Why does socialized medicine suck again?

[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.

[Diurdi]

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.

[paxx0r]

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.

[Diurdi]

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

[Cattaclysmic]

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.

[Diurdi]

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

[Cattaclysmic]

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

You can't explain that.

Wait a second - CAPITALISM!

[Endus]

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!

The prices in Canada for prescription drugs are the free market. The reason there's a difference is because the Government of Canada is a big customer, and is better able to leverage reduced prices. That's how the free market works.

What you're talking about is actually a move against the free market, to strengthen producers at the expense of customers. Nobody's forcing them to sell us the drugs. We're offering a price, and the pharmacorps agree to it. It's totally open and free, and I have no idea why you're against it, with the stance you've taken. Unless you can't stand to accept that, just maybe, government's done something right for us.

[Cattaclysmic]

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

http://www.danskerhverv.dk/Nyheder/S...n-droppes.aspx
Ny sukkerafgift droppes
Regeringens og Enhedslistens plan om en ny afgift på en række sukkerholdige produkter er samtidig droppet.

Annulleringen af udvidelsen af sukkerafgiften betyder dog intet for den ”gamle” chokolade- og sukkervareafgift, som fortsætter som hidtil – endog med afgiftsforhøjelser fremadrettet. Den første afgiftsforhøjelse sker allerede den 1. januar 2013.

"New sugartax dropped
The government and Unity List's plan of a new sugar tax on several products containing sugar is dropped.

The annulment of the expansion of the sugar tax, however, means nothing for the "old" chocolate- and sugarproduct tax, which continues as usual - even with tax increases in the future. The first tax increase happens already the 1st of January 2013."

[Orlong]

The prices in Canada for prescription drugs are the free market. The reason there's a difference is because the Government of Canada is a big customer, and is better able to leverage reduced prices. That's how the free market works.

What you're talking about is actually a move against the free market, to strengthen producers at the expense of customers. Nobody's forcing them to sell us the drugs. We're offering a price, and the pharmacorps agree to it. It's totally open and free, and I have no idea why you're against it, with the stance you've taken. Unless you can't stand to accept that, just maybe, government's done something right for us.

No, what Im talking about is everyone paying an equal price instead of some countries being forced to pay more because of other countries refusing to pay the actual cost of an item.

[Cattaclysmic]

No, what Im talking about is everyone paying an equal price instead of some countries being forced to pay more because of other countries refusing to pay the actual cost of an item.

You arent forced to pay more to pay for the cost. The canadians pay for the cost of the item. Everyone does. They just found out they could gouge the American market. And they do it.

[Diurdi]

You arent forced to pay more to pay for the cost. The canadians pay for the cost of the item. Everyone does. They just found out they could gouge the American market. And they do it.

No, it's not really like that at all. The US is the primary market. Without it, no one else would get most of these products. The only reason they sell in other markets is because the cost of producing more pills is almost zero and the actual cost was the research and development cost.

It's like the DVD's being sold in the discount bin for $1 wouldn't be there if there weren't people paying $15 for the DVD or $10 to see the movie in theatres. Europe is the $1 dollar bin.

[ewhenn]

And that about wraps up this discussion.

Though I'm sure conservatards are gonna start blabbing all over this thread about how socialism doesn't work, despite mountains of empirical data that says otherwise.

American speaking here.

Want to shut them up?

Ask them this question, it's one they never seem to have an answer to: If socialism is so bad, why are the countries with the highest standard of living socialist?

[Cattaclysmic]

No, it's not really like that at all. The US is the primary market. Without it, no one else would get most of these products. The only reason they sell in other markets is because the cost of producing more pills is almost zero and the actual cost was the research and development cost.

It's like the DVD's being sold in the discount bin for $1 wouldn't be there if there weren't people paying $15 for the DVD or $10 to see the movie in theatres. Europe is the $1 dollar bin.

Discount bin contains stuff they cant sell anymore - which they just want to have the cost of production of the said item covered. This is different.
If the companies tried to use the same prices on the other markets they would probably just plain refuse. And suddenly those companies would get a lot of competitors. So as long as they keep the price low in those countries they dont have to fear that competition while being able to stamp out any domestic one.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 02:05 AM ----------

American speaking here.

Want to shut them up?

Ask them this question, it's one they never seem to have an answer to: If socialism is so bad, why are the countries with the highest standard of living socialist?

The usual answer is: WELL THE TAXES ARE TOO HIGH - THERE IS NOT FREEDOM BECAUSE OF THAT!

[Endus]

No, what Im talking about is everyone paying an equal price instead of some countries being forced to pay more because of other countries refusing to pay the actual cost of an item.

Oh, you want price controls.

Just so you're aware, what you're talking about is the kind of thing seen under communist regimes, not capitalist ones. You're arguing against fundamental principles of the free market.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 08:23 PM ----------

No, it's not really like that at all. The US is the primary market. Without it, no one else would get most of these products. The only reason they sell in other markets is because the cost of producing more pills is almost zero and the actual cost was the research and development cost.

That's not it at all.

Prices, like anything, are based on what people can negotiate. Americans are not trying to negotiate for lower prices, not in a way that makes the pharmacrops take notice. It's not that the US is "the primary market", it's that the US customers are getting charged egregiously high prices and aren't negotiating to have them lowered.

They're sold at a reasonable profit in Canada, and significant markup in the US.

It's like the DVD's being sold in the discount bin for $1 wouldn't be there if there weren't people paying $15 for the DVD or $10 to see the movie in theatres. Europe is the $1 dollar bin.

That only makes sense until you understand how marketing and pricing works.

There's a reason those particular products are in the $1 bin. Because they won't sell at full price. It's not comparable to the pharma prices, because Canadians are getting the newest drugs at the lower rates, too. We're not buying the "Ernest Goes to Camp" of drugs.

The actual difference is, Canada's buying at wholesale prices. Americans are paying the retail markup. It's like going in to buy a new car; Canada dickers with the car company to buy a fleet of cars, and gets a price that's about $300 over the cost-to-produce, since we're buying so many it still means hundreds of thousands in profits to the car company. Americans aren't buying in bulk, they're each going in and paying the +50% retail markup on the manufacturer suggested retail price of the vehicle, because they're not trying to negotiate anything, and the pharmacorps don't see any need to drop prices for a sale or two here or there.

[Wells]

No, what Im talking about is everyone paying an equal price instead of some countries being forced to pay more because of other countries refusing to pay the actual cost of an item.

Again, if it wasn't profitable to sell their drugs in Canada they just wouldn't sell them in Canada. Don't talk about markets.

[Cjeska]

22 Pages and the amount of posts who actually contain SOME form of knowledge could fit on just one. No wonder the world seems to get dumber every day, it takes a whole week to disprove the bullshit that some can come up with in just 5 minutes.

[Grummgug]

American speaking here.

Want to shut them up?

Ask them this question, it's one they never seem to have an answer to: If socialism is so bad, why are the countries with the highest standard of living socialist?

"standard of living" is a subjective term. A conservative might make low taxes, less government, and freedom the criteria to judge standard of living. A leftist might favor health care, not because they particularly like health care, but because they can spin the health care ranking to "prove" that countries with the highest stand of living are socialist.

And then it comes down to both sides acting confident in their own subjective measures of standard of living, and both sides attempt to discredit the other sides methodology and criteria, no-one listening to each other, and lies being spewed everywhere. You know, politics.