship and is an informative read but pretty dry.
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Jan/RL32324.pdf
 
Yeah....no.
Medical Progress Today



That quote would seem to speak to US medical costs being at least in part due to R&D. The article in its entirety speaks about declining medical innovation in Europe.

Yes I know, but is it any more lopsided than your source? Probably not.

This sheds more light on the NIH/Industry relationship and is an informative read but pretty dry.
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Jan/RL32324.pdf

Exactly what do you think would change here:

To date, the U.S. system of research, development, and commercialization has had a clear impact on the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Policies concerning funding for research, intellectual property protection, and cooperative R&D have played an important part in the economic well-being of these sectors.143 American pharmaceutical firms have “consistently maintained a competitive edge in international markets” and lead in new drug discoveries.144 The U.S. investment in health-related R&D exceeds all other countries145 and has demonstrated a pattern of R&D investment that has increased at approximately twice the rate of R&D growth in Europe.”146

I ahve not argued that we haven't done better with R&D, which has government support, but that there is no need for to change. And there isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom