1
0

Sequestration causes massive cuts in medical research


 invite response                
2013 Aug 21, 6:16am   1,169 views  7 comments

by tovarichpeter   ➕follow (6)   💰tip   ignore  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/sequestration-cuts_n_3790647.html

With little evidence that Congress will be able to find a budget fix, officials at one of America's most iconic medical research centers are warning that cuts brought about by sequestration could dramatically set back decades-long work.

Comments 1 - 7 of 7        Search these comments

1   curious2   2013 Aug 21, 6:36am  

This is a huge story, and a deliberate consequence of the situation in DC. When people talk about what might have been, and what is, it's tragic. Obamacare caused the Democrats to lose the House in 2010, and sequestration results from that. Each faction blames the other, and on the subject of medical research the Republicans are much worse, but the "sequester" was a bipartisan deal and the consequences affect everyone. The point is to protect entrenched revenue models against the possibility of disruptive innovation.

2   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2013 Aug 21, 6:51am  

What gets me is medical research in this country requires massive Tax dollars to fund. YET!!!

I said FUCKING YET!!!

We're gouged out the fucking ass when we then need the treatment that our tax dollars funded those advances in medicine.

If only there was some reform that would have addressed healthcare costs in Ameirca and how the medical/investor community fucks Americans over.

If only...

When I'm asked to donate blood, I stop them in their tracks by saying.

"You want me to DONATE blood?"

"yes that's right"

"Yeah, well how much would I owe the hospital for that same amount of blood BACK when I need it?"

3   Shaman   2013 Aug 21, 7:28am  

We spent $11 billion on medical research when Bush II took office. He increased this to $34 billion in the largest expansion of the program ever! Due to inflationary increases it was up to 39 billion when sequestration took effect and it got cut to $36 billion.
Now only the most worthwhile research can be done. The more iffy stuff needs to find other funding.
$36 billion is still an awful lot. IMHO it's money well spent, but it's not like we cut the budget in half or something. It's still above the level Bush II raised it.

4   curious2   2013 Aug 21, 7:49am  

Quigley, your numbers seem somewhat off, but I learned a lot while tracking down the actual NIH numbers. NIH appropriations were $18 billion in 2000, $20 billion in the year Bush II took office, and $30 billion in 2008. NIH peaked at $31 billion in 2010. If you have a source for contrary numbers, I would be interested to see it?

Anyway I agree that medical research is worth spending money on. The issue is the funding tends to get skewed towards technologies that expand existing revenue models (e.g. daily pills) rather than disrupting them. I would like to see more research into cures that save money. It is oversimplifying to say "only the most worthwhile research" without clarifying whose POV is deciding that. If you are promoting the interests of a PAC or political patronage network, the most worthwhile research is the research most likely to increase PhRMA revenue and political power. The most worthwhile research from the public POV often arises accidentally, as the story of Alexander Fleming illustrates. I would like to see a lot more research into basic science and things that might save money.

5   Shaman   2013 Aug 21, 8:45am  

We agree on that, curious, I also want to see simple solutions vs. horribly complex, ongoing, and invasive treatments.

For example, there's a new way to sterilize women without surgery. A plastic stent is inserted into each Fallopian tube (through vagina and uterus) and over a couple of months causes the tubes to grow shut. No more eggs can then pass to the uterus, and periods also fall off and stop. Very simple, possibly reversible, and low tech, but it seems like the best technique out there.

6   Rin   2013 Aug 21, 10:59am  

I've been telling scientists this for years, pure science R&D is for those who're independently wealthy. In other words, if your dad's not Warren Buffet, make your millions on Wall St, forgo to the 'good life' in the Hamptons, and then, do research for your retirement.

7   Y   2013 Aug 21, 11:18am  

The problem with simple solutions is that they tend to be shortsighted.
Sure, the lady won't pass any more eggs...but what happens when the ovaries back up with unpassed rotting yolks?

Quigley says

We agree on that, curious, I also want to see simple solutions vs. horribly complex, ongoing, and invasive treatments.

For example, there's a new way to sterilize women without surgery. A plastic stent is inserted into each Fallopian tube (through vagina and uterus) and over a couple of months causes the tubes to grow shut. No more eggs can then pass to the uterus, and periods also fall off and stop. Very simple, possibly reversible, and low tech, but it seems like the best technique out there.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions