3 ms·

One sticking point in my mind is that people always seem to conflate our pharmaceutical and medical technology industry with our healthcare and health insurance

One sticking point in my mind is that people always seem to conflate our pharmaceutical and medical technology industry with our healthcare and health insurance system, which are different areas completely. They think that if we don't have the expensive, privately-held bureaucratic system we do, then GE can't charge what it does for its MRI and CT scanner machines and exit the market, and then Grandma will die a horrible, painful death in a ditch outside Waukegan. Or, if pharmaceuticals don't charge insured patients $10000 a dose of some new drug, that our system will collapse because no one will make medicine in America ever again (never mind that 5 of the top 10 largest drug makers are outside of the US in countries that have abundantly socialist healthcare systems).

maxerickson 14y ago
A little bit of devil's advocate versus your last point, how many of those makers refuse to do business in the U.S.? That is, if there is some structural pricing advantage in the U.S., what is stopping those companies from benefiting from it?
- Vivtek 14y ago
  I'm not sure I even understand your point. Bayer and Pfizer, for instance, do lots and lots of business in the US. His point is that Switzerland - like every industrialized nation in the world, with one exception - has a socialized health care system, and still somehow manages to have an economy that includes health care providers.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    They said "never mind that 5 of the top 10 largest drug makers are outside of the US in countries that have abundantly socialist healthcare systems". If the companies do (significant) business in the U.S., then the mere existence of those companies isn't useful evidence against the fear "that our system will collapse because no one will make medicine in America ever again". The specifics of where the pharma companies are getting their research dollars are more interesting than the specifics of their incorporation. (but I don't personally fear that research funding would go away, and I accept that those companies have huge revenues outside the U.S., etc.)

maxerickson 14y ago

A little bit of devil's advocate versus your last point, how many of those makers refuse to do business in the U.S.? That is, if there is some structural pricing advantage in the U.S., what is stopping those companies from benefiting from it?

Vivtek 14y ago
I'm not sure I even understand your point. Bayer and Pfizer, for instance, do lots and lots of business in the US. His point is that Switzerland - like every industrialized nation in the world, with one exception - has a socialized health care system, and still somehow manages to have an economy that includes health care providers.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  They said "never mind that 5 of the top 10 largest drug makers are outside of the US in countries that have abundantly socialist healthcare systems". If the companies do (significant) business in the U.S., then the mere existence of those companies isn't useful evidence against the fear "that our system will collapse because no one will make medicine in America ever again". The specifics of where the pharma companies are getting their research dollars are more interesting than the specifics of their incorporation. (but I don't personally fear that research funding would go away, and I accept that those companies have huge revenues outside the U.S., etc.)