5 ms·
Depends I guess on how you approach healthcare. If healthcare is a business then of course a considerably profitable way of producing a drug is necessary. If h
by atmosx 10y ago
Depends I guess on how you approach healthcare. If healthcare is a business then of course a considerably profitable way of producing a drug is necessary.
If healthcare is public service then profitability is not a primary concern. Data-driven decisions shows that approaching healthcare as a public service is much more effective.
The choice here is rather obvious, yet for some reason, average people who would benefit immensely from a public health system in the US seems to disregard it as socialist, paying for someone else and so forth.
Please note that drug corporations are insanely lucrative in Europe too, so a public health care system doesn't seem to harm drug companies all that much, financially speaking.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoI think the choice is not that obvious if you factor in sustainability. A health system that is all about saving lives but collapses on itself (taking down a chunk of economy with it) within a year or two is not better than a less effective health system that can run sustainably for decades or more. IMO you need to give the drug companies enough money to cover their operating expenses and R&D costs and give some margin to stay afloat. But not more than that. It's hard to do because this aspect is one that is handled well by free market - but in healthcare, you very much care about the thing free market utterly sucks at - product quality. You need regulation to ensure the product is good enough, and many of the important criteria are not immediately verifiable by the customer at the point of sale. Trying to reconcile those two issues is the hard problem.