Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[Coronita]

Looks like these health bills are not as popular as one would seem.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T1

Washington (CNN) — Shots fired at a congressman’s campaign headquarters. Windows smashed at Democratic offices across the country. A coffin placed on a lawmaker’s lawn. Hate-filled voice mail messages left on members of Congress’ phone lines.

Those are just some of the incidents reported since the House passed historic health care reform legislation Sunday — a bill that became the law of the land.

wow, never thought that folks would be that extreme and mad.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
wow, never thought that folks would be that extreme and mad.[/quote]

Those are extremist American terrorists.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
wow, never thought that folks would be that extreme and mad.[/quote]

Those are extremist American terrorists.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
wow, never thought that folks would be that extreme and mad.[/quote]

Those are extremist American terrorists.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
wow, never thought that folks would be that extreme and mad.[/quote]

Those are extremist American terrorists.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
wow, never thought that folks would be that extreme and mad.[/quote]

Those are extremist American terrorists.

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]Strawman, Arraya. LOL, take my argument to the extreme and discredit it…nice attempt, though.

I didn’t say innovation would stop. Unless you can charge high prices in order to fund your R&D, innovation will decline. This is how business works.[/quote]

Much of the R&D for medical technology is funded by the govt.

A small collection I keep of some articles regarding “socialist” medicine and public funding:
————————

History of penicillin:

History of Penicillin
Originally noticed by a French medical student, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896. Penicillin was re-discovered by bacteriologist Alexander Fleming working at St. Mary’s Hospital in London in 1928.

…It was not until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey, a future Nobel Laureate, and three colleagues at Oxford University began intensive research and were able to demonstrate penicillin’s ability to kill infectious bacteria. As the war with Germany continued to drain industrial and government resources, the British scientists could not produce the quantities of penicillin needed for clinical trials on humans and turned to the United States for help. They were quickly referred to the Peoria Lab where scientists were already working on fermentation methods to increase the growth rate of fungal cultures. One July 9, 1941, Howard Florey and Norman Heatley, Oxford University Scientists came to the U.S. with a small but valuable package containing a small amount of penicillin to begin work.

History of Peoria Lab (penicillin and more):

Agricultural research has been extremely beneficial to the United States. The United States has always been a worldwide leader in agricultural production and technology. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its research laboratories like the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) are strong contributors to this standing. Since its debut in 1940, the NCAUR in Peoria has touched many lives with its ingenious innovations and has made countless gifts to science and business.

The NCAUR, more commonly known to Peorians as the “Ag. Lab,” was first authorized by Congress as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ihy000223.html

Slate Article on the history of socialized medicine:

As Paul Starr explains in his classic Social Transformation of American Medicine, the idea of government-run health care dates to the Progressive Era. Originally called “compulsory health insurance,” it enjoyed favor in the 1910s among many quarters, including the American Medical Association. Many doctors expected that national insurance would encourage preventive medicine, thus saving money and lives. But as the debate heated up, doctors began to worry that it would hurt their incomes, and they banded with business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers to oppose reform. American entry into World War I tabled consideration of the issue, and the postwar Red Scare, Starr notes, “buried it in an avalanche of anticommunist rhetoric.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2175477/

The NIH:

In 1930, the Ransdell Act changed the name of the Hygienic Laboratory to National Institute (singular) of Health (NIH) and authorized the establishment of fellowships for research into basic biological and medical problems. The roots of this act extended to 1918, when chemists who had worked with the Chemical Warfare Service in World War I sought to establish an institute in the private sector to apply fundamental knowledge in chemistry to problems of medicine. In 1926, after no philanthropic patron could be found to endow such an institute, the proponents joined with Louisiana Senator Joseph E. Ransdell to seek federal sponsorship. The truncated form in which the bill was finally enacted in 1930 reflected the harsh economic realities imposed by the Great Depression. Nonetheless, this legislation marked a change in the attitude of the U.S. scientific community toward public funding of medical research.

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/history/docs/page_04.html

Government-funded science:

The government role in supporting research in the scientific community at large was greatly stimulated by the vision enunciated by Vannevar Bush. Bush wrote, “The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security.”8 Bush used the word “jobs” to describe what elsewhere he referred to as “prosperity” or “public welfare.” The concept is now commonly referred to as “economic security.” The three areas identified by Bush were those of most concern at the time. Were Bush writing today, he would probably add others, including “the environment,” “green manufacturing,” and “clean energy sources.”

Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs rather than to a single objective, such as defense. Indeed, he concluded his letter to President Truman transmitting his report with a broad vision of the impact of science on quality of life: “Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.”9

Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also observed that “…basic research is essentially non- commercial in nature. It will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry.”10 Today this concept is recognized as a lack of “appropriability.” Because of the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace. Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the “appropriability” issue. It consequently has increased the need for government support of research.

The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has become a major source of support for science and engineering in our universities. The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the Nation.

As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush identified. We will cite just one example in each area. The understanding of the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology industry. Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry, which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today. The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from ships to backpackers.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97186/nsb97186.htm

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]Strawman, Arraya. LOL, take my argument to the extreme and discredit it…nice attempt, though.

I didn’t say innovation would stop. Unless you can charge high prices in order to fund your R&D, innovation will decline. This is how business works.[/quote]

Much of the R&D for medical technology is funded by the govt.

A small collection I keep of some articles regarding “socialist” medicine and public funding:
————————

History of penicillin:

History of Penicillin
Originally noticed by a French medical student, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896. Penicillin was re-discovered by bacteriologist Alexander Fleming working at St. Mary’s Hospital in London in 1928.

…It was not until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey, a future Nobel Laureate, and three colleagues at Oxford University began intensive research and were able to demonstrate penicillin’s ability to kill infectious bacteria. As the war with Germany continued to drain industrial and government resources, the British scientists could not produce the quantities of penicillin needed for clinical trials on humans and turned to the United States for help. They were quickly referred to the Peoria Lab where scientists were already working on fermentation methods to increase the growth rate of fungal cultures. One July 9, 1941, Howard Florey and Norman Heatley, Oxford University Scientists came to the U.S. with a small but valuable package containing a small amount of penicillin to begin work.

History of Peoria Lab (penicillin and more):

Agricultural research has been extremely beneficial to the United States. The United States has always been a worldwide leader in agricultural production and technology. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its research laboratories like the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) are strong contributors to this standing. Since its debut in 1940, the NCAUR in Peoria has touched many lives with its ingenious innovations and has made countless gifts to science and business.

The NCAUR, more commonly known to Peorians as the “Ag. Lab,” was first authorized by Congress as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ihy000223.html

Slate Article on the history of socialized medicine:

As Paul Starr explains in his classic Social Transformation of American Medicine, the idea of government-run health care dates to the Progressive Era. Originally called “compulsory health insurance,” it enjoyed favor in the 1910s among many quarters, including the American Medical Association. Many doctors expected that national insurance would encourage preventive medicine, thus saving money and lives. But as the debate heated up, doctors began to worry that it would hurt their incomes, and they banded with business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers to oppose reform. American entry into World War I tabled consideration of the issue, and the postwar Red Scare, Starr notes, “buried it in an avalanche of anticommunist rhetoric.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2175477/

The NIH:

In 1930, the Ransdell Act changed the name of the Hygienic Laboratory to National Institute (singular) of Health (NIH) and authorized the establishment of fellowships for research into basic biological and medical problems. The roots of this act extended to 1918, when chemists who had worked with the Chemical Warfare Service in World War I sought to establish an institute in the private sector to apply fundamental knowledge in chemistry to problems of medicine. In 1926, after no philanthropic patron could be found to endow such an institute, the proponents joined with Louisiana Senator Joseph E. Ransdell to seek federal sponsorship. The truncated form in which the bill was finally enacted in 1930 reflected the harsh economic realities imposed by the Great Depression. Nonetheless, this legislation marked a change in the attitude of the U.S. scientific community toward public funding of medical research.

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/history/docs/page_04.html

Government-funded science:

The government role in supporting research in the scientific community at large was greatly stimulated by the vision enunciated by Vannevar Bush. Bush wrote, “The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security.”8 Bush used the word “jobs” to describe what elsewhere he referred to as “prosperity” or “public welfare.” The concept is now commonly referred to as “economic security.” The three areas identified by Bush were those of most concern at the time. Were Bush writing today, he would probably add others, including “the environment,” “green manufacturing,” and “clean energy sources.”

Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs rather than to a single objective, such as defense. Indeed, he concluded his letter to President Truman transmitting his report with a broad vision of the impact of science on quality of life: “Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.”9

Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also observed that “…basic research is essentially non- commercial in nature. It will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry.”10 Today this concept is recognized as a lack of “appropriability.” Because of the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace. Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the “appropriability” issue. It consequently has increased the need for government support of research.

The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has become a major source of support for science and engineering in our universities. The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the Nation.

As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush identified. We will cite just one example in each area. The understanding of the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology industry. Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry, which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today. The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from ships to backpackers.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97186/nsb97186.htm

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]Strawman, Arraya. LOL, take my argument to the extreme and discredit it…nice attempt, though.

I didn’t say innovation would stop. Unless you can charge high prices in order to fund your R&D, innovation will decline. This is how business works.[/quote]

Much of the R&D for medical technology is funded by the govt.

A small collection I keep of some articles regarding “socialist” medicine and public funding:
————————

History of penicillin:

History of Penicillin
Originally noticed by a French medical student, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896. Penicillin was re-discovered by bacteriologist Alexander Fleming working at St. Mary’s Hospital in London in 1928.

…It was not until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey, a future Nobel Laureate, and three colleagues at Oxford University began intensive research and were able to demonstrate penicillin’s ability to kill infectious bacteria. As the war with Germany continued to drain industrial and government resources, the British scientists could not produce the quantities of penicillin needed for clinical trials on humans and turned to the United States for help. They were quickly referred to the Peoria Lab where scientists were already working on fermentation methods to increase the growth rate of fungal cultures. One July 9, 1941, Howard Florey and Norman Heatley, Oxford University Scientists came to the U.S. with a small but valuable package containing a small amount of penicillin to begin work.

History of Peoria Lab (penicillin and more):

Agricultural research has been extremely beneficial to the United States. The United States has always been a worldwide leader in agricultural production and technology. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its research laboratories like the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) are strong contributors to this standing. Since its debut in 1940, the NCAUR in Peoria has touched many lives with its ingenious innovations and has made countless gifts to science and business.

The NCAUR, more commonly known to Peorians as the “Ag. Lab,” was first authorized by Congress as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ihy000223.html

Slate Article on the history of socialized medicine:

As Paul Starr explains in his classic Social Transformation of American Medicine, the idea of government-run health care dates to the Progressive Era. Originally called “compulsory health insurance,” it enjoyed favor in the 1910s among many quarters, including the American Medical Association. Many doctors expected that national insurance would encourage preventive medicine, thus saving money and lives. But as the debate heated up, doctors began to worry that it would hurt their incomes, and they banded with business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers to oppose reform. American entry into World War I tabled consideration of the issue, and the postwar Red Scare, Starr notes, “buried it in an avalanche of anticommunist rhetoric.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2175477/

The NIH:

In 1930, the Ransdell Act changed the name of the Hygienic Laboratory to National Institute (singular) of Health (NIH) and authorized the establishment of fellowships for research into basic biological and medical problems. The roots of this act extended to 1918, when chemists who had worked with the Chemical Warfare Service in World War I sought to establish an institute in the private sector to apply fundamental knowledge in chemistry to problems of medicine. In 1926, after no philanthropic patron could be found to endow such an institute, the proponents joined with Louisiana Senator Joseph E. Ransdell to seek federal sponsorship. The truncated form in which the bill was finally enacted in 1930 reflected the harsh economic realities imposed by the Great Depression. Nonetheless, this legislation marked a change in the attitude of the U.S. scientific community toward public funding of medical research.

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/history/docs/page_04.html

Government-funded science:

The government role in supporting research in the scientific community at large was greatly stimulated by the vision enunciated by Vannevar Bush. Bush wrote, “The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security.”8 Bush used the word “jobs” to describe what elsewhere he referred to as “prosperity” or “public welfare.” The concept is now commonly referred to as “economic security.” The three areas identified by Bush were those of most concern at the time. Were Bush writing today, he would probably add others, including “the environment,” “green manufacturing,” and “clean energy sources.”

Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs rather than to a single objective, such as defense. Indeed, he concluded his letter to President Truman transmitting his report with a broad vision of the impact of science on quality of life: “Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.”9

Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also observed that “…basic research is essentially non- commercial in nature. It will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry.”10 Today this concept is recognized as a lack of “appropriability.” Because of the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace. Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the “appropriability” issue. It consequently has increased the need for government support of research.

The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has become a major source of support for science and engineering in our universities. The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the Nation.

As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush identified. We will cite just one example in each area. The understanding of the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology industry. Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry, which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today. The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from ships to backpackers.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97186/nsb97186.htm

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]Strawman, Arraya. LOL, take my argument to the extreme and discredit it…nice attempt, though.

I didn’t say innovation would stop. Unless you can charge high prices in order to fund your R&D, innovation will decline. This is how business works.[/quote]

Much of the R&D for medical technology is funded by the govt.

A small collection I keep of some articles regarding “socialist” medicine and public funding:
————————

History of penicillin:

History of Penicillin
Originally noticed by a French medical student, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896. Penicillin was re-discovered by bacteriologist Alexander Fleming working at St. Mary’s Hospital in London in 1928.

…It was not until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey, a future Nobel Laureate, and three colleagues at Oxford University began intensive research and were able to demonstrate penicillin’s ability to kill infectious bacteria. As the war with Germany continued to drain industrial and government resources, the British scientists could not produce the quantities of penicillin needed for clinical trials on humans and turned to the United States for help. They were quickly referred to the Peoria Lab where scientists were already working on fermentation methods to increase the growth rate of fungal cultures. One July 9, 1941, Howard Florey and Norman Heatley, Oxford University Scientists came to the U.S. with a small but valuable package containing a small amount of penicillin to begin work.

History of Peoria Lab (penicillin and more):

Agricultural research has been extremely beneficial to the United States. The United States has always been a worldwide leader in agricultural production and technology. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its research laboratories like the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) are strong contributors to this standing. Since its debut in 1940, the NCAUR in Peoria has touched many lives with its ingenious innovations and has made countless gifts to science and business.

The NCAUR, more commonly known to Peorians as the “Ag. Lab,” was first authorized by Congress as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ihy000223.html

Slate Article on the history of socialized medicine:

As Paul Starr explains in his classic Social Transformation of American Medicine, the idea of government-run health care dates to the Progressive Era. Originally called “compulsory health insurance,” it enjoyed favor in the 1910s among many quarters, including the American Medical Association. Many doctors expected that national insurance would encourage preventive medicine, thus saving money and lives. But as the debate heated up, doctors began to worry that it would hurt their incomes, and they banded with business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers to oppose reform. American entry into World War I tabled consideration of the issue, and the postwar Red Scare, Starr notes, “buried it in an avalanche of anticommunist rhetoric.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2175477/

The NIH:

In 1930, the Ransdell Act changed the name of the Hygienic Laboratory to National Institute (singular) of Health (NIH) and authorized the establishment of fellowships for research into basic biological and medical problems. The roots of this act extended to 1918, when chemists who had worked with the Chemical Warfare Service in World War I sought to establish an institute in the private sector to apply fundamental knowledge in chemistry to problems of medicine. In 1926, after no philanthropic patron could be found to endow such an institute, the proponents joined with Louisiana Senator Joseph E. Ransdell to seek federal sponsorship. The truncated form in which the bill was finally enacted in 1930 reflected the harsh economic realities imposed by the Great Depression. Nonetheless, this legislation marked a change in the attitude of the U.S. scientific community toward public funding of medical research.

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/history/docs/page_04.html

Government-funded science:

The government role in supporting research in the scientific community at large was greatly stimulated by the vision enunciated by Vannevar Bush. Bush wrote, “The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security.”8 Bush used the word “jobs” to describe what elsewhere he referred to as “prosperity” or “public welfare.” The concept is now commonly referred to as “economic security.” The three areas identified by Bush were those of most concern at the time. Were Bush writing today, he would probably add others, including “the environment,” “green manufacturing,” and “clean energy sources.”

Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs rather than to a single objective, such as defense. Indeed, he concluded his letter to President Truman transmitting his report with a broad vision of the impact of science on quality of life: “Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.”9

Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also observed that “…basic research is essentially non- commercial in nature. It will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry.”10 Today this concept is recognized as a lack of “appropriability.” Because of the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace. Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the “appropriability” issue. It consequently has increased the need for government support of research.

The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has become a major source of support for science and engineering in our universities. The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the Nation.

As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush identified. We will cite just one example in each area. The understanding of the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology industry. Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry, which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today. The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from ships to backpackers.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97186/nsb97186.htm

[CA renter]

[quote=jeeman]Strawman, Arraya. LOL, take my argument to the extreme and discredit it…nice attempt, though.

I didn’t say innovation would stop. Unless you can charge high prices in order to fund your R&D, innovation will decline. This is how business works.[/quote]

Much of the R&D for medical technology is funded by the govt.

A small collection I keep of some articles regarding “socialist” medicine and public funding:
————————

History of penicillin:

History of Penicillin
Originally noticed by a French medical student, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896. Penicillin was re-discovered by bacteriologist Alexander Fleming working at St. Mary’s Hospital in London in 1928.

…It was not until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey, a future Nobel Laureate, and three colleagues at Oxford University began intensive research and were able to demonstrate penicillin’s ability to kill infectious bacteria. As the war with Germany continued to drain industrial and government resources, the British scientists could not produce the quantities of penicillin needed for clinical trials on humans and turned to the United States for help. They were quickly referred to the Peoria Lab where scientists were already working on fermentation methods to increase the growth rate of fungal cultures. One July 9, 1941, Howard Florey and Norman Heatley, Oxford University Scientists came to the U.S. with a small but valuable package containing a small amount of penicillin to begin work.

History of Peoria Lab (penicillin and more):

Agricultural research has been extremely beneficial to the United States. The United States has always been a worldwide leader in agricultural production and technology. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its research laboratories like the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) are strong contributors to this standing. Since its debut in 1940, the NCAUR in Peoria has touched many lives with its ingenious innovations and has made countless gifts to science and business.

The NCAUR, more commonly known to Peorians as the “Ag. Lab,” was first authorized by Congress as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ihy000223.html

Slate Article on the history of socialized medicine:

As Paul Starr explains in his classic Social Transformation of American Medicine, the idea of government-run health care dates to the Progressive Era. Originally called “compulsory health insurance,” it enjoyed favor in the 1910s among many quarters, including the American Medical Association. Many doctors expected that national insurance would encourage preventive medicine, thus saving money and lives. But as the debate heated up, doctors began to worry that it would hurt their incomes, and they banded with business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers to oppose reform. American entry into World War I tabled consideration of the issue, and the postwar Red Scare, Starr notes, “buried it in an avalanche of anticommunist rhetoric.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2175477/

The NIH:

In 1930, the Ransdell Act changed the name of the Hygienic Laboratory to National Institute (singular) of Health (NIH) and authorized the establishment of fellowships for research into basic biological and medical problems. The roots of this act extended to 1918, when chemists who had worked with the Chemical Warfare Service in World War I sought to establish an institute in the private sector to apply fundamental knowledge in chemistry to problems of medicine. In 1926, after no philanthropic patron could be found to endow such an institute, the proponents joined with Louisiana Senator Joseph E. Ransdell to seek federal sponsorship. The truncated form in which the bill was finally enacted in 1930 reflected the harsh economic realities imposed by the Great Depression. Nonetheless, this legislation marked a change in the attitude of the U.S. scientific community toward public funding of medical research.

http://history.nih.gov/exhibits/history/docs/page_04.html

Government-funded science:

The government role in supporting research in the scientific community at large was greatly stimulated by the vision enunciated by Vannevar Bush. Bush wrote, “The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security.”8 Bush used the word “jobs” to describe what elsewhere he referred to as “prosperity” or “public welfare.” The concept is now commonly referred to as “economic security.” The three areas identified by Bush were those of most concern at the time. Were Bush writing today, he would probably add others, including “the environment,” “green manufacturing,” and “clean energy sources.”

Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs rather than to a single objective, such as defense. Indeed, he concluded his letter to President Truman transmitting his report with a broad vision of the impact of science on quality of life: “Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.”9

Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also observed that “…basic research is essentially non- commercial in nature. It will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry.”10 Today this concept is recognized as a lack of “appropriability.” Because of the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace. Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the “appropriability” issue. It consequently has increased the need for government support of research.

The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has become a major source of support for science and engineering in our universities. The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the Nation.

As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush identified. We will cite just one example in each area. The understanding of the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology industry. Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry, which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today. The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from ships to backpackers.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97186/nsb97186.htm

[CA renter]

Also this:

Institutions depend on outside funding, and the NIH is the biggest provider of such grants for training, research, fellowships, construction and laboratories. In 2004, for example, a year when the NIH made more than 47,000 grants, Pitt researchers received 938 of them, the sixth most of any institution.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06133/689900-115.stm

[CA renter]

Also this:

Institutions depend on outside funding, and the NIH is the biggest provider of such grants for training, research, fellowships, construction and laboratories. In 2004, for example, a year when the NIH made more than 47,000 grants, Pitt researchers received 938 of them, the sixth most of any institution.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06133/689900-115.stm

[CA renter]

Also this:

Institutions depend on outside funding, and the NIH is the biggest provider of such grants for training, research, fellowships, construction and laboratories. In 2004, for example, a year when the NIH made more than 47,000 grants, Pitt researchers received 938 of them, the sixth most of any institution.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06133/689900-115.stm

[CA renter]

Also this:

Institutions depend on outside funding, and the NIH is the biggest provider of such grants for training, research, fellowships, construction and laboratories. In 2004, for example, a year when the NIH made more than 47,000 grants, Pitt researchers received 938 of them, the sixth most of any institution.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06133/689900-115.stm

[Author]

Posts