IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

the quote was "high-cost, high-tech". "high-tech" tends to be newer rather than older.

Which specific "high-cost, high-tech" things are you talking about?

You're argument is the opposite of an argument about how difficult the FDA makes it to get procedures approved in the US. There are many drugs, devices, procedures that are in use in Europe that are not yet approved in the US.

I didn't write the article... If you want to complain about it, complain to Cyclops... he posted it. I simply pointed out what it said.

0 Replies

@sstainba,

That's nice but it doesn't compare anything like you have claimed.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

That's nice but it doesn't compare anything like you have claimed.

I'm confused... I think it was you that brought up the comparison in cost between drugs and procedure/diagnostic stuff. And I don't recall you providing any evidence.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

I posted a link that quite clearly showed a difference in cost.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

sstainba wrote:
I imagine they are less in Canada at least party due to a contractual agreement to buy a set number of doses, regardless of their use.

not so much

try again

yes, actually.

http://www.aims.ca/library/MPPI_pharma-revised_.pdf

Third paragraph. Bulk purchasing provides extra leverage.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I posted a link that quite clearly showed a difference in cost.

I just looked over the last page where you made that claim and there is no link.

1 Reply

Drug prices... US v. Canada:

Turns out, drug prices may not actually be cheaper in Canada... But you can ignore this since it's obviously contrary to what you want to believe.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/02/27/f-onlinedrugs.html

1 Reply

@sstainba,

What am I supposed to ignore? The fact that it lists many drugs that are cheaper in Canada?

Of course if we accept the argument that drugs aren't cheaper in Canada then that would mean other costs of health care have to be cheaper.

You are doing nothing but running in circles in sstainba. Throwing crap up in the air and hoping no one notices. Your arguments are not based on evidence. You are doing nothing more claiming no one else is right because they haven't proved it to your satisfaction.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

http://able2know.org/topic/89938-319#post-3949652

Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

What am I supposed to ignore? The fact that it lists many drugs that are cheaper in Canada?

Of course if we accept the argument that drugs aren't cheaper in Canada then that would mean other costs of health care have to be cheaper.

You are doing nothing but running in circles in sstainba. Throwing crap up in the air and hoping no one notices. Your arguments are not based on evidence. You are doing nothing more claiming no one else is right because they haven't proved it to your satisfaction.

Hardly. You guys assert that "drugs are cheaper" in Canada - which is a pretty all-encompassing statement. The link I gave shows that isn't the case. Some drugs are cheaper.

My arguments are based on evidence. For example, you said there was no evidence that buying in bulk affected the price for drugs in Canada. I gave a link.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

http://able2know.org/topic/89938-319#post-3949652

Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

That link does not say anything about the relative cost between drugs and procedural/diagnostic medicine.

0 Replies

@sstainba,

Quote:

My arguments are based on evidence.

And assertion, don't forget that!

The fact that SOME drugs aren't cheaper in Canada doesn't invalidate the statement that MOST drugs are cheaper there. The fact that SOME countries don't keep accurate infant mortality rates doesn't invalidate the argument that MOST countries do and those can be used for comparisons. You seem to think that nitpicking arguments kills them; it does not.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

My arguments are based on evidence.

And assertion, don't forget that!

The fact that SOME drugs aren't cheaper in Canada doesn't invalidate the statement that MOST drugs are cheaper there. The fact that SOME countries don't keep accurate infant mortality rates doesn't invalidate the argument that MOST countries do and those can be used for comparisons. You seem to think that nitpicking arguments kills them; it does not.

Cycloptichorn

lol. i'm just following your lead.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

Ah, the 'I know you are, but what am I?' argument. Killer.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@sstainba,

Quote:

Third paragraph. Bulk purchasing provides extra leverage.

Then we get to the fourth paragraph
fourth paragraph..

Quote:

Many people believe that these factors are the chief explanation of the price differential
between Canada and the US, but these people are quite certainly wrong.

Your link doesn't support your argument at all. It clearly says your argument is wrong.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Third paragraph. Bulk purchasing provides extra leverage.

Then we get to the fourth paragraph
fourth paragraph..

Quote:
Many people believe that these factors are the chief explanation of the price differential
between Canada and the US, but these people are quite certainly wrong.

Your link doesn't support your argument at all. It clearly says your argument is wrong.

Really? Where did I argue that bulk purchase was the only or most significant reason for a difference in drug price?

I didn't. I said it was a factor that I imagined (remember, you made fun of that) that contributed to a decrease in price.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

That's about right. It's a word game. It should be on the Trivia threads.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA TO BE REPEALED AND REPLACED.

0 Replies

The Repugs can complain all they want. Bill and Hillary Clinton explored the issue and the Repugs said they did it the wrong way, that it should have been done in Congress. Obama did it through Congress but they still complained.

The question is why didn't the Repugs do something about health care during the eight bush years between Clinton and Obama?

Oh, because they're conservatives and no conservative ever did anything to benefit anyone but his/herself.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Oh, because they're conservatives and no conservative ever did anything to benefit anyone but his/herself

Is that so?
Then the monies I have given to charities were to benefit myself?
The time I put in on volunteer activities were to benefit myself?

Are you really that naive and foolish as to believe your own statement?

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know