I really don't feel like getting in a huge discussion about this, because honestly this doesn't really interest me. But I will say this...

I think maybe you're looking at it too simplistically or maybe I wasn't expressing myself accurately. You assert that the world shares the cost of research and development, and I have to ask you whether that's really a logical deduction. Surely, you don't believe that each country shares an equal burden. That is, each country pays equivalent amounts toward research and development of pharaceuticals. Thus, the US pays a preponderant amount of the cost, which is passed onto the consumer. And maybe you're right, economics has never been my forte. But isn't it true when companies are taxed or regulated to the extent that production costs are increased it's passed onto the consumer? So an increase of production cost (unequal distribution of research monies) in disfavor of the US means more cost is passed on to the US consumer?

Also, lemme add one thing. Most countries who's economies are not robust as the US' would not be able to afford pharamceuticals if sold at US prices. So isn't it thereby necessary to sell pharaceuticals to those countries at a reduced cost in order to break into those markets in the first place? I mean you say that they fund our research and development equally, but all I said (or meant to say) is that it's not neccearily as equitable as it may appear.

Finally, you say that what makes US healthcare so expensive is the appetite for pharaceuticals?!? (ie they spend more money on them). I'm confused, isn't that what I was saying in the first place. Or is the addition of 'appetite' somehow supposed to change the foundation of the discussion?

Look all I'm saying is the US bears the burden on research and development despite whatever economic trickery you'd like to impose. Granted there may be some other countries, a few other countries, which also are imposed with the burden, but nonetheless we do see that cost in high prices of pharmaceuticals sold domestically. Seriously, you can't argue with facts. Drugs sold locally for $200 a month are sold in Mexico for $20 (and I have personal experience to vouche for this). Anyway you wanna frame the argument, higher prices for pharaceuticals mean higher prices for healthcare, because pharmaceuticals and healthcare are inexonerably linked (ie you needs drugs to provide healthcare).

Okay, let's try this.

Drug companies spend R&D$ in hopes of meeting a market need. They budget forward-looking R&D spend as a percentage of what revenues (sales) they anticipate over a 12 month period for their existing product line. On average, the top 5 US and the top 5 Euro (Swiss, UK France) companies spend around 18% of their revenues on R&D. So, regardless of geographic location, the top ten pharma companies spend an equally proportionate share of their revenues on R&D. Coincidentally, the gross expenditure for the top 5 US and top 5 Euro pharma companies is nearly identical.

These same 10 companies earn on average about 55% of their sales revenue from the US, and 45% from the rest of the world.

• Said differently, the 300 million people in the US spend 22% more on pharma products from these 10 companies than does the rest of the world combined.


• Yes, the US with 5% of the world's population spends $158BB with these 10 companies, while the remaining 95% of the world spends $129BB.


• At a granular level, the US spends on average $527 per person with these 10 companies while the rest of the world spends on average $22 per person.

So, on one level emotedcreations your assertion that the US healthcare system funds pharma R&D is somewhat correct. That is to say that, the US medical system prescribes far more pharma products than do other countries. So, as Americans, we spend a lot on pharma products, while Canadians, or the Germans, or whomever, spends less, and those pharma companies, budget a percentage of that sales revenue for R&D. However, that is not the same as saying that the US healthcare system or Americans bear the brunt of pharma R&D or that other countries benefit because the US healthcare system funds R&D.

I hope this is clearer. I was not trying to be argumentative. It may simply be that things, which are quite obvious and clear to me, may not be as clear to others.

Yeah, I'm going to go with the things that are clear to you aren't that clear to me. Seriously, you lost me at 'hopes of meeting market need', whatever the fuck that is. I suppose that's why I studied archaeology and not economics. So I've gotta concede I'm way outta my league here. Congrats, but I'm only giving you this 'cause you're on my friends list.

Imagine how bad people would look, if the government gave free haircuts....

The National Health Service in the U.K. is shit.

When my father had a stroke he was kept in a ward that was like something from the Crimean War.

When he got cancer he had to wait ages for test results, the doctor just blurted out that he was going to die and that there was stuff all he could do because they wouldn't do an operation. The chemotherapy was a "one size fits all" drug. It failed miserably.

If he had private medicine, his insurance would have paid for a skilled surgeon to operate on him. it would have paid for suitable drugs that could, at least have prolonged his life.

This "free healthcare" costs a fortune. There are shortages of beds, you have to wait ages for operations, the wards are crowded and filthy with MRSA viruses. I'll bet that even the illegal immigrants that flood to the country for "free" treatment are disappointed.

The federal government should not get into the universal health care business, the state governments however could do the job of allocating the resources for something like this alot better. If Health care was done federally there is an excellent chance that the states who have the best senators when it comes to getting pork would get more of a share of the money than say states who actually need it. In addition 50 states coming up with plans have a much better chance of coming up with something that works that can be adopted by the other states.

Whereas here, if your father had cancer and was uninsured and too young for Medicare , he would rapidly lose his life savings and house to pay his medical bills, then be forced to declare bankruptcy and become a ward of the state, to be hounded by bill collectors until his end of days.

What an improvement!

Do you have anything to back up your opinions or are you just pulling things out of your ass again?

Sort of like an experiment with real people; very altruistic of you.
I can imagine what the nation's infrastructure would look like had we allowed individual states to experiment with a highway system, militia, electrical power, etc.

I'm not sure where you live in the UK upAlbion, but my experience with the UK healthcare system is very different than the image you conjur.

Here's some food for thought:


The uninsured get soaked for insanely expensive serivces and drugs that insurance companies negotiate greatly reduced fees for.

My friend was mugged and pistol whipped several years ago, breaking his jaw. He had insurance. The hospital billed his insurance company $31,300 for the operation to set and wire his jaw, the ER time, the ambulance ride, and two nights' stay.

The insurance company paid the hospital $7,100 under the negotiated contract... and that was it. My friend paid his $500 deductible. End of story. If he was uninsured, he would have been on the hook for the whole $31,300... which would have wiped out his life savings and then some, ruined his credit, and probably impeded his ability to buy a house a year later.

The uninsured (who are uninsured often because they can't afford the insurance) cannot pay for those things in part because they are billed so much more for them, and are often forced into bankruptcy after losing homes and life savings due to unrelenting bill collectors going after them for medical expenses.

This is a broken system.

An friend of mine was uninsured when she got hit by a car while riding her bicycle. Not her fault, and the driver was uninsured and judgement proof, since he had no money and owned no property.

She went to the ER and her ankle was pinned back together where it was shattered. She was out of work for several weeks, uncompensated. That, combined with the huge medical bills depleted her savings and she only averted bankruptcy by working insane hours for the next several years, while fighting off the bill collectors and paying what she could for the next six years.

This is a broken system.

People get mugged, accidents happen, and no one should face losing everything to pay for medical care if they are victim of an accident. There is no safety net.

Yes it's an opinion, Lose the holier than thou attitude.

Tho you seem to be ignoring how poorly the federal government tends to run things. I mean Social security, Medicare, Tax collection, Immigration. Yes I definately want to trust my life to bean counters in another state and or have my system of health care being governed by assholes half way across the country who have the political clout to syphon money away from my state and give it to themselves. I never said we should not have healthcare, i just don't thing th eFederal government can do the job as well as the state governments who are more directly beholden to the people living in their states are.

Using taxs as an example of what I am afraid of from a federal healthcare plan

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

As you can see the allocation of resources can be chosen by something as stupid as political affiliation. Don't fool yourself into thinking that any health decisions will be made based on whats best for people, they will be made based on graft, pork, and peoples personal beliefs on whats best for us.

How can you be judgement proof, he should have had the burden of paying put onto him. If he can't pay now he will be able to at some point. She needed a better lawyer.

So apparently Georgia is run better than the country as a whole. Interesting. I never would have expected that.

Here is some more to think about. The new bankruptcy law, passed by the Do nothing 109th Congress, makes no allowance for bankruptcy caused by catastrophic illness. So that now, if you become ill - insurance or no - and get wiped out financially (and with the current structure of two income families there is now no "reserve worker" who can enter the labor force if the primary breadwinner is incapacitated) those debts cannot be discharged, Which means that even the relatively well off middle class familty can end up in the street after a couple of years following a catastrophic illness.

The system has gone beyond broken - it is malicious.
An friend of mine was uninsured when she got hit by a car while riding her bicycle. Not her fault, and the driver was uninsured and judgement proof, since he had no money and owned no property.

She went to the ER and her ankle was pinned back together where it was shattered. She was out of work for several weeks, uncompensated. That, combined with the huge medical bills depleted her savings and she only averted bankruptcy by working insane hours for the next several years, while fighting off the bill collectors and paying what she could for the next six years.

This is a broken system.

People get mugged, accidents happen, and no one should face losing everything to pay for medical care if they are victim of an accident. There is no safety net.

Wait a minute. The current insurance system is notorious for "bean counters in another state" making medical decisions without regard for patient welfare.

I don't see how having states administer such a thing would be any different, except that the bean counters would be in the same state. They're still bean counters, not doctors. Locality has little to do with it.

The only difference I see with universal health care is that we could at least have a crappy health care system that was available to everyone. Being healthy should not be a privilege.