Better is not arguable imo when over 45 000 people die every year in the US because they can't afford healthcare. And that number is 0 in every other industrialized country.
Unless someone lacks compassion for people who are less fortunate than yourself. Just the other day there was a story about a mother who lost her child because the ambulance suggested she take a car, because she wouldn't be able to afford the ambulance ride. Only in America...
My friend from Florida got bit by a dog and had to get a rabies shot. He's just a college student but was forced to pay over $4000 USD for those shots. And that's a lot of money for a college student. If that happened to me I'd pay $10 - $15. What a garbage system.
Using ideology to advance your case does not help in your argument at all since one approach to health care does not invalidate the other ...
What some patients view as justice or injustice is not necessarily the same for doctors. Universal health care is an institution that sharply clashes with Americas existing paradigm of health care innovation as I outlined before with the potential for our future generations being robbed of options in leading edge treatments or coming in unprepared with emerging illnesses. Life perishing maybe sad but a true tragedy is when multiple generations are born into this world faced with a lack of response for an incurable condition that could've been solved far earlier ...
Universal health care proceeds to encroach upon what lies in our investment of beyond just current humanity and it also exists as a tool to appropriate a better future for many generations ahead. Do you truly think that sacrificing the potential of future generations by establishing a counterproductive institution is worth the short term fix of a small portion of our woes ?
Ideology (that humans living in a society have a right to live...) does not help my argument, but your ideology of sacrificing 45 000+ people a year who didn't need to die, because that may approve a hypothetical useful drug sooner, helps your argument?
You're favoring sacrificing 45 000+ people in a real scenario, in favor of a very hypothetical scenario where this speeds up the approving of future drugs that would somehow end up saving more lives than this system unnecessarily killed?
First of all, keep in mind that most of these newly discovered drugs are not designed to save lives. Usually they are improvements of more common non life threatening drug treatments. In more rare cases they are improvements to drugs designed to save lives. And in even rarer cases, it's a new drug designed to treat a previously un-treatable condition. And in even rarer cases, those conditions are life threatening. Etc.
Just keep that in mind as we go on when you chose your priorities that lead to 45 000+ people a year actually dying.
The most common conditions that lead to premature death today globally will likely remain at the top of the charts for many decades to come. If not centuries.
Now there are three major key factors that the article you linked to doesn't bring up.
1.) The study they cited about the average cost of new drug approvals was heavily criticized by a nummber of industry peers, including Doctors Without Borders, which said it was "unreliable because the industry's research and development spending is not made public". (This is a very important fact that I'll get back to below.) Another publication said it "contains a lot of assumptions that tend to favor the pharmaceutical industry."
Coincidentally (?) the source of that 2014 study in your article can no longer be found: https://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/pr_tufts_csdd_2014_cost_study
At least every reference link I found lead to that broken link page.
I don't know if they retracted the study due to criticism of lack of evidence, but in either case it leads me into my next point:
2.) At no point in the article you linked does it mention that the primary reason for why US drug prices are so high is because USA, unlike any other modern country on the planet, is unable to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. It briefly mentions higher costs being a factor, alongside the cases where its newer drugs, but makes no effort trying to explain why the drugs cost so much more in the US when in the cases where it's not a newer drug.
You can find the same US manufactured drug in Canada for up to 5 times cheaper. Manufactured by a US company....
It's literally cheaper in some cases to drive to Canada to buy drugs that were exported from USA, rather than buying domestically.
And the most important part...
Last edited by Hiku - on 02 August 2018
3.) Even assuming that the numbers in your article are correct, a key factor they did not divulge is that industry's research and development spending is not made public. In other words, there's no proven correlation between the pharmaceutical industry jacking up prices in the US to them investing the gains into more research and development, rather than pocketing the gains and buying their CEO's their 10th yacht.
The only example this article uses to establish such a concept is a study in regards to the Orphan Drug Act. And here, they did not mention that the Orphan Drug Act established tax incentives for rare disease drug development.
The bottom line is, these kind of tax incentives for rare drug development can be given without jacking up drug prices to multiple times that of what they cost in other countries. And we don't know how much of those extra gains the pharmaceutical industry puts back into R&D because R&D spending is not made public.
The reason that this article seems to conveniently not disclose any of this info may very well be that it was funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
But even if that's not the case, and even if jacked up US drug prices meant a substantial increase in R&D, it does not mean we need to sacrifice 45 000+ people a year for something that very well may not save more lives than it took. Especially not when the majority of people, even in the USA where brainwashing about this subject is high ("we will turn into Soviet Russia or Venezuela if we allow this one more socialistic program, on top of roads, bridges, fire department, parks, libraries, elementary school, elected officials", etc) the majority of people want a single payer system according to polls.