View Single Post
Old 01-28-2008, 05:37 PM   #12
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
philabramoff's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
It would be less expensive though. Per capita, the price of health care would be nearly cut in half...
CK...I had the weekend to think it over, and your arguments honestly
do win me over. Unlike a lot of people you might meet, I do try to
listen to the "other side", as it were, and am open to changing my mind.

However, something just didn't seem to ring true to me, and I tried to
think through why. It concerns the problem with the quote you have

A main argument in favor of UHC is that it is less expensive, per capita,
in other countries, than in the US (even figuring people "pay" for it
through taxation and a socialist economic system, rather than directly
through insurance, copays, etc.)

IE we pay much more per capita in the US than in other countries...

Here's my challenge:
What is included in our expenses toward health care in the United States?
1) We have most of/the best medical colleges in the United States.
Our cost lies in the training of physicians and medical personnel here.
Other countries send people in droves to the US to receive their medical
degrees here.
2) We do the vast majority of medical research and extraordinary medical
advancement here in the US. We spend a ton of our national resources
on medical advancement through our universities and research firms.
Then, other countries piggy-back off all the advancements and innovations
we make. As the charitable nation we are, we spend the time and money
to advance medicine, and then freely share it with the rest of the world.
3) We do the research to develop 92 % of all prescription drugs.
American companies like Amgen, Glaxo, Smith-Klein, etc. spend billions of
dollars on medical research to invent these life-saving medications, and
then other nations copy them, and sell them cheap (WITHOUT putting in
all the necessary time and money on the research).

In short, the United States is the golden land of medical training,
research, and advancement. Other nations, especially third world
countries, simply benefit from all the resources we produce, without
putting in the necessary costs.

I'm not saying it's BAD that other nations gain from our medical research
and advancement...on the contrary, we are a generous nation, and I
think it's good that we do.

Still, I believe it is faulty to use as an argument how "cheap" it is in
other, smaller nations to provide nationalized health care in comparison
to the United States. The US does, far and away, the lions share of
the medical research and advancement, and most importantly, foots
the bill.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote