Obama's latest kickbacks to special interests...

It's the same logic that we Europeans subsidise your low car prices, a statement that's easy to buy into but not necessarily true.
 
No, it isn't. It is not in the interests of private business to turn customers away - this is the problem at the heart of privatised healthcare. Socialised medicine treats patients as a cost - it is in their interest to have as little dealing as possible. Private medicine treats patients as a profit centre, it is in their interest to keep you as long as possible.

I appreciate that you ascribe nothing but evil to privatized inductry and nothing but good to socialized ones, but it's utterly naive.

Privatized medicine has an incentive to keep customers happy, because they can take their money and go give it to someone else. They also have incentive to provide attractive programs and services to customers for the same reason.

Socialized medicine has an incentive to simply not treat people at all because people cannot just take their taxes and pay them to someone else. Sure, there may be additional private programs people can pay for, but in general they cannot escape paying for the public service, so they are forced to accept whatever service they get whenever they get it.

That's why countries like the UK and Norway have vastly longer delays in routine health care services than in the US -- because they don't HAVE to be responsive.

Really? Then point me to the text of the Bills being discussed, because I wasn't aware there was two healthcare fights going on.

To remind you, your statement was the bills were about insurance for those that don't have any. Simply peruse CNN about items under discussion and it's clear that the current bills encompass FAR more than just that issue. For example, limiting the differences in pricing of health coverage based on age extends far beyond those that currently don't have health insurance.


And the cost of R&D - you appear to be word blind, because I already said I live near one of GlaxoSmithKlines biggest R&D campuses. Well, two, and they are a few miles apart in Cheshire, in the UK. (Used to be AstraZeneca.)

Those companies do not have to sell their drugs to the NHS. They willingly sell at a lower price because they want to make money. The cost of the same tteatment in the US is so high because you are being price gouged, not because you are subsidising everyone else.

Wrong again. While European sales are higher than the cost of production (not hard, since just about any medication little to manufacture), they don't cover R&D costs which are borne by the US subsidiaries, and then folded into the profits generated by the US sales.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the US should pay much less. In fact, it makes a good case to tie the US and the Western European markets together on price. However, if US prices simply fall to those of the UK, it would bankrupt every pharma company.

Again, don't fool yourself looking at top line profits; you have to look at the profit margins as a percentage of business. Those percentages are small. It will not be possible to cut profits from the US without bringing up European prices to make up for the shortfall.

Steve
 
I am constantly amazed at the constant bombardment of pills and treatments on US television.
The problem is that the FDA (for whatever reason, probably money) makes no distinction between pharma advertising to professionals and to the general populace.

In '05 pharmaceuticals spent over 4 billion doing direct-to-consumer advertising. They spent another 7 billion advertising to doctors. I'd be amazed if it's not substantially more now.

Why can I get 500 Ibuprofen in the US for about ?5? Because they push it like a commodity. (And US drug costs aren't high - compared to high street UK, they are cheap! When I come back from the States, my luggage rattles with stuff like that. My wife and I stock up on Ibuprofen and it is enough for two years worth!)
It's also one of the drugs that isn't controlled by one manufacturer. Everyone and their mother makes Ibuprofen, which goes a long way towards keeping the cost down. For higher profit drugs, like cancer medication, manufacturers will do things like pay competitors not to produce a similar drug, thus maintaining their monopoly on it.

I appreciate that you ascribe nothing but evil to privatized inductry and nothing but good to socialized ones, but it's utterly naive.
The attitude that the great invisible hand will guide these benevolent companies to look out for the interests of the consumer is seriously naive and unrealistic. Companies (especially those that large) look out for themselves. They look out for their quarterly numbers and their stock prices. Occasionally those interests will fall in line with the consumers.

Remember that private health insurers have no problem dropping customers because they're costing them too much money. Or that over 60% of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills. They don't give a damn about us. Plissken is right, a government administered system is superior in this respect. You keep the people healthy and they cost you less money over time. There is more than enough proof of that. Seems like we've had this discussion before.

It will not be possible to cut profits from the US without bringing up European prices to make up for the shortfall.
Source?
 
Last edited:
I appreciate that you ascribe nothing but evil to privatized inductry and nothing but good to socialized ones, but it's utterly naive.

Good job I never said that then, isn't it?

Privatized medicine has an incentive to keep customers happy, because they can take their money and go give it to someone else. They also have incentive to provide attractive programs and services to customers for the same reason.

We are talking about being ill, not going to a restaurant. One doesn't choose to break a leg or develop a cancer. "You know what I fancy today? Appendicitis!"

To remind you, your statement was the bills were about insurance for those that don't have any. Simply peruse CNN about items under discussion and it's clear that the current bills encompass FAR more than just that issue. For example, limiting the differences in pricing of health coverage based on age extends far beyond those that currently don't have health insurance.

I got taught something at school. It boils down to "if I say something, I have to back it up". You may have noticed I do it a lot here. So, when you say something, it is not up to me to go and find the evidence to support what you are saying.


Wrong again. While European sales are higher than the cost of production (not hard, since just about any medication little to manufacture), they don't cover R&D costs which are borne by the US subsidiaries, and then folded into the profits generated by the US sales.

Oh, FFS. I've mentioned them twice. Here, have a look on Google Maps.

I can't wait to see your head explode when you find out where GlaxoSmithKline are actually based...

However, if US prices simply fall to those of the UK, it would bankrupt every pharma company.

[...]

Again, don't fool yourself looking at top line profits; you have to look at the profit margins as a percentage of business. Those percentages are small. It will not be possible to cut profits from the US without bringing up European prices to make up for the shortfall.

GlaxoSmithKline have managed to increase profits from ?5.7bn in 2004 to ?8.25bn in 2009. Pfizer made $8.1bn (which, by the way, is after they paid almost $3bn to the US Department of Justice.

Oh, and Pfizers total R&D spend was $8bn, against revenues of $48bn.

Somehow, I don't think they're heading to the poorhouse.

Even with these numbers, the socialised systems, the ones that are apparently inherently wasteful, inefficient and don't care about overspending taxpayers money can get a better deal than the nimble, efficient, private system in the US.

And you still persist in saying that the cost of drugs in the US subsidises the cheap drugs in the EU.
 
The attitude that the great invisible hand will guide these benevolent companies to look out for the interests of the consumer is seriously naive and unrealistic. Companies (especially those that large) look out for themselves. They look out for their quarterly numbers and their stock prices. Occasionally those interests will fall in line with the consumers.

Remember that private health insurers have no problem dropping customers because they're costing them too much money. Or that over 60% of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills. They don't give a damn about us. Plissken is right, a government administered system is superior in this respect. You keep the people healthy and they cost you less money over time. There is more than enough proof of that. Seems like we've had this discussion before.
That's very true. +1

In a welfare state it's particularly in the interest of the state to keep it's population healthy. In Norway for instance, the state pays your salary the first three days you're not at work when you're sick. Imagine how expensive it would be if a lot of people got sick. Generally it's very good social economics to keep people healthy, as that puts a smaller strain on the healthcare system as well as it's better, and cheaper, for all employers to have their employees at work and not on sick leave. Another great thing with our healthcare system is that there is no bottom line, stock prices or investors to worry about; they don't have to make money.

Additionally there are several laws regulating the healthcare system; And if a breach is exposed by someone it does generate a lot of attention in the media and instigates an investigation by the authorities and a shit-ton of criticism from the parties in opposition, usually representatives from the Progress Party in particular.
 
Top