<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1678533313;
mso-list-template-ids:-2015052224;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#000000" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric writes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">< The mechanics by which wealth skews place a spectrum of bets within or out of reach, and then the value judgments of the specific bets particular actors take, are both things to be understood. I find arguments frustrating in which one
tries to get a clear picture of the mechanics, and suddenly the conversation gets overwrought about valuations, as if the two were the same topic. ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One could imagine making the discretionary spending by the NIH opt-in on taxes. Since many pharmaceutical patents build on research funded by the NIH, the government could insist on a better rate on drugs than those that did not opt-in
to that taxation. Patents could be blocked without a convincing examination of supporting research. “Oh I see you opted-out on NIH research on your 1040, your chimeric antigen receptor treatment bill will be $500k. Here is a CareCredit application.”
(Sadly that’s the situation for most people, now.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If a large fraction of people don’t to even want to acknowledge the need for collective investments, it should be no surprise when the rest take matters in to their own hands, or use it as leverage to profit.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Marcus<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>