|
On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal.
So ... the US healthcare system is subsidizing the health sistems of the rest of the world? And this is because the rest of the world doesn't properly respect US patents?
Care to link where you got this from? It sounds awfully absurd, especially considering that the biggest markets for US pharmaceutical companies are, aside from the US market, markets in other developed countries, countries tend to respect international treaties on intelectual properties.
I don't know if the US patent system allows for longer-lasting patents than what is internationally accepted in treaties and conventions, but I would also think it unlikely given the US influence in negotiations of this kind. Still, if it truly does, then it's the US's own fault for not adhering to international standards.
|
If I lived in the US, I'd be constantly terrified that one random sickness could wipe out my life savings.
|
On February 23 2013 15:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:50 Plexa wrote:On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. I normally stay out of these threads but you are seriously deluded if you truly believe this. If you have a serious illness and you cut insurance out of the picture then you're essentially condemning most of them to death. Many diseases have no cures and only things which treat the symptoms and hence are required to take life long meds. Once the money runs out to support that, the disease takes over and people die. The vast majority of people with serious illness take things pretty damn seriously, its quite insulting to suggest otherwise. I didn't say they didn't take things seriously. I'm using it as an analogy. The medical industry is seriously flawed, and as such any fix is likely to be just as serious. I believe insurance is the problem. I respect anyone else's position as well, and I don't expect people to think I believe my way is the only way. But every solution will have serious side effects, simply due to its scale. There is no perfect solution that will completely fix the situation with no difficulties.
I think people here are trying to tell you it's not a way at all. It wont fix anything, it will just make people, quite literally, die.
Oh, and universal healthcare has no real drawbacks. Might try that.
|
America better stay away from our costly socialist universal healtcare that is making europe collapse. Stay free forever.
|
United States24574 Posts
On February 24 2013 00:16 Vivax wrote:
May I ask what the average doctor earns in the U.S ? Reading the sums for treatments and little diagnostic measures I'd imagine it to be a lot.
Much of the money spent on medical care does not go to the doctor (facilities/equipment/medicine, malpractice insurance, etc) but doctors of course do well overall. I'm sure you can look up averages for different types of doctors (and this will vary quite a bit).
On February 24 2013 01:03 ThaZenith wrote:
If I lived in the US, I'd be constantly terrified that one random sickness could wipe out my life savings.
If you have decent health insurance, you most likely don't have to worry about this (as long as you spend a few minutes familiarizing yourself with the policy). If you don't have decent health insurance, it could be more of a problem.
|
Liberty white slips the alamo band aid las vegas christmas rodeo bed bath and beyond 300000 because I broke my arm gg USA.
Hey, you have cancer that will be 300000000000000, paper or plastic? Shall I wrap it for you? Do you have our customer service card ? Tons of extra's you know. Does it come with a smile? Have you heard about our latest offer? If you die within eight months, these pills are for free. You heard it right folks, motherfuking FREE. DISCOUNT DISCOUNT DISCOUNT.
Dont you love capitalism?
Who would have thought shit is expensive in a country where corruption has been legalized???????????
User was warned for this post
|
On February 24 2013 00:17 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal. So ... the US healthcare system is subsidizing the health sistems of the rest of the world? And this is because the rest of the world doesn't properly respect US patents? Care to link where you got this from? It sounds awfully absurd, especially considering that the biggest markets for US pharmaceutical companies are, aside from the US market, markets in other developed countries, countries tend to respect international treaties on intelectual properties. I don't know if the US patent system allows for longer-lasting patents than what is internationally accepted in treaties and conventions, but I would also think it unlikely given the US influence in negotiations of this kind. Still, if it truly does, then it's the US's own fault for not adhering to international standards.
It isn't my topic of research and the professor who had the full argument is on leave, but here's a few things I could scrounge together on this. Basically, it's not the whole issue, but there is truth to the claim. Prescription drug companies overcharge US customers to account for the fact that other countries have price controls. This way they can keep funding R&D. This does not account for the entirety of the difference in the costs, but it does give a sense as to why prescription drugs have such a large cost difference.
Quick Overview: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/node/4199
A Little Detailed: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048158
Some More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0
http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf
The professor also had a lot of other things to say... I can't find my notes on that though. Something about patents for vaccines and countries without firm rule of law. That's where the whole patent dispute comes in. It was quite awhile ago (3 years?). This should be enough to put you on track towards the right research in journals though.
Again, this doesn't account for everything (why are doctors here payed so much more? Why are CT scans so much more?) but it does tell you about one of the factors involved.
|
that america has the worst health care in world only comparing to african countrys is well known so ... perhaps they should make it more human
|
On February 24 2013 01:18 Gheizen64 wrote:
America better stay away from our costly socialist universal healtcare that is making europe collapse. Stay free forever.
No collapse here in Canada. Universal healthcare is awesome. You guys should work on paying your taxes, its amazing what the government can do with the money they are owed :D
+ Show Spoiler +
edit: wish you americans could enjoy it. but theres a cost to it. I dont even know if establishing a universal healtchare system for 350 million ppl in 2013 is possible in terms of $ available to the government...
|
United States24574 Posts
On February 24 2013 01:41 CoR wrote:
that america has the worst health care in world only comparing to african countrys is well known so ... perhaps they should make it more human
Source? How are you defining worst? The USA, along with several other nations, such as yours I believe, have world class doctors, facilities, and medication. Maybe you think the health care system is terrible, comparable to African Countries (why you are picking on them specifically I don't know) but that is different than what you said; in either case I'm not sure what your goal was here; why enter a thread discussing why a system has problems to say it has problems?
|
On February 23 2013 14:02 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Your solution is to get rid of insurance? Really?
its what the rest of the civilized world did. Well, in the UK we have the option to get private health insurance but its very cheap and covers EVERYTHING. If you don't want or can't afford that, you pay a small tax (its very small, about £5 per week for most people) and get all your medical treatment, save foir paying £7 for a prescription and paying £50 for dental works.
|
The issue is due to excessive regulation caused by regulators getting into the same bed with the medical and pharmaceutical companies. You would think regulation is a good thing - but in reality, it keeps out competition and allows the existing companies to charge astronomical prices.
It's little wonder that the USA spends the most of healthcare (as a % of GDP, it spends 17.6% and the next highest is 12%) but is falling behind other countries in health measurements (e.g. 40th (!) in life expectancy). If you live in Cuba, your life expectancy is higher than the average American. If I remembered correctly, USA was like 6th in the 60s.
|
which is why profitable healthcare is insanity.
|
CA10824 Posts
On February 24 2013 00:16 Vivax wrote:
May I ask what the average doctor earns in the U.S ? Reading the sums for treatments and little diagnostic measures I'd imagine it to be a lot.
trust me, physician compensation is not the real issue in the healthcare $$ debate, although politicians would like you to think so.
|
On February 23 2013 14:00 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Not completely. I went to the hospital in November due to a massive pain in my lower left abdomen that prevented me from doing anything, including getting up out of bed. What was it? They have no fucking idea. Bill? about 5 grand. For what? A ct scan. One ct scan is 5 grand? Insurance is only paying half of it. My brother went recently and has a 1400 dollar bill. Until they send a debt collector I'm not paying that shit. I understand they're trying to make money and a lot of other people haven't paid but that doesn't give you the right to completely rip off people.
5k O.o what? thats like 15k in my currency lol. there must be something really wrong going on there.
|
If you have the highest medical spending in the world by such a very long way, you would think the US would have by far the best healthcare on the planet. This isn't the case. Surely that's enough reason to fix the broken system?
|
On February 24 2013 01:41 CoR wrote:
that america has the worst health care in world only comparing to african countrys is well known so ... perhaps they should make it more human
Depends on how you look at it.
The US has the best health care in the world if you just look at quality (disregarding cost and availability).
The US has the worst health care in the world if consider the cost in relation to treatment given.
Sorry, no source, information is from a lecture I attended recently.
|
On February 23 2013 14:36 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:28 Scarecrow wrote:
So what's different about the US system compared to other western countries? The prices just seem ridiculous. Just about every other country has health care prices controlled by the government. And yes our prices are insane. Infographic
@@ Just wow
I for 1 was really confused by the "non-profit hospitals are making big bucks" part
If your healthcare costs double that of switzerland you have a serious fucking problem.... @@
Shit is so dam expensive there
|
Good lord, always thought the doctors are the fat cats just like I thought singers and actors are the greedy ones. Nope, it's the companies that they work for. That rustles my jimmies; I don't even know who these people are that I should really be angry at.
|
It's funny how so many people think American healthcare fails due to this thing called "Capitalism".
Capitalism = Private gains, Private losses. A system where one has the right to one's property, including profits and time.
Often, the government feels that the free market fails in certain markets, thus the government is starts manipulating the market This is done in various ways. 1. Rules and regulations. 2. Producing a good or service. 3. Paying someone else to produce the good or service.
When the government manipulates the market, the intentions are pure, the aim is to help people who cannot afford the good or service gain access to it. However, because the government is allowed to manipulate the market, this leads to huge firms in the market lobbying. What exactly does this mean? Huge firms send people to the convince congressmen to create policies that benefit the firm. Such as creating rules and regulations which benefit the firm, the government paying the firm to produce more of a certain good. The government subsidizing the consumers of the particular good, such that more people would be able to afford it. Congressmen who would not betray their country for a million dollars are doing it for a weekend trip to Hawaii. This is where the term crony capitalism comes from. It has nothing to do with capitalism, it is only possible with huge government that has the power to manipulate markets.
For example, Company A has a pill which treats a certain mental disorder. Company A sends people to congress to lobby for a policy to be implemented. A policy which would make it compulsory for all children between the ages of 10 and 12 to go for a test to see if they have this mental disorder. More people are claimed to have this disorder, company A benefits. Not only that, parents who disagree with the outcome are deemed unfit parents. If many more parents are forced by the government to purchase such medicine for their children due to such a policy, Company A can charge higher prices. Even if the government subsidizes the medicine, it does not change the fact that Company A profits from lobbying. I'm not saying that children who do not have such a mental disorder are claimed by the company to have such a disorder, however one can clearly see how lobbying benefits the company at the expense of taxpayers.
The speaker mentions that Ambulance companies earn more than Hollywood. If that is the case, can't businessmen enter the industry and compete? If there are more ambulance companies around, prices would likely fall by a large margin. If there is competition, prices would definitely fall by a large margin. However, due to policies implemented by the government, there are restrictions for ambulance companies, such that it would be nearly impossible for new ambulance companies to enter the market. Why are there such policies in the first place? Lobbying. Ambulance companies lobby and convince government officials that policies should be created to maintain a certain level of quality of ambulances as lives are at stake.
I believe that a purely capitalistic healthcare system would not work and the poor would be disadvantaged too much. However, blaming this current situation on capitalism is just wrong as there is nothing capitalistic about the American healthcare market. Greed =/= capitalism. Wanting to earn lots of profits =/= capitalism. Lobbying = opposite of capitalism. The American healthcare market = cronyism.
How to solve this situation? The government can start by reducing policies that restrict competition because of "safety reasons".
Edit: Another example: In the last election, Michele Bachmann became a laughing stock by saying how forced vaccinations gave a kid some brain disease or something like that and thus such forced vaccinations should be abolished. Her reasoning might be absurd but such a policy which forces a vaccination of a certain disease whereby all the vaccines are from a certain company is definitely a policy which came from lobbyists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
