But it’s not inherently part of the universal single payor versus private insurer healthcare issue, and in that sense it’s another story.
The free market is efficient at giving people what they want. It’s not efficient at measurably improving their health. Those are not the same, as a practical matter.
From Wikipedia about 33% of people have gov’t insurance, and about 10% buy private insurance but not through their employer (55% employer ins. vs 65% all private insurance) So, perhaps 45% of people may have either gov’t insurance or private insurance subsidized by the gov’t.
It’s not a different story when this is why you claim that we can’t do universal health care in America the way they do in other countries because the R+D we provide for the rest of the world means we can’t afford it. You can’t simultaneously say something is irrelevant right after you used that same thing as the reason we are incapable of what other countries are doing right now.
As much as I usually agree with Bricker, I, too, would like to hear your reasons that do not rule out compassion.
US medical research is in the $50 billion per year range. Our total healthcare spending is $2.7 trillion. Maybe you should discuss the many other things.
1000x this.
So, in essence, you’re arguing that the US can’t do the kinds of things to enact a UHC system because it’s incumbent upon us to subsidize the cheaper, better, & universal systems of other countries.
Fuck that shit.
How would suggest the government crack down on private business selling their product in different countries that wouldn’t be either counteracted by business practice or exert large scale price controls in the US?
I’m interested - do you have a cite for this? Do these figures include pharma spending or are they focused on medical procedures?
This seems logically confused - it works exactly backwards.
What I said was that switching to universal healthcare coverage would not solve this problem without sacrificing something else. Conversely, I suggested that perhaps the problem could be solved without switching to universal healthcare coverage. Therefore, this issue is “another story” in the specific context of whether we can switch to universal healthcare coverage without sacrifice.
Here you go. See page 6 - about halfway down you’ll see the subhead “research” under the main heading “investment”. It includes drug and equipment/supply research.
I don’t expect the reasons to sway you on the merits. But I expect the existence of alternate reasons to show that a failure to support free health care does not definitively imply a complete absence of compassion for those that need it.
One example is evident from my post:
Greater harms may result. By sending false signals to the health care marketplace, we may create shortages in health care labor. Planned economies have historically seen these kinds of cycles occur.
Another example reason:
A person may have compassion for those in need of health care but believe the cost is too high, or believe that it’s morally wrong to require others to pay. Such a person might readily give of his own resources but quail at the prospect of requiring others to give, believing that giving is an act of grace only when it comes as an unforced impulse.
When you reply to this post, do not try to shift the argument away from the point I am making: that it is possible to feel compassion and still hold these views. Do not, as I suspect you yearn to, begin to argue the relative merits of these views. All i am saying is that it’s possible to feel compassion for those who need health care and still desire to balance the costs of that care against other costs.
That’s interesting, thanks! I don’t think it is saying exactly what you think though. From that same page on that line item there is a footnote that reads:
They say that the R&D is implied to be included, but R&D costs can be spread to other lines of business by having a profitable product line subsidize another. I don’t think it’s fair to say that R&D is approximately $50B of the $2.7T. The cite specifically says that’s not the case.
Page 7 is also interesting - total projected spending in future years is very similar with and without the impacts of the ACA (Page 6 compared to Page 7).
Why can’t it be large scale price controls? They seem to work a treat in other countries. You know, the countries who have US subsidized health care.
It is my government’s job to protect my interests from the activities of other countries. If other countries restrict their prices and put risk on health care availability in the US, my government needs to talk to THEM, not just tell me to pay twice as much.
Protecting the country isn’t just about bombing a bunch of brown people in the desert, maybe it’s also about calling the UK, Germany, France and telling them that the gravy train is over. They need to pick up their fair share of the cost so that US Citizens aren’t solely responsible for funding medical research.
Are you going to levy taxes on other countries? If France or another country says we will only pay X dollars for Y product and a private company is willing to sell that product at that price, how do you see the US government being able to intercede? Specifically. Does that involve prohibiting that company from selling that product?
Balancing the costs of care is not unreasonable, but the merits of the arguments are relevant because it tells you about the weights used to make the decision.
Let’s say you’re walking and meet someone who is severely dehydrated, suffering and miserable. You have a bottle of water with you, but you do not share it, the cost is “too high”. The reasoning you used to deny sharing the bottle says a lot about whether or not you are compassionate.
If you’re in the desert, and you need that bottle to get yourself to safety, you may be terribly compassionate, but simply cannot justify the risk to yourself. If you’re in the city and don’t want to pay $1 for another bottle, you don’t get to play the “I’m overflowing with compassion for your plight” card, you’re simply not compassionate.
So, you don’t want to pay more, I’m OK with that. There are dozens of countries providing UHC and paying less than we pay today. Let’s find a way to do what they do.
Do YOU, in fact, have compassion for those in need of health care but believe the cost is too high? Or do YOU believe that it’s morally wrong to require other to pay?
I have no idea what in the world you’re talking about, to the point where I suspect that you meant to reply to someone else’s post and quoted mine by mistake.
If not, then please clarify (might help to reread my post first).
How about if you outlaw any company from selling any medical device or drug in the US at a higher price than in any other country. At that point companies can sell things at the same price they sell it elsewhere or not sell it altogether. I imagine 100% of companies will choose Option A.
I was not replying to you. I was replying to Cheesesteak and using your post’s words as part of an example to answer his question.
Correct, and another good illustration.
Why just drug or medical device? How about any product? Let’s severely restrict companies’ ability to price their products depending on local market. Why should Shell Oil sell gasoline for $3/gallon in CA and $2/gallon in Texas? Let’s force them to sell it for $3/gallon everywhere.
Sure. There are plenty of ways we should be looking at lowering the costs we incur, and I’m strongly in favor of finding them. But I do not believe that the current approach is a wise one, and yet this belief does not show that I lack compassion.
I do believe that it’s generally wrong to require others to pay, yes. And I believe that the costs incurred by adopting and normalizing a system in which it’s accepted that the group must care for the group will have terrible costs which outweigh the benefits of “free” health care.