Hiku said:
-CraZed- said:
Every single country on that list is either subsidized directly through foreign aid or a beneficiary of the unbalanced NATO, NAFTA and UN protections provided by the one country that doesn't have a wholly socialized medical system.
As for the drug prices, it is precisely because other countries' price controls that Americans pay more. They have to make up for lost revenue somewhere and they do that by upcharging us to subsidize foreign countries socialist policies. Sure we could implement price controls (though it'd most likely result in a successful challenge in the courts) or other countries could stop, once again, shoving it to us Americans by paying for their own socialism. It also stands to reason that if the US did resort to pricing controls that the cost of Canada's drugs (for example) would go up in cost to the consumer.
|
Directly through foreign aid? Let's keep the crackpot conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence to a minimum please.
The people in those countries decided that their tax money would go to these programs. Human rights are prioritized over anything else and would naturally be funded regardless of whether or not they received foreign aid.
That's about as clever of an argument as claiming that China is directly funding *insert US institution* because the majority of USA's national debt is with China...
USA currently owes China 1.18 trillion USD as of May 2018.
Although to further illustrate how nonsensical the notion you brought up is, I looked into how much Sweden pays in foreign aid to other countries:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-does-swedish-foreign-aid-oda-go-to.html
Do you realize that you're talking about developed countries? They're among the list of highest foreign aid donors in the world. Not receivers.
Relative to our size and economy, we pay A LOT more than USA does.
And you expect me to believe that we pay all these billions in foreign aid to other countries, but can't afford healthcare on our own?
I think you're confusing the countries on that list with developing nations. Sweden actually has some of the highest income taxes in the world.
We can afford to pay for our shit. To say the least.
Before you start worrying about what USA is responsible for providing other countries with, start by worrying about what they do for their own people first.
Although on that note, we pay 1.36% of our GNI in foreign aid, and USA only pays 0.15% of theirs. Step up your game?
As for "we have to increase our drug prices to make up for lost revenue" again, where is the evidence of this claim? Pharmaceutical companies commonly top the annual highest grossing charts. I don't see what losses they have to make up for.
And as SpokenTruth pointed out, the majority of the 23 largest pharmaceutical companies are located in other countries. Not USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_companies_by_revenue
Tell me again how these EU/Asian companies would be losing money, if not for USA overcharging for their drugs?
We're responsible for a substantial amount of medical research and advancements on our own. I don't know where you got the idea that USA is funding the majority of everything in the world. And you seem to confuse countries like Japan, Australia and UK to countries like Zimbabwe when it comes to reliance of foreign aid.
|
Just wanted to say thanks for your contribution to this thread dude. You've provided tonnes of insight, analysis & info, which have certainly crystallised my views on the different models of healthcare.
Those arguing for the status quo of the American system over moving to UHC fail to offer any compelling evidence or arguments. Maybe such arguments for their stance do exist, but they certainly haven't brought them to the table... The only point that seems to come up is the narrative that without inflated profits, there would be less investment in innovation & other medical treatments, but as you and others have pointed out, there is no actual evidence of this and even if there were, would it really be worth all the cons (thousands of annual deaths / the inability of many people to afford these new innovations anyway / etc.)
It's laughable that some are championing the corporations rights to price-gouge themselves & their fellow Americans in order to provide enough of an incentive to innovate, and in turn price-gouge for those new treatments... The idea that motivation linearly correlated with profit is so unbelievably naive, it just really blows my mind...
It all just goes to show how deeply entrenched the tribalism is in the US - and proves that turkeys will indeed vote for Christmas, just as long as it sticks in the throat of the other team...
