Putting the 'no' in innovation?

by cactus

The inimitable TBogg sums up one of the big arguments against having the gubmint involved in healthcare:

Because, when it's on the governments tab, innovation dries up, which might explain why our military men and women are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan with pointy sticks and small but sharp-edged pebbles.

A few years ago I had a similar post, noting that when push comes to shove, such as when we have to deal with a formidable threat such as Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan, the USSR, the People's Republic of China, or even Grenada (for crying out loud), we don't mess around and stick the gubmint, and in particular, perhaps the most socialist organization in the entire gov't (the US Military), in charge of the whole shebang. Funny that.

Back to TBogg's post... One of TBogg's readers, AirportCat, in comments, adds this quote from a Pew Research piece:

There also is common ground between the public and scientists regarding the pivotal role of government in funding scientific research. Government institutions and agencies are the dominant funders of research, according to scientists: 84% list a government entity as an important source of funding for their specialty, with nearly half specifically citing the National Institutes of Health (49%) or the National Science Foundation (47%). Half of the scientists (50%) cite non-government funding sources as among the most important in their field.

AirportCat goes on:

So all that government-funded medical science will just evaporate if … what? huh?

One more of his readers, jenniebee has this:

As a matter of fact, the only innovations I can think of that the insurance industry has come up with are in creative accounting, PR, & marketing. Gotta give it to them though, that rescission idea? That was pure genius.

________________________________
by cactus