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.