resident_evil
Senator
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa654.pdf
USA, USA, USA.... LOL Sorry Arkady we need to start injecting a counter reality to your rather lengthy opinion pieces. Not only that Obamacare will kill a great deal of innovation
Conclusion
The health care debate should address more
than just covering the uninsured and controlling
costs. It should also consider whether proposed
policies will promote or hinder the ability
of creative individuals to innovate.
For example, proposals that increase spending
on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage
such innovation. On the other hand,
imposing price controls on pharmaceuticals
and health insurance would tend to reduce innovation.
60 Experience with Medicare demonstrates
that expanding government’s role as
purchaser of health care services, either by expanding
existing government programs or creating
new programs, would tend to reduce
innovation in health care delivery.61 Experience
with the nascent reforms in Massachusetts
suggests that enabling government to specify
the terms of private health insurance contracts
also tends to reduce innovation in health care
delivery.62
In 2007, former Clinton administration
labor secretary Robert Reich captured the
potential for health care reform to influence
medical innovation when he candidly told an
audience that “us[ing] the bargaining leverage
of the federal government in terms of
Medicare, Medicaid . . . to force drug companies
and insurance companies and medical
suppliers to reduce their costs . . . means less
innovation, and that means less new products
and less new drugs on the market, which
means you are probably not going to live that
much longer than your parents.”63
Unfortunately, consideration of policy
factors that contribute to or hinder health
care innovation has been limited, at least
partly because international comparisons of
health care systems generally do not include
measures of innovation. We hope that this
paper can be a start in reversing this trend.
In three of the four general categories of
innovation examined in this paper—basic science,
diagnostics, and therapeutics—the United
States has contributed more than any other
country, and in some cases, more than all
other countries combined. In the last category,
business models, we lack the data to say
whether the United States has been more or
less innovative than other nations; innovation
in this area appears weak across all nations.
In general, Americans tend to receive more
new treatments and pay more for them—a fact
that is usually regarded as a fault of the American
system. That interpretation, if not entirely
wrong, is at least incomplete. Rapid adoption
and extensive use of new treatments and technologies
create an incentive to develop those
techniques in the first place. When the United
States subsidizes medical innovation, the
whole world benefits. That is a virtue of the
American system not reflected in comparative
life expectancy and mortality statistics.
USA, USA, USA.... LOL Sorry Arkady we need to start injecting a counter reality to your rather lengthy opinion pieces. Not only that Obamacare will kill a great deal of innovation
Conclusion
The health care debate should address more
than just covering the uninsured and controlling
costs. It should also consider whether proposed
policies will promote or hinder the ability
of creative individuals to innovate.
For example, proposals that increase spending
on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage
such innovation. On the other hand,
imposing price controls on pharmaceuticals
and health insurance would tend to reduce innovation.
60 Experience with Medicare demonstrates
that expanding government’s role as
purchaser of health care services, either by expanding
existing government programs or creating
new programs, would tend to reduce
innovation in health care delivery.61 Experience
with the nascent reforms in Massachusetts
suggests that enabling government to specify
the terms of private health insurance contracts
also tends to reduce innovation in health care
delivery.62
In 2007, former Clinton administration
labor secretary Robert Reich captured the
potential for health care reform to influence
medical innovation when he candidly told an
audience that “us[ing] the bargaining leverage
of the federal government in terms of
Medicare, Medicaid . . . to force drug companies
and insurance companies and medical
suppliers to reduce their costs . . . means less
innovation, and that means less new products
and less new drugs on the market, which
means you are probably not going to live that
much longer than your parents.”63
Unfortunately, consideration of policy
factors that contribute to or hinder health
care innovation has been limited, at least
partly because international comparisons of
health care systems generally do not include
measures of innovation. We hope that this
paper can be a start in reversing this trend.
In three of the four general categories of
innovation examined in this paper—basic science,
diagnostics, and therapeutics—the United
States has contributed more than any other
country, and in some cases, more than all
other countries combined. In the last category,
business models, we lack the data to say
whether the United States has been more or
less innovative than other nations; innovation
in this area appears weak across all nations.
In general, Americans tend to receive more
new treatments and pay more for them—a fact
that is usually regarded as a fault of the American
system. That interpretation, if not entirely
wrong, is at least incomplete. Rapid adoption
and extensive use of new treatments and technologies
create an incentive to develop those
techniques in the first place. When the United
States subsidizes medical innovation, the
whole world benefits. That is a virtue of the
American system not reflected in comparative
life expectancy and mortality statistics.
