1. What good is a hospital, if it heals people effectively? And by the way, poor people can still get treatment here, they go into debt afterwards though. if your response is:
"but then why should they go into debt for simply getting sick?"
then you do not in fact actually care about the health outcome of the individual, rather the overall state of inequality irks you. inequality is caused by many things, but I want a system where each person is a product of what they choose to do with their own lives.
**I do support a safety net for the mentally handicapped, that is an inequality not of risk in life, or of their own fault, rather it is a predisposition. however, i personally would rather see families and/or communities provide this safety net, then the state, then the federal government. that is my order of operation, and i believe too many people jump straight to the end**
2.Healthcare is NOT a "right." Healthcare is a service or a product. you do not have a right to someone else's labor. that is called slavery, or in some cases theft. you do not have a basic human right to do this.
3. I am not making policy decisions based on that. I am saying we shouldn't forcibly remove income from people to pay for someone else's healthcare. however, if some states want to, then they may.
let me frame it this way: "I think it is callous to make policy decisions based on the idea that people should work very hard and then have their money taken away"
you need to approach this from both avenues. my point is not to FORCE poor people into only going to a few states, rather i'm saying if those states want socialized healthcare: let them have it. if poor people want into those states: let them go.
i don't start with the base assumption that this product should be given out by government mandate off of the taxpayer's burden.
4. "The FDA is a joke,"
agreed.
"but I disagree with the idea that every other nation offering socialized medicine is only able to do so because of America's system... Please ponder this for a moment and think about how America-Centric that thought process is (It's not all about you ;) )... There are many reasons they work (with challenges), not the least of those reasons being that we don't have to fund any middle man insurance companies, We aim to optimize efficiency (with challenges), have higher taxes, and we buy medications in bulk."
Given that we are the largest economy on this planet... it's naive NOT to think that we effect world markets.
Given that we make the most significant recent medical advancements.
Given that we are one of the only major countries not to have major price caps on drugs.
so let's go through your list:
"being that we don't have to fund any middle man insurance companies,"
insurance companies take money based off of health risk, and then add on a margin to pay employees.
government collects taxes to redistribute to the populous based off of their health needs, and adds on a margin to pay government workers.
see the similarity? now i'll concede that when GOVERNMENT regulation prevents competition, monopolies can add on a dead weight loss to that profit. BUT, i'll still contend that government's inefficiency given their natural standing as a monopoly requires more manpower and thus more incurred costs.
"We aim to optimize efficiency (with challenges),"
let me laugh for one second before i write this comment... you think the government operates MORE efficiently the businesses that LIVE OR DIE based off of efficiency?
you're canadian. go to a hospital right now with a fake sling and see how long it would take to schedule a surgery to fix a compound fracture. see your efficiency at work.
"have higher taxes"
was this suppose to be an upside? you do understand that with lower taxes, you would have more money to pay for healthcare: and if you didn't need that healthcare at that point in time, then you could invest it and make MUCH more money than simply throwing it at the government hoping they get stuff right.
"and we buy medications in bulk."
FROM COMPANIES THAT MADE NEW DRUGS IN THE USA.
ok... let me walk you through my logic here.
pharmaceutical companies are at number 3 for Forbes on the most profitable businesses, with a 19.9% return, and medical products and equipment industry was right behind it, with a 16.3 percent return
In the U.S., insurers negotiate with hospitals and drug companies on their own - and they pay more as a result. In fact, because of their weak negotiating position they frequently use whatever price Medicare is paying as a baseline and then, because they lack the power to strike a similar deal, add a percentage on top.
in single payer systems i other countries, the gov't sets the price.
in our country: neither the free market NOR the gov't sets the price. this is BAAAAD for costs
so the solution? ask a Trump supporter!
a VERY common response by Trump supporters (if you don't call them nazis, racists, bigots, homophobes right off the back) is that we need to stop giving monopolies to pharmaceutical companies, while at the same time forcing their prices to be high. and who do they blame? Hillary, the woman who accepted millions in campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies #ClintonFoundationFunFacts look at how much money was pulled out after she lost.
If we lower costs enough, then we won't have to restrict people's freedom, and we'll be better off with healthcare costs than countries with smaller, more homogeneous populations.
of course, this only addresses symptoms of problems. it costs up to 2.6 billion dollars to get a new drug onto the market!
http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/tufts_csdd_rd_cost_study_now_published
clearly we need to address the fact that this is not just inflation driven, and regulations are making these investments expensive.
most pharma-companies are massive internationals and patent laws on drugs don’t apply overseas, PLUS they get smaller profits due to lower prices as set by foreign governments.
The USA with a 20% return is why investing in pharmaceuticals is so lucrative. but imagine if the USA also capped prices, and your 1.2 billion dollar investment (out of pocket cost) only yields 2% return instead of 20%? who is taking that risk???
nobody smart: i.e. the gov’t. the gov’t MUST subsidize, and eventually, nationalize. this is because of massive overregulation.
it used to be “buyer beware” but now it’s “we’re from the gov’t and we’re here to help” (Reagan rolling over in his grave).
Of course this wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for bankruptcy loopholes and the like to get out of lawsuits. I propose two markets, and FDA regulated, and a completely unregulated, free, buyer beware market. now you can still sue if a family member dies, and they can’t weasel out of money (we’ll have to change some statutes) but this way, drugs get put out on the market quickly and cheaply.
furthermore (i like that word a lot) nationalization stops competition, which will stifle creativity in drug creation.
with these 2 markets, i think we’ll very quickly see which one starts succeeding: turns out “freedom” is a pretty good thing. who knew?
essentially, chalking all this up to being "America-centric" is bullshit. if these companies didn't make profits off of us, 2.6 billion dollars in risk is insane. government has to subsidize... and you know the rest. but medical innovation is flourishing in the USA. we are supporting the western world.
this IS america-centric
A Series of Unfortunate Events
)
)
)
)
)