richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
How can they? Pretty sure international trade laws on Intellectual Property protect drugs, such that the screwey "one chemical compound, one company's possession," setup works worldwide, unless they're being reproduced illegally
|
Yeah, ironically, everyone is missing the very obvious point of... all it takes is there being one place where you can sell medicine, or machines or whatever at a better price.
The reason why such comparisons are worthless is EXACTLY because it's an international market.
Drug companies can sell a product in the US from 500, and the same one in europe for 250, and the same one in africa for like.... 5 bucks... because the actual cost of production is low. So profits are still made in Europe and in Africa.
While america shoulders the brunt of the costs to cover R&D.
Ironically both more and less regulation i bet would lower drug prices. The issue though is, will more regulation lead the US to have medical research funding analgous to Europe.
If so... the whole world's healthcare will drop. (Or rather increase more slowly.)
In a country like England there is little incentive to upgrade technologies that work "Well enough." The government isn't going to buy a bunch of new expensive MRI technology just because it detects something .4% better then the previous MRI machines.
In a country like the US, high end hosptials will, and so will other hospitals as the prices get cheaper and they rush to compete vs each other.
After the prices get low enough, then countries like England will buy in. They may even get rates lowered ahead of time, if the company is confident the US will meet their R&D goals.
Without the US, who is going to take a big risk to imrpove technology that works ok? There is a reason why the US accounts for over 80% of the world's medical research. Think how much better EVERYONE'S healthcare would be, if Europe spent an even amount of money on biotechnology research. (The EU being about the same size.)
The advantages of the US healthcare system are hard to see, because they apply to the world as a whole.
|
So, in short, America is supposed to have a system that increasingly prices more people out of its services, which causes life expectancy to decline for the lack of preventive care, so that somehow the rest of the world gets better medication? And then, the response to "something must be done" is "but you have emergency rooms!" as if some state law mandating a business can't turn anyone way makes up for a lack of preventive care.
|
No. So that EVERBODY gets better healtcare through better technology.
If Europe and other countries had a healthcare system like the US. EVERBODY's healtcare would be even better then it was today, because medical advancements would happen 3-4X faster then it does now.
Right now it's as if there are two married people in a relationship who both have a job. One person who makes more money is paying all the bills, while the second person is making less money, but all that money goes to themselves.
The first person taking a lower paying job isn't going to improve their healthcare, it's just going to make it so the other one has to start paying bills, and everyones money is more equal.... but worse.
|
And if every car dealer with luxury automobile makers, then you would also end up with all these wonderous advances. Of course, you would face an increased population without any health coverage, but wow, what there is, would be AWESOME. It would be so advance, you would have the top 5% being able to afford immortality, while everyone else is stuck with crumbs.
|
Kinda misses the point that technology goes down in price.
The poor will have better healthcare under the current system, then they will under a socialized system because the level of technology in their care will be greater.
It's the same arguement that's always made...
What's better?
Equality or Quality.
Would you rather have a higher chance of survivial, or AS high a chance of survival as some rich dude.
Me i'd take living till 90 and a rich dude being immortal, vs everyone living till 80.
Not to mention how the projections get more and more drastic in difference in care, as it takes 2-3-4 times as long to come up with the same medical technology.
I'd take unequal uneven quality over equal mediocrity any day. As long as I get more then i would of got otherwise, i don't care if someone else gets waaaay more, to do so is just outright jealousy.
If you have choices and one benfits everybody more, who cares how much other people benefit vs me, i'm benefiting.
Give me a plan with no negatives where I get an apple, and bill gates gets a robotic manservant... i'll do that. Hey I get an Apple, and there are no negative effects. Who cares that Bill Gates gets a robotic manservant. There is no plan that could get me a robotic man servant anyway.
