Why does socialized medicine suck again?

[Deleted]

No, its done by drug manufacturers who are then forced to recuperate that money by charging $90 per pill in the US because other countries like Canada say we are only paying you $10 per pill regardless of what it actually costs, so instead of EVERYONE paying $50 per pill, the US pays $90 per pill and everyone else gets it for $10

This is mostly due to US patent laws and healthcare laws. If the americans didn't pay $90 per pill, no one would be getting the pill in the first place, because you can't charge Europeans for $50. (otherwise drug companies would charge $90 in the US and $50 in Europe).

It's a bit like the Indian versions of college books. Without the Americans paying shitloads for them, there wouldn't be any über cheap versions in India, because writing them wouldn't be worth it. They're just getting some pocket change on the side from India, because it doesn't really cost much to print more books. The cost and effort is in the writing.

[Catta]

To clarify: biomedical research. Not research about healthcare marketing or things like that.

Im still gonna need some data on that. Spending doesn't really say much. You can throw money at the wall all day but that wont mean it sticks.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 11:39 PM ----------

No, its done by drug manufacturers who are then forced to recuperate that money by charging $90 per pill in the US because other countries like Canada say we are only paying you $10 per pill regardless of what it actually costs, so instead of EVERYONE paying $50 per pill, the US pays $90 per pill and everyone else gets it for $10

I find it mildly amusing that you only seem to care about others when you try to defend a stance that is to your own detriment.

"Im in the world for me and me only"

[Mihalik]

It may be true in your country that the top tax payers only pay double of what the bottom tax payers pay, but that's not the case in the United States.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html
http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ome-tax-data-0

The top 10% of earners pay 70.5% of the total income tax for the United States and the top 50% pay 97.7% of total income. Even if somebody making 500k a year paid only 25% income tax that would be 125k. Somebody making even 125k a year will not be paying half of their income in taxes. So the wealthy definitely put forth much more than twice the amount of others.

I agree that socialized systems and private systems aren't mutually exclusive, but this debate to me is about how much money you put into socialized medicine.

I made a clear distinction betwen INCOME TAX and SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, those two are filed apart and are handled apart. One is used to pay for one thing the other for others. SOCIAL SECURITY TAX goes into Social Services which includes Healthcare and revenue from INCOME TAX is used for other things such as infrastructure, military expenses etc.

SOCIAL SECURITY TAX is a fixed summ of money that slightly varies depending on your Tax Bracket while INCOME TAX is a percentage of your income, and VALUE ADDED TAX (V.A.T) is a whole different beast. INCOME TAX and V.A.T are used to fund all other operations that do not fall into the category of SOCIAL SERVICES.

I'm currently living in Spain but before I have lived in Austria and France and this is the system used in those countries as well as in Spain. But I have also lived in places like Hungary and Romania and that is why I mentioned that countries that aren't as prosperous as for exemple Western Europe or the U.S benefit greatly from their Socialized healthcare systems as the vast majority of the population could not afford healthcare if their pricing system would emulate the U.S one, that for some reason spends astronomic amounts per capita on a system that has poorer dollar/quality return then half the world.

[Deleted]

Im still gonna need some data on that. Spending doesn't really say much. You can throw money at the wall all day but that wont mean it sticks.

I've linked it before but I can't find it right now. It was something along 85% of world biomedical research. However this wiki article (and its sources) gives an indication of just how much the US spends: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research#Funding

[Mihalik]

This is mostly due to US patent laws and healthcare laws. If the americans didn't pay $90 per pill, no one would be getting the pill in the first place, because you can't charge Europeans for $50. (otherwise drug companies would charge $90 in the US and $50 in Europe).

It's a bit like the Indian versions of college books. Without the Americans paying shitloads for them, there wouldn't be any über cheap versions in India, because writing them wouldn't be worth it. They're just getting some pocket change on the side from India, because it doesn't really cost much to print more books. The cost and effort is in the writing.

That is actually rather incorect. Almost all of early stage pharmaceutical research is done by Private Research Universities and it is funded 80% by Public funding (governament tax money). 6 out of the top 10 Pharmaceutical companies are European. As much medical research they do in the U.S almost none of it is funded by private investment and almost none of it is paid by the cost of your pills.

[Theinquisition]

Obviously those who believe they're part of the deserving, of course! :P

whats the saying from animal farm...

"some are just more equal than others"

[Noke]

Some of us believe it's not fair that those of us who make good lifestyle choices (no smoking, no drinking, eating healthy, exercise, taking care of our bodies) should have to subsidize health insurance for those of us who do not. Your surgery may or may not have been the result of poor lifestyle choices, but it was clearly funded by the taxpayer. Other posters are saying "big deal? it only amounts to 1 cent per taxpayer", but how many of these operations occur daily? Monthly? Yearly? The pennies start to add up.

[Deleted]

That is actually rather incorect. Almost all of early stage pharmaceutical research is done by Private Research Universities and it is funded 80% by Public funding (governament tax money). 6 out of the top 10 Pharmaceutical companies are European. As much medical research they do in the U.S almost none of it is funded by private investment and almost none of it is paid by the cost of your pills.

Of Pharmaceutical research (not to be confused by total biomedical research) about 50% of R&D spending is conducted in the US: The Global Biomedical Industry: Preserving U.S. Leadership page 6.

Total US biomedical funding:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/data/Jou...joc50105f1.png
Private funding dominates public funding. JAMA is the peer-reviewd journal of AMA (American Medical Association).

[Endus]

They are recruited to the US because they arent able to do the research in their own countries due to lack of funding due to the governments overseas dictating where the socialist money will be spent so they cant afford to develop drugs overseas.

None of that is true. They're recruited to the US because there are big pharmacorps that like US patent/research/tax laws, and they're willing to pay to recruit talented people. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "socialist money" or not, and very little to do with government spending. Plus, there's plenty working elsewhere in the world, for similarly big pharmacorps and other groups doing medical research.

Besides which, there's plenty of medical research done outside of the US. For instance, the US was dragging its feet with regards to stem cell research for years. The reason there was so much pressure to lift those rules was precisely because big inroads were being made outside the US. The first cloned mammal was a sheep named Dolly, and that was done in Scotland. Is a lot of research also done in the US? Sure; it's a huge economy and there's a lot of research funding to be had. Is it the center of all medical research on the planet and necessary to the furthering of medical knowledge? Absolutely not.

[Glorious Leader]

Of Pharmaceutical research (not to be confused by total biomedical research) about 50% of R&D spending is conducted in the US: The Global Biomedical Industry: Preserving U.S. Leadership page 6.

Total US biomedical funding:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/data/Jou...joc50105f1.png
Private funding dominates public funding. JAMA is the peer-reviewd journal of AMA (American Medical Association).

What the graph doesn't tell you of course is that all those pharmaceuticals receive SUBSIDIES (usually in the form of tax breaks) to continue their research. In the end the public pays for the research. As it's always been.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 11:43 PM ----------

Yeah we're talking huge differences in proportion. Our military is in the ballpark of 50-70 times what the canadian one is, particularly in terms of what we spend on it. Also, far fewer Canadians are on food stamps, and are generally embarrased to go on them. The US sees them as a right.

Fewer Canadians may be on food stamps but no single Canadian that I know on food stamps is embarrassed to go on them. That's ludicrous. Their also not embarrassed to use the food bank. Or in general accept assistance from their fellow canadians. That's a particular feature of the United States, where the notion of rugged individualism reaches levels of insanity.

[Hiricine]

I made a clear distinction betwen INCOME TAX and SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, those two are filed apart and are handled apart. One is used to pay for one thing the other for others. SOCIAL SECURITY TAX goes into Social Services which includes Healthcare and revenue from INCOME TAX is used for other things such as infrastructure, military expenses etc.

well this is very untrue, contrary to popular belief. Social Security was at a surplus for a great many years, and was paying for overspending in other areas (military, gov programs, etc) while simply paying its own bills. As long as the US is in any sort of debt it actually would make us LOSE money by holing up the Social security money, which basically goes in the same pot as the rest of the revenue.

[Orlong]

Im still gonna need some data on that. Spending doesn't really say much. You can throw money at the wall all day but that wont mean it sticks.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 11:39 PM ----------



I find it mildly amusing that you only seem to care about others when you try to defend a stance that is to your own detriment.

"Im in the world for me and me only"

If the government would keep their hands out of it, or if the drug companies would take a stand and tell these socialist countries, you WILL pay what we say or you wont get the drugs, the free market would prevail. This way the cost for these drugs would come down for me since EVERYONE would share in the cost and Thats why its important for me!

[Glorious Leader]

If the government would keep their hands out of it, or if the drug companies would take a stand and tell these socialist countries, you WILL pay what we say or you wont get the drugs, the free market would prevail. This is why Im against it.

The free market "prevailing" is essentially saying the free market would gouge every customer into paying ridiculous prices for drugs that are not actually necessary to pay for the cost of the drugs or even a modest profit margin.

Can we kill this free market zombie nonsense? Will always be subject to a handful of people insist that the free market knows best and EMH is the answer? When will you people acknowledge the growth is not infinite and some measure of planning is necessary to ensure the survival of the species? Government just needs to get out of the way so the pharmaceuticals can exploit EVERYONE as equally as they've been exploiting the citizens of the United States.

[Deleted]

The free market "prevailing" is essentially saying the free market would gouge every customer into paying ridiculous prices for drugs that are not actually necessary to pay for the cost of the drugs or even a modest profit margin.

Actually, the free market would reduce the price of drugs much lower than what they are today.

What is actually keeping the price up are patents. However, without any kind of patents, the amount of innovation in pharmacy would be much lower because there would be much less profit incentives to use huge amounts on R&D only to have it copied. The optimal solution might lie in much weaker patents.

Can we kill this free market zombie nonsense? Will always be subject to a handful of people insist that the free market knows best and EMH is the answer? When will you people acknowledge the growth is not infinite and some measure of planning is necessary to ensure the survival of the species? Government just needs to get out of the way so the pharmaceuticals can exploit EVERYONE as equally as they've been exploiting the citizens of the United States.

Central Planning in general doesn't work. The government is too incompetent to steer society. The modern economy moves too fast for the bureaucrats to keep up. The government is much better at creating law and order and providing the general rules of society.

[Deleted]

Some of us believe it's not fair that those of us who make good lifestyle choices (no smoking, no drinking, eating healthy, exercise, taking care of our bodies) should have to subsidize health insurance for those of us who do not.

Thats why you add a tax on things that will harm you. I think it was Denmark that introduced a fat tax last year, this way people who eat unhealthy food every day will already have paid for the healthcare they may need in the future.

[Deleted]

Thats why you add a tax on things that will harm you. I think it was Denmark that introduced a fat tax last year, this way people who eat unhealthy food every day will already have paid for the healthcare they may need in the future.

Denmark scrapped it's fat tax last year, after trying it for only one year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...first-fat-tax/
http://www.economist.com/news/europe...tax-fat-chance

As usual, the nanny state people had good intentions but there were unintended consequences. The free markets defeated the nanny state, as people just went shopping for the products they wanted across borders. The tax also unfairly targeted smaller producers, which is common of government regulation.

[Mortai2]

It doesn't. Only the American right believes otherwise.

edit - To be clear, I'm American, this isn't supposed to be nation bashing at all. I'm actually quite amenable to market solutions to healthcare problems, but recognize that socializing systems works just fine.

No, sir. Please. I love it when the second post under the OP makes the rest of the thread pretty much useless. /clap

[Catta]

If the government would keep their hands out of it, or if the drug companies would take a stand and tell these socialist countries, you WILL pay what we say or you wont get the drugs, the free market would prevail. This way the cost for these drugs would come down for me since EVERYONE would share in the cost and Thats why its important for me!

Lol, they are not losing money from selling their product to socialist countries. They would not sell them if that were the case. Its simple - they can get away with it in the US - they are not able to do that elsewhere.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 01:33 AM ----------

Denmark scrapped it's fat tax last year, after trying it for only one year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...first-fat-tax/
http://www.economist.com/news/europe...tax-fat-chance

As usual, the nanny state people had good intentions but there were unintended consequences. The free markets defeated the nanny state, as people just went shopping for the products they wanted across borders. The tax also unfairly targeted smaller producers, which is common of government regulation.

They went for the sugar tax instead. Which makes more sense because sugar is generally the thing making people fat rather than... well... fat.

[Deleted]

They went for the sugar tax instead. Which makes more sense because sugar is generally the thing making people fat rather than... well... fat.

All sources say they also scrapped the planned sugar tax.

http://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2012/1...ar-sockerskatt
http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/danmark-slo...ch-sockerskatt

[Catta]

Then why is my soda still expensive!
>:- (

You can't explain that.

Wait a second - CAPITALISM!