Why has there been such antagonism to the idea of Universal Healthcare here?

[Torie]

Universal health care would be considerably superior to the cf that Congress passed, but subsidized means tested insurance premiums for insurance containing a certain basket of coverage, is to me, the superior option. I don't think it is really a close case actually. Which is probably why we will never get there.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had to smile at this characterization of anvikshiki, because arguably he is most thoughtful and analytical poster on this site. His erudition just emanates like the rays of the sun in almost every carefully crafted sentence that he writes. It might be better to actually  think about what he writes, and engage him on his terms. You might learn something, even if in the end you disagree with him on some points. JMO.

[Torie]

Assuming we are not going to artificially truncate drug company profits through price controls, which would of course cannibalize the system and truncate research, the fix on the research side is for drug companies by law to be required to charge US consumers, what they charge monopsonistic government buyers in Europe and Japan, adjusted for the cost efficiencies of volume sales. If we do that, then the prices of drugs will tend to go up in monopsonistic buyer countries, and down in the US, and the US with this fix alone will cease effectively financing most of the drug research for the planet. It is all about price baby, and when you have monopsonistic buyers, the market is flawed, and needs regulation. This is just basic micro-economics. It is just amazing to me that there has not been more chatter about this fix.

I mean, I am clearly not a genius. Why can't others see what I so clearly see?