If there are no shortages of presciption drugs with that price cap, then obviously the price cap must be above the market price level. If the price were to suddenly rise above the price cap, there would be shortages.
Actually, it is subsidised by the National Health Service to keep the cost to the user low.
If that is true about public research, than the drug companies are receiving corporate welfare at the expense of the rest of the population! I would think that you'd be opposed to something like that, but I guess not. Also, you neglected to mention my plan for abolition of the FDA, so I assume you have no problem with that?
I don’t agree with you. I will admit to not knowing much about the FDA but I believe it regulates food and drug standards? In which case I think it plays an important role in society; for instance in ensuring that information on food packaging provides the necessary nutritional information and is accurate. I would imagine there are problems with the system, but I don’t think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater; I’d prefer to see any kinks in the system ironed out rather than the entire thing being abolished. I’ll comment on research with your next point.
Again, why should the taxpayers paid for research? Suppose the drug companies did the transaction directly without government and pointed a gun at your head demanding $175 million for their research. That is essentially what they are doing. Also, if those scientists weren't working for the federal government, which they are likely doing because a government is less likely to go out of business in the near future than a drug company, than all those researchers would be working for private companies. Thus, free market health care would have all the research that the current system provides, plus it will be cheaper for the consumer and the taxpayer.
I think it is important that government helps to fund research because if it didn’t then that research probably would not take place. Therefore, I think it is in the long-term interest of taxpayers to fund research. However, this is something that will not be factored into the short term decisions made by consumers and so I believe it is important that government take a more long-term perspective and use tax funds to subsidise medical research. In the end it will benefit those who contract diseases for which their research has found a cure both within their own nation and around the world. However, I would prefer that government-based research resulted in a government share in the patent as I believe that would be incredibly useful in helping developing countries where problems such as AIDS are widespread.
The second part of your point here is nonsensical and is clearly out of tune with the current state of the industry. You claim that if there was no government and no patents then suddenly the drug companies would invest more money in research and make bigger breakthroughs and thus ‘have all the research that the current system provides’. If you are so fond of making points that are ‘basic economics’ how is it that you fail to understand the problem with this? Firstly, drug companies already invest little in high-risk research – which the government picks up the slack on – and you are suggesting that eliminating their ability to make a profit from a drug they have researched will make them
more likely to research. Surely you seen the inherent flaw in that? The total abolition of patents eliminates any incentive for a drug company – which is driven by profit – to invest in research and development because they will not reap the rewards of that research. Thus your claim that there will be cheaper and better research under the system you propose clearly does not follow from your initial proposal.
Would you rather there be no doctors treating the poor? Actually, the more qualified doctors would be able to charge more than their competitors, but less overall, since they have more competition. If you don't like your doctor, you can simply go to a less-qualified doctor for a cheaper price.
Again, your point is out of tune with the evidence I have provided you with. Firstly, under the system I support you do have doctors treating the poor and they receive higher quality treatment than they would under your system. Further to that, your claim that the costs would be less overall goes against the evidence I provided you with that demonstrates that treatment in the UK is cheaper than in the USA which has a system that is more equivalent to what you wish for.
The research you have shown about the UK is suspect at best, given the socialist lean of most professors. Also, I could take that 'society' argument and twist it to mean anything I want. "As individuals, we are part of a society, and that collective aspect is important to look at when discussing universal automobile care. Everyone should have the same access to the cars of their choosing and be free to get them repaired whenever they want, at no cost." You see, the socialist argument just sounds ridiculous when you try to apply it to something else.
Why is it ‘suspect at best’? Because it doesn’t conform to your preconceptions? I have provided you with research conducted by any number of eminent experts within the profession – both at academic institutions and within groups such as the WHO and the BMA – and you have simply suggested their politics is blinding them without providing any evidence that supports your claim. Further to that, you expect the rest of us to swallow the arguments of figures like Pat Buchanan whose researches are ‘suspect at best’ and not backed up by strong evidence.
On your twisting of my argument. As I have repeatedly stated, I do not believe that my points are applicable to each and every industry. In fact, I have repeatedly made the point that I believe in certain rights – hence my point on the provision of universal healthcare was made with reference to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights – and that things like owning a Ferrari are not within the scope of those rights. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you need to look at these issues on a case-by-case basis; blanket applications of a specific principle are seldom advisable. Your tactic of taking my specific beliefs and applying them to circumstances I would never dream of is hardly an engaging technique of debate.
It is their responsibility to get health care, not yours or mine. I have no more responsibility to pay for your helath care than you do to pay for my laptop.
That is where we disagree fundamentally; I believe that government should act as an enabler to rights to education and healthcare.
Why do you think that Cuba is an impoverished country? Also, how was the Soviet Union's socialist health care system, or Maoist China's socialist health care system?
As I have repeatedly stated, I do not believe that the government should organise the entire economy. Further to that, I would imagine the US total embargo on Cuba does little to benefit its economy. Incidentally – and you can look this up if you wish to – the Cuban system has a better ratio of doctors to patients than the US and there is also a thriving economy of ‘health tourists’ who go to Cuba to enjoy the benefits of its healthcare – I believe it is around 20,000 people annually.
As to the Soviet and Chinese systems, I am not particularly knowledgeable about either but as I have said I am not an advocate of a completely government run economy and hence I prefer a system such as the UK’s. Equally, most – if not all – European countries have publicly sponsored and regulated healthcare systems. All the evidence I have provided you with suggests that these systems provide both cheaper and higher quality care than the US’ system which is more akin to that which you propose.
