10 nation healthcare poll

[elvis]

Government monopoly i.e. patents, preferential laws, tort insurance, too many tests, etc.

The other thing the proponents of reform argue is that excess profits occur because of structural issues. If they are correct, at P1, the area of the triangle between P1, the supply and demand curves and P2 is excess profits. These excess profits are captured by the healthcare companies. By forcing prices down to P2, demand increases as prices fall.

If, on the other hand as you say, if the market is at price P2 and there are no excessive costs or profits, if prices are forced to P3, shortages will occur.

Again, I am not necessarily making a particular argument. I am just explaining the economics of what the proponents are arguing.

when you use words like government monopoly, that doesn't sound like capitalism is the issue. It sounds like..... Mussolini's definition of fascism is the issue. ie. "marriage between government and big business".

Heck, they've been married and have great great grandchildren!!!! That's the problem.

So why take drastic action like socializing it? Get government OUT all together.

 

[veritas]

Elvis said:

So why take drastic action like socializing it? Get government OUT all together.

Because insurance already controls the government and the legal system.

see my post here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-hr-3200-government-run-care-sound-off-5.html

 

[Toro]

What's entailed in these costs?

Government monopoly i.e. patents, preferential laws, tort insurance, too many tests, etc.

The other thing the proponents of reform argue is that excess profits occur because of structural issues. If they are correct, at P1, the area of the triangle between P1, the supply and demand curves and P2 is excess profits. These excess profits are captured by the healthcare companies. By forcing prices down to P2, demand increases as prices fall.

If, on the other hand as you say, if the market is at price P2 and there are no excessive costs or profits, if prices are forced to P3, shortages will occur.

Again, I am not necessarily making a particular argument. I am just explaining the economics of what the proponents are arguing.

when you use words like government monopoly, that doesn't sound like capitalism is the issue. It sounds like..... Mussolini's definition of fascism is the issue. ie. "marriage between government and big business".

"Government-conferred monopoly." A patent is a government-conferred monopoly. The government allows that company and only that company to manufacture that product.

That is not fascism. That is done all the time in the western world. The question is whether the economic rents extracted from patents are too high.

 

[elvis]

Government monopoly i.e. patents, preferential laws, tort insurance, too many tests, etc.

The other thing the proponents of reform argue is that excess profits occur because of structural issues. If they are correct, at P1, the area of the triangle between P1, the supply and demand curves and P2 is excess profits. These excess profits are captured by the healthcare companies. By forcing prices down to P2, demand increases as prices fall.

If, on the other hand as you say, if the market is at price P2 and there are no excessive costs or profits, if prices are forced to P3, shortages will occur.

Again, I am not necessarily making a particular argument. I am just explaining the economics of what the proponents are arguing.

when you use words like government monopoly, that doesn't sound like capitalism is the issue. It sounds like..... Mussolini's definition of fascism is the issue. ie. "marriage between government and big business".

"Government-conferred monopoly." A patent is a government-conferred monopoly. The government allows that company and only that company to manufacture that product.

That is not fascism. That is done all the time in the western world. The question is whether the economic rents extracted from patents are too high.

I guess I missed the word "patent". and yeah, I know what a patent is.

 

[veritas]

There are patents and then there are government patents. They are not the same. If a patent is created by someone in the government's employ, the government owns the patent. They can in turn sell that patent to whomever they wish and that someone can make money with it if they can. This is how Ross Perot made his fortune. He bought a software patent and turned around and sold the software back to the government to use.

A regular patent is a license protecting the intellectual idea of an individual or entity to enable exclusive rights and the ability to sue for theft of same to protect the ownership of the patent.

This has nothing to do with government conferred monopolies or fascism.

 

[elvis]

There are patents and then there are government patents. They are not the same. If a patent is created by someone in the government's employ, the government owns the patent. They can in turn sell that patent to whomever they wish and that someone can make money with it if they can. This is how Ross Perot made his fortune. He bought a software patent and turned around and sold the software back to the government to use.

A regular patent is a license protecting the intellectual idea of an individual or entity to enable exclusive rights and the ability to sue for theft of same to protect the ownership of the patent.

This has nothing to do with government conferred monopolies or fascism.

the plot thickens.

 

[auditor0007]

Yeah well, all of those countries are SOCIALIST SHITHOLES Chris. I'm sorry to inform you that, but all of Europe is a shithole compared to great AMERICA.

er.....ok.......I guess your mind's made up then. Ever been to any of them?


Chris: why do all of these studies leave Sweden out?

It was sarcasm veritas.

 

[veritas]

Yeah well, all of those countries are SOCIALIST SHITHOLES Chris. I'm sorry to inform you that, but all of Europe is a shithole compared to great AMERICA.

er.....ok.......I guess your mind's made up then. Ever been to any of them?


Chris: why do all of these studies leave Sweden out?

It was sarcasm veritas.

we went over that a long time ago.....ancient history.

 

[auditor0007]

In all countries that Harris Interactive has surveyed two things appear to be true:

Regardless of what system a country has it falls far short of satisfying public expectations. Most systems always seem to be in a crisis or near crisis.
Governments in all countries are either changing or debating how to change their systems.

The reason for this is because healthcare costs continue rising at a faster rate than the economy. And this is because the cost of new technologies to expand lives and improve our quality of living is soaring.

Until this stops, then we will all be grappling on how to make every system more efficient.

i say its about time the pharma copmanies start charging foriegers the same rate for meds they charge USA residents
why should US Citizens be the only ones funding the research they benefit from

With this I agree 100%, and I've been pushing this for a long time. Unfortunately, there really is only one way to force this to happen, and that is by capping the amounts that these companies can charge here in the US at a rate just slightly above what any other western country pays. Tell the phara companies that if they want to increase what they charge here, they have to do it everywhere. Granted, this could be problematic as some countries might choose to not use a certain drug if the costs are too high. But this is the only way to force other countries to pay more, and thier fair share. We've been subsidizing them for much too long.

 

[DiveCon]

The reason for this is because healthcare costs continue rising at a faster rate than the economy. And this is because the cost of new technologies to expand lives and improve our quality of living is soaring.

Until this stops, then we will all be grappling on how to make every system more efficient.

i say its about time the pharma copmanies start charging foriegers the same rate for meds they charge USA residents
why should US Citizens be the only ones funding the research they benefit from

With this I agree 100%, and I've been pushing this for a long time. Unfortunately, there really is only one way to force this to happen, and that is by capping the amounts that these companies can charge here in the US at a rate just slightly above what any other western country pays. Tell the phara companies that if they want to increase what they charge here, they have to do it everywhere. Granted, this could be problematic as some countries might choose to not use a certain drug if the costs are too high. But this is the only way to force other countries to pay more, and thier fair share. We've been subsidizing them for much too long.

i wouldnt cap it, but make sure they charge the same for the same meds

 

[auditor0007]

OK. I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees that some things must change within our system.

The argument is what needs to be changed, how fast, and how broad a power are we willing to give the government.

The best answer to reducing costs if to just stop treating people who are sick. If the insurance companies don't have to pay out for those who get sick, then everyone who has insurance should get it very cheap.

 

[auditor0007]

i didnt advocate banning foriegn sales
just that they had to be at the same rate they charge Americans
they could export as much as people wanted to buy

My bad.

But again, I do not know how the government would enforce such a pricing policy without violating trade laws.

Plus, it is perfectly rational for the drug companies to charge an amount lower in foreign countries if their fixed costs are paid in the US and they can charge an amount abroad that exceeds variable costs.

how about we dont want to be the only ones paying for the R&D
make the actual cost of the meds the same for everyone
the idea that they can charge US customers more for the same meds is ridiculous

What is even better is the fact that foreign drug companies charge the most to Americans and less to the citizens of the countries where they operate from. It's not just the American drug companies.

 

[veritas]

My bad.

But again, I do not know how the government would enforce such a pricing policy without violating trade laws.

Plus, it is perfectly rational for the drug companies to charge an amount lower in foreign countries if their fixed costs are paid in the US and they can charge an amount abroad that exceeds variable costs.

how about we dont want to be the only ones paying for the R&D
make the actual cost of the meds the same for everyone
the idea that they can charge US customers more for the same meds is ridiculous

What is even better is the fact that foreign drug companies charge the most to Americans and less to the citizens of the countries where they operate from. It's not just the American drug companies.

You mean worse?