A few questions: for all the money spent, are we healthier? What do other countries do and how are their health outcomes? If the UK is leading in the number of Nobel prizes (an increasingly politicized honor) what do they spend? Why is anyone flying to Switzerland for a conference on the taxpayer’…
A few questions: for all the money spent, are we healthier? What do other countries do and how are their health outcomes? If the UK is leading in the number of Nobel prizes (an increasingly politicized honor) what do they spend? Why is anyone flying to Switzerland for a conference on the taxpayer’s dime when they can just meet virtually, the same way our children were educated (for over a year in some places).
If funding is scarce, could this change the quality of research for the better? If private charities have to tap their budgets to fund research, will they become more lean operationally?
My experience in the non-profit sector is that pressure makes you get creative. Extra money sloshing around makes for redundant programs and services.
I think most people agree NIH needs reform, but like another commenter, I am suspicious of the administration's motives. In any case, slash and burn doesn't seem to me to be an intelligent nor strategic method for improving anything. When Clinton made major cuts to federal agencies and balanced the budget, they first studied the agencies for many months and collaborated with federal employees and Congress to be more strategic (first link). You bring up a good point about the fact we spend more and get less for our healthcare dollar here, although that is not uniformly true across all SES groups. In general, in the US, the wealthier you are, the better your health outcomes and the longer your life, starting in infancy where we have a much higher infant mortality rate. We also have a much higher rate of gun deaths than other countries. Per the second link below, "In the U.S., high prices for health services continue to be the primary driver of this elevated spending." Why do we spend more? I learned a lot on that topic from the podcast in the third link, well worth the listen. In other words, it's complicated, and the administration is proposing a very simplistic solution. I predict it will not result in anything positive, but I hope I'm wrong.
From what I understand, during Trump's first term he tried the Strategic cutting method but he was stymied at every turn by career bureaucrats who refused to even give him the relevant information with which to make good decisions. This time around he's using the burn it down to the ground method. The Deep state did everything they could during his first term to disobey his direct orders and now they are paying the price
Good points! I would be more confident in slash and burn if I thought it was going to lead to a smaller federal government. The way it looks now is that it’ll just move the money pot over from one set of cronies to another. Rinse and repeat. I hope I’m wrong.
It remains to be seen what role MAHA will play in the cultural shift and whether or not health outcomes will improve in the US. But in general, people don’t want to be guinea pigs any more. And they’re rightfully upset to learn how their tax dollars have been spent, not just by the NIH but government -wide. And I don’t think cherry picking explains it. Some of these studies are ludicrous. Unacceptable. No more.
This is an excellent rebuttal. Thank you.
A few questions: for all the money spent, are we healthier? What do other countries do and how are their health outcomes? If the UK is leading in the number of Nobel prizes (an increasingly politicized honor) what do they spend? Why is anyone flying to Switzerland for a conference on the taxpayer’s dime when they can just meet virtually, the same way our children were educated (for over a year in some places).
If funding is scarce, could this change the quality of research for the better? If private charities have to tap their budgets to fund research, will they become more lean operationally?
My experience in the non-profit sector is that pressure makes you get creative. Extra money sloshing around makes for redundant programs and services.
I think most people agree NIH needs reform, but like another commenter, I am suspicious of the administration's motives. In any case, slash and burn doesn't seem to me to be an intelligent nor strategic method for improving anything. When Clinton made major cuts to federal agencies and balanced the budget, they first studied the agencies for many months and collaborated with federal employees and Congress to be more strategic (first link). You bring up a good point about the fact we spend more and get less for our healthcare dollar here, although that is not uniformly true across all SES groups. In general, in the US, the wealthier you are, the better your health outcomes and the longer your life, starting in infancy where we have a much higher infant mortality rate. We also have a much higher rate of gun deaths than other countries. Per the second link below, "In the U.S., high prices for health services continue to be the primary driver of this elevated spending." Why do we spend more? I learned a lot on that topic from the podcast in the third link, well worth the listen. In other words, it's complicated, and the administration is proposing a very simplistic solution. I predict it will not result in anything positive, but I hope I'm wrong.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-musk-doge-clinton-reinventing-government-gore-a95795eb75cacc03734ef0065c1b0a6d
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022#:~:text=A doctor and nurses tend,highest rates of avoidable deaths
https://peterattiamd.com/saumsutaria/
From what I understand, during Trump's first term he tried the Strategic cutting method but he was stymied at every turn by career bureaucrats who refused to even give him the relevant information with which to make good decisions. This time around he's using the burn it down to the ground method. The Deep state did everything they could during his first term to disobey his direct orders and now they are paying the price
Exactly!! They brought it on themselves!
Good points! I would be more confident in slash and burn if I thought it was going to lead to a smaller federal government. The way it looks now is that it’ll just move the money pot over from one set of cronies to another. Rinse and repeat. I hope I’m wrong.
It remains to be seen what role MAHA will play in the cultural shift and whether or not health outcomes will improve in the US. But in general, people don’t want to be guinea pigs any more. And they’re rightfully upset to learn how their tax dollars have been spent, not just by the NIH but government -wide. And I don’t think cherry picking explains it. Some of these studies are ludicrous. Unacceptable. No more.
I wholeheartedly agreed!