Why YC went to DC • Hacker News Board

Re: Why YC went to DC

#311

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:06 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #262

8note wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New drug funding tends to come from the US government already. Drug company R&D looks more like "what patents can we buy out and jack the prices in?"

That's simply misinformation. The US government funds some of the basic research that produces candidate molecules. But the vast majority of the cost in drug development comes in phase 3 human clinical trials. Almost all of that is paid for by pharmaceutical companies, and many trials fail.

That's not the biggest cost.

> Seven of the 10 largest drugmakers by revenue in 2020 spent more money on selling and marketing existing drugs than on research and development for new drugs, according to an analysis published Oct. 27 by America's Health Insurance Plans.

> GlaxoSmithKline spent $15 billion on sales and marketing in 2020 compared with $7 billion on research and development. Bayer spent $18 billion on sales and marketing compared with $8 billion for research and development. Johnson & Johnson spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, compared with $12 billion on research and development.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/top-10-pharma...

Re: Why YC went to DC

#312

Post by temp20240604 » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:07 PM UTC

To lobby for things good for YC :-) which happen to also be good things in general.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#313

Post by temp20240604 » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:09 PM UTC

mrb wrote: post #14

"This year, we’ll fund more than 500 companies out of 50,000 applications, and almost all of them are related to AI in some way." So, what this means: that in 2024, if you want to get VC capital, your startup must be related to AI.

Nope that doesn’t necessarily follow.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#314

Post by graemep » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:10 PM UTC

pjmorris wrote: post #240

bumby wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring that a “stroke of the pen” is a dictatorial solution almost by definition… Considering Medicare/Medicaid are currently approaching $1T annually to serve less than 20% of the population how dues your stroke of the pen plan pay for the increase when everyone is enrolled? Hospitals are forced to accept Medicare, but in many cases this is at a loss, subsidized by private charges elsewhere. So you’ll need to find…

> Considering Medicare/Medicaid are currently approaching $1T annually to serve less than 20% of the population how dues your stroke of the pen plan pay for the increase when everyone is enrolled? Most countries manage on ~12% or less of GDP, the US takes ~17% of GDP to pay for healthcare [0]. For example, the UK manages to cover everyone for about 12% of GDP. If the US adopted a plan as ubiquitous as the UK, in the…

The UK's 12% is fairly typical, and a similar percentage funds (mostly better) systems in many Western European countries.

Singapore has an excellent system costing about half the proportion of GDP.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#315

Post by tcgv » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:24 PM UTC

asddubs wrote: post #202

tcgv wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An individual's immediate remuneration is not the only variable in the discussion. There's a balance of power in play, in which smaller companies are on the weaker side when large corporations are left unchecked. Sure, in the short term, it's always better to get a higher paycheck. But we also need to see if this is sustainable in the long run. If Big Corps can easily undermine competition progress will be impaired,…

and what does basically outlawing offering someone a better salary do for salary pressure?

There are short-term effects, and long-term effects.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#316

Post by Mumps » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:30 PM UTC

biztos wrote: post #289

bko wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the constant flex of their tiny acceptance rate. "We only accept 1% of applicants. Btw everyone should apply!" The collective man hours wasted on appe every year for what is essentially a lottery is insane.

For us, the application process was a big help in getting focus and better defining what we propose to build. And not getting in has led us to find some other, potentially much better programs which we will apply to. We don’t regret the effort at all. My only complaint is that keeping everyone hanging on until May 29, ready to clear our plates in June, and then giving absolutely zero feedback for the rejection, was t…

Out of curiosity, would you mind sharing some of those potentially better programs? I've also been trying to compile a thourough list, but the options don't seem better (in fact, all are plan B..Z)

e.g. Entrepreneur First ( especially their EU and UK offering), Founders Factory, Haatch, Seqouia Surge, ...

Re: Why YC went to DC

#317

Post by ThinkBeat » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:30 PM UTC

I would think that the biggest obstacles for small startups in the AI space is the expense and availability of suitable hardware.

Then the expense of the electricity itself.

Big Cloud companies, who are also AI companies, with huge wallets have a huge advantage to start with.

The regular answer is of course go to the cloud, which is by far the easiest approach. I would think the cost of intense "AI compute" over a long timespan in the cloud is really expensive as well. And you are paying your competitors for your work.

If any of that is correct, which it might not be, then building the initial models would cost more than a startup couldl afford.

You can also go to the cloud and used "AI APIs" usually proprietary in one way or another to the cloud vendors themselves and limiting the scope of what can be accomplished. (Plus paying the competing in order to compete)

Re: Why YC went to DC

#318

Post by giancarlostoro » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:33 PM UTC

zacharycohn wrote: post #291

raincole wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could someone elaborate this for an uninformed like me? Does it mean if you (a company) pay $1M as salary this year, only $0.2M can be treated as cost?

Essentially. An extremely oversimplified scenario: On paper if you made $1M in revenue, and had $1M in salary expenses that were all R&D, you would deduct $200k of that salary and be left with $800,000 in "profit" that you have to pay taxes on. Except you don't have $800k. You have $0k.

Yikes. I kept wondering why R&D has been dead for so long. I have made comments here on HN about how R&D is responsible for so many tech advancements we still use, especially at Bell Labs.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#319

Post by giancarlostoro » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:37 PM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #56

siliconc0w wrote: post #9

If you need more things to fix: * Software R&D Amortization - taxes on make-believe profits * Patent law - protect small businesses from patent trolls * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions. * Healthcare insurance - employees of SMBs automatically get access to medicar…

Of these, the Section 174 debacle (software R&D amortization) is arguably the problem that needs to be addressed most urgently.

The house passed a bill, but the senate is working on their own version. I havent looked too deeply at either proposal, I just hope it doesnt make it even worse. I am waiting till the final proposal gets voted on.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#320

Post by stetrain » Tue, Jun 04, 2024, 12:42 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #259

stetrain wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it’s great how your employer can change which insurance provider they offer every year and along with it your coverage, provider network, prescription costs, etc. Sometimes even more frequently than once per year if an acquisition takes place.

It's a frustrating situation for employees (and their dependents) but the ability for self-funded employers to shop around and switch health plans is one of the only things that is preventing healthcare prices from rising even faster than they already are. Most of those "insurers" no longer really do insurance, they largely construct provider networks and administer claims on behalf of self-insured group buyers. Some…

Sure, the employer is doing what is best for them in the current system. Everyone is. But the results can be rough for real people to actually live with.

One of the big scary talking points when politicians start talking about changing our insurance system is that people like their current plans and doctors and are scared to change things.

I just think this is silly since my plan has changed roughly annually since I've been in the workforce due to a combination of employers shopping plans, employers changing ownership and moving to the new company's plans, and switching jobs.

An in-between step to single payer would be to let me pick a marketplace plan and then let my employer reimburse it directly, provider a voucher, or something like that. At least that way I have the freedom to switch jobs without entering a whole new health insurance world, and which health plan I pick is none of my employer's business.