3 ms·

Access to a family doctor has nothing to do with the fact that our system isn't private, it has to do with a well known shortage of doctors. To the point thoug

Access to a family doctor has nothing to do with the fact that our system isn't private, it has to do with a well known shortage of doctors. To the point though: I reject the notion that there is effectively a single country conducting health research that the rest of the world is leaching off of. It's preposterous and unsupported. Further, even in the USA a vast majority of medical research is government funded! If the US moved to a single payer system, medical research will change, not end. That's the same thing that happens whenever there is a disruption in any industry. To suggest that we will a reduction in medical innovation because the US suddenly collectively and not individually paying for medical coverage is to spout nothing more than PR that various corporate interests would love to pay for.

cwan 17y ago
Can you provide any links re: "vast majority of medical research is government funded"? As to whether or not we would see less research, markets create greater demand for that research and most of it is developed in the US. I don't believe these are controversial points. You're right though, the medical research wouldn't go away completely but my suspicion based on the output of countries with single payer systems, and how much less they pay for such things as pharmaceuticals that result in substantial healthcare savings (which is why I think that the US does subsidize much of the world), is that this would be the case. It would definitely change, but when it comes to the issue of innovation and making that technology usable, I doubt it would be for the better. Also with respect to the doctor and specialist shortage - it has a great deal to do with incentives within a public system. When you restrict the pay that doctors can make, they work less and fewer of them stay in Canada. This is the case for my doctor who chooses to work 4 days a week and where she caps out and for a few of the specialists I know.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Two good links on this page: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Most_investment_in_medical_innovation_does_not_come_from_companies http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Most_investment_... it has a great deal to do with incentives within a public system. When you restrict the pay that doctors can make, they work less and fewer of them stay in Canada. Yes, but this is an administrative problem. It's simple math, if you only have x doctors, and their max patient load is y, you should be able to know exactly how many doctors you will need per population.
  - cwan 17y ago
    There's something odd about some of the numbers cited: "The single biggest source of medical research funding, not just in the United States but in the entire world, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH): Last year [2006], it spent more than $28 billion on research, accounting for about one-third of the total dollars spent on medical research and development in this country (and half the money spent at universities)" Pharmaceutical companies spent $39 billion in 2004 according to the CBO's report (which would ironically have been done by Peter Orszag): http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf That doesn't even include the billions spent on other medical technologies. Either way, it doesn't support your claim that "vast majority of medical research is government funded". Further, not all dollars are created equal. Private firms invest capital based on markets and demand and they have a significant incentive to do so whereas it's far easier to find frivolous government research studies. I'm not exactly clear though how you think that the shortage of doctors are an administrative problem when the problem is that they aren't willing to pay them more for the services they perform so there's a shortage. It's not that they don't hire more, there just aren't enough willing to practice in Canada - and that's directly related to the single payer system because governments here are unwilling to spend more.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      The numbers add up if you consider all the other governments, not just the US, and compare that to the $39B for pretty much every pharma company. As to the shortage of doctors: Doctors in Canada are limited to the amount of patients they can see, not so much by what they can charge. (Although the rates for services are set, the same way they are often set by HMO's in the US.) The whole reason this is done is to prevent doctor "factories" - doctors that spend 10 minutes with patients and provide poor diagnosis' in order to see as many people as possible. The shortage is exactly due to the fact that they don't hire more. The number of semi-qualified medical professionals driving cabs in this country is outlandish. The doctoral societies have been not bent in their admission guidelines, and hospitals simply don't have enough space for all the people needed a Canadian residency requirement. There are tons of people willing to practice in Canada.
- asmithmd1 17y ago
  Take a look at the VC money invested just this week in US companies: http://www.xconomy.com/tag/Life-Sciences/ http://www.xconomy.com/tag/Life-Sciences/ If the huge pay-off for a blockbuster treatment is not out there all that research goes away

cwan 17y ago

Can you provide any links re: "vast majority of medical research is government funded"? As to whether or not we would see less research, markets create greater demand for that research and most of it is developed in the US. I don't believe these are controversial points. You're right though, the medical research wouldn't go away completely but my suspicion based on the output of countries with single payer systems, and how much less they pay for such things as pharmaceuticals that result in substantial healthcare savings (which is why I think that the US does subsidize much of the world), is that this would be the case. It would definitely change, but when it comes to the issue of innovation and making that technology usable, I doubt it would be for the better. Also with respect to the doctor and specialist shortage - it has a great deal to do with incentives within a public system. When you restrict the pay that doctors can make, they work less and fewer of them stay in Canada. This is the case for my doctor who chooses to work 4 days a week and where she caps out and for a few of the specialists I know.

run4yourlives 17y ago
Two good links on this page: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Most_investment_in_medical_innovation_does_not_come_from_companies http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Most_investment_... it has a great deal to do with incentives within a public system. When you restrict the pay that doctors can make, they work less and fewer of them stay in Canada. Yes, but this is an administrative problem. It's simple math, if you only have x doctors, and their max patient load is y, you should be able to know exactly how many doctors you will need per population.
- cwan 17y ago
  There's something odd about some of the numbers cited: "The single biggest source of medical research funding, not just in the United States but in the entire world, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH): Last year [2006], it spent more than $28 billion on research, accounting for about one-third of the total dollars spent on medical research and development in this country (and half the money spent at universities)" Pharmaceutical companies spent $39 billion in 2004 according to the CBO's report (which would ironically have been done by Peter Orszag): http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf That doesn't even include the billions spent on other medical technologies. Either way, it doesn't support your claim that "vast majority of medical research is government funded". Further, not all dollars are created equal. Private firms invest capital based on markets and demand and they have a significant incentive to do so whereas it's far easier to find frivolous government research studies. I'm not exactly clear though how you think that the shortage of doctors are an administrative problem when the problem is that they aren't willing to pay them more for the services they perform so there's a shortage. It's not that they don't hire more, there just aren't enough willing to practice in Canada - and that's directly related to the single payer system because governments here are unwilling to spend more.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    The numbers add up if you consider all the other governments, not just the US, and compare that to the $39B for pretty much every pharma company. As to the shortage of doctors: Doctors in Canada are limited to the amount of patients they can see, not so much by what they can charge. (Although the rates for services are set, the same way they are often set by HMO's in the US.) The whole reason this is done is to prevent doctor "factories" - doctors that spend 10 minutes with patients and provide poor diagnosis' in order to see as many people as possible. The shortage is exactly due to the fact that they don't hire more. The number of semi-qualified medical professionals driving cabs in this country is outlandish. The doctoral societies have been not bent in their admission guidelines, and hospitals simply don't have enough space for all the people needed a Canadian residency requirement. There are tons of people willing to practice in Canada.
asmithmd1 17y ago
Take a look at the VC money invested just this week in US companies: http://www.xconomy.com/tag/Life-Sciences/ http://www.xconomy.com/tag/Life-Sciences/ If the huge pay-off for a blockbuster treatment is not out there all that research goes away