Health Insurance versus Health Care

Contracts with pharmaceutical companies would be more advantageous and reduce drug prices. American drug prices, are at the moment, three times higher than Europe, why is that?

Because American consumers are paying for all the expensive research that is needed to discover and develop new and more powerful drugs. I agree it is unfair, and that Europeans should shoulder some of that burden. But they do not.

And that Americans shoulder all the burden is then turned around to mean that socialized health care is cheaper. A bit like a kid saying to it's parents, "you pay thousands in mortgage each month, my rent is for free, that clearly shows that my way of doing it is superior".

Because American consumers are paying for all the expensive research that is needed to discover and develop new and more powerful drugs. I agree it is unfair, and that Europeans should shoulder some of that burden. But they do not.

If you look at the degree of profits these companies make then its only the American consumer that suffers. The main reason why the drug companies actively acted against reforms in America was because they could see their excessive profits being eroded. We do have medical research facilities in Europe, we do contribute greatly to medical advances and they don't suffer because of our health insurance schemes.

Exactly. That Americans shoulder all the burden is then turned around to mean that socialized health care is cheaper. That's like a kid saying to it's parents, "you pay thousands in mortgage each month, my rent is for free, that clearly shows that my economic planning is superior to yours".

If you look at the drugs industry it has never suffered in any depression . It has always weathered the storm. Its ability to lobby the political parties has made sure its strangle hold on the American consumer is assured. Research and the production of drugs is not an American monopoly , the world has moved on.

Now lets be clear, your objections to our system, is your view, that you subsidies our system , thats your only objection?

I didn't deny that you have research facilities in Europe. I just asserted that Americans are made to pay for them.

You are entirely incorrect.

In fact - I don't even think you have the barest clue what a socialised system entails in regards to profits. In theory let alone practice.

So the Indian drug industry the Chinese manufacturers depend on the Americans paying more for them than any one else..absolutely amazing revelation. Its got nothing to do with the distributors or the excessive profits made by the drug companies or the insurance companies...:perplexed:

No, I have other objections. Why?

Because it appears a very weak and insane attitude to take, objecting to our system for that reason. If you adopted our method your drug charges would be three time cheaper and you are objecting...sorry but I cant understand your objections.

Who would pay for research and development of drugs then, if we put the burden on you? The Chinese?

Im not going to continue this if your only concern is the viability of the pharmaceutical industry, its not relevant.

It's not the "viability" of big Pharm. It is the viability of research and development that concerns me. It has to be paid for. And the Europeans don't want to help do it. So maybe the Chinese will do it. They can do it in the same plants in which they make asbestos.

It's not the "viability" of big Pharm. It is the viability of research and development that concerns me. It has to be paid for. And the Europeans don't want to help do it. So maybe the Chinese will do it. They can do it in the same plants in which they make asbestos.

It's like two friends who go to a bar to drink each Friday. They have been doing it every Friday for years. But one almost always pays the tap. Some day he asks "How come I always have to pay?". To that the other one responds "You are so stupid. My Friday evening bar expenses are much lower than yours. Because my system of paying for it is much better than yours. I am better at administrating. And you always waste money by giving a tip. That's why your cost is so high compared to mine. If you switched to my system, you could have lower costs as well."

Here is a list of some questions that I believe we can each give short answers to and clearify some issues. Note that I've specefied 'American' government when talking about this issue since all governments handle situations differently and so a qualifier was needed. I would like to hear opinions from Khethil, EmporerNero, xris, Rwa001, Dave Allen, and salima on this one. Thank you

1. Assuming that health care did not come at the expense of your livelihood, do you wish that everyone had healthcare?
2. Should those that deserve it get the care that they need (via private or public resources)?
3. Should the private industry, the American government, or both help out?
4. Is the American government efficient enouph to handle health care? Responsibly?
6. Are mandates seen as too much American government encroachment?
7. Do you want health care reform in America (not neccessarily the bill that was just signed)?

Fascinating, then, that Europe and Canada have superior health statistics across nearly all measured domains AND lower costs per patient.

Their systems aren't perfect by any means, but they're BETTER than ours by a longshot.

I'd like to thank you Aedes, for your attempt to enlighten on the complexity of this matter.

... unfortunately, part of the whole package we're confronted with is part-and-parcel to the healthcare crisis at large: The For Profit Culture. Every substance that can be made more attractive will be to entice consumers to buy.

Consumers want thrills, cheap and otherwise, not necessarily what's good for them. Is there any disputing this?

The administrative costs and profits of health care companies do not directly provide any health care benefits.

Now to be fair, gentlemen, there are any number of countires which have national helath care systems.

In virtually all of these countries health care is delivered for 7-10% of the GNP as opposed to the US 16-18% of the GNP.

By virtually any measure of overall health of the population: longevity, infant mortality, etc, health care in those countires with NHS systems is equal to or better than the U.S.

YOUR BLEEDING NUTS..

You're absolutely correct; unfortunately, the ones in my country that won't see this are also the ones who are braying the loudest. It's just what they do; seen in this light, you can give it all the consideration its worth.

That its For Profit is patently ridiculous; who thinks this is a good idea? Simply amazing.

You have one example of a country with socialised healthcare that ended up a failed state.

There are other examples which haven't.

Denmark for example, or the UK, or Ireland, or France, or Israel, or Canada, or Australia etc.......

Though a lot of the countries mentioned as having public health systems also have something like full employment (or did before the financial crisis). So the "healthcare free at point of sale = lazy/dependant/undignified people" argument doesn't seem to me to hold much water.

Whereas in Europe people tend to be more comfortable with big governments or, at least, big civil services.