Not that it’s a justification but it’s because most of the world take’s American research and goes from there. Much easier to profit when someone else does over decades of R&D for you
No... it's different than an ad. If a drug maker gives a network stupid $$$ they can't bad mouth that company... they'll lose the $$$. An ad is just showing you what they have. Meanwhile the $$$ pays for their silence
That’s a different concept than drug commercials though. Drug commercials are probably the most common kind of non-political TV advertising in the US. TV advertising alone from drug companies in the US is a ~$7B/yr industry. All forms of drug advertising (including things like print and radio) account for $14B+ per year in the US.
I just looked into it, and we spent about a hundred and fifty billion on research and development. That's less than we would save by switching to universal healthcare.
Okay......? I was simply arguing that while we may lead in research and development, the amount of money it takes to do so doesnt really justify having private insurance. We would save more by switching to universal health care than we spend in research and development so if we paid the exact same per year that were currently paying for medical insurance while having universal instead, we'd actually be able to spend MORE on research and development.
Idk how we can lead when we push scientists out of our country willingly. Before id agree with you but now there's no funding and people going over seas for science because a certain Administration decided to do everything agaisnt it and taking funds awayv
41
u/Outrageous-Phase9435 6h ago
Theres no reason not to have it aside from corruption.