| fatslob-:O said: Have you EVER considered that it's you and the others here that are mistaken ? If "drug access" is so vital then just where hell are the the pharmaceutical state owned enterprises to compete in the market to prove private enterprises wrong about the expenses drug development ? I can already tell you and the other promoters of this system won't answer to that question cause it doesn't exist. I'm waiting for your so called perverted system to "nationalize" a private entity to prove your point and see how that goes ... |
I thing many on your "side" of this matter seem to think that we who are in favor of universal healthcare see private entities as being harmful to the industry. They can exist as much as they want, but will then compete with stateowned entities. I am not a bif fan of price control but having a stateowned entity will bring competition that forces others to lower their prices in order to compete. For example, we have a government run pharmacy that competes with private entities on the pharmaceutical market. When Swden privatized large parts of the pharmaceutical market, prices generally increased though wich means that I as a customer paid quite a lot more for medicine than before when the government had monopoly on the market. I am still in favor of privatizing the market, but it is important to have public options aswell.
And this will not hinder medical research. As someone else pointed out, 11 out of the 20 largest pharmaceutical companies are not american so obviously innovation continues in a country where the government runs the healthcare industry. America is a great contributor, but they have a tendency to over-inflate their own importance in this field. If they weren´t as big, other countries would likely fill the void, simply because medical research is ne of the most fundamental parts of our society.
