$716 billion defense budget.......Wow...

How are nobel prizes related to HC costs?
my original entire pt was who leads in HC innovation?

why is that?

Why do we not only by a staggering degree have the most winners, but the most instances of foreign winners conducting their research in another country, namely the US? must be something about our research environment.....

I can't even frankly believe this is being debated.
 
my original entire pt was who leads in HC innovation?

why is that?

Why do we not only by a staggering degree have the most winners, but the most instances of foreign winners conducting their research in another country, namely the US? must be something about our research environment.....

I can't even frankly believe this is being debated.

You claimed the US was subsidizing foreign countries HC.

The US being top dog in academics was not up for debate.
 
You claimed the US was subsidizing foreign countries HC.

The US being top dog in academics was not up for debate.
are you implying that us clearly leading in innovation and research, again clearly...

does not inherently save other countries money? How do they make generic medicines to sell?
 
are you implying that us clearly leading in innovation and research, again clearly...

does not inherently save other countries money? How do they make generic medicines to sell?

Other countries cant just ignore patents.
 
i never said our research is why our costs are so high, that's only part of it much of it is administrative and straight up greed

but it sure is extremely easier to fund for something like UHC when A) your personal and sales/VAT tax rates are substantially higher, B) Defense costs are almost nonexistent, certainly not the NATO standard that most of these countries fail to meet, and C) much of the research and innovations aren't done in your country yet you still benefit by being able to produce generic versions of those medicines and equipment

Common sense is quite common hence the literal name, no clue what you're getting at

Hard to read these posts as anything except as meaning that members of the EU can get away with low healthcare costs because they weren't the ones doing research.

whatever you say man

one can easily make the case the reason the EU and members of NATO can even get away w/ like zero defense and no real military to speak of is b/c of our spending....

Same goes for their HC and all the R&D and innovations that come from the US market
it's exponentially easier to fund HC when you aren't the one innovating anything nor incurring the R&D costs

Kinda odd that most of that comes from the US, the one major Western country that doesn't utilize UHC or single payer
 
Other countries cant just ignore patents.
patents expire.....which is how generics are legally made in the first place

84% of Rx filled in the US in 2012 were generic drugs. The leading sellers of pharmaceuticals in the world are Germany and Switzerland.....yet America is by far the biggest market for those. So we didnt buy any of them? Word?

So they not only benefit from not doing the R&D, but much of their sales are coming from the US as well. You can't get more 'subsidized' then that
 
Hard to read these posts as anything except as meaning that members of the EU can get away with low healthcare costs because they weren't the ones doing research.
excellent strawmen

explaining their lower costs, is not the same as explaining why our costs our higher....

none of those countries have HC systems that reward the profit motive like we do.
 
excellent strawmen

explaining their lower costs, is not the same as explaining why our costs our higher....

none of those countries have HC systems that reward the profit motive like we do.
So they have lower costs because of x, but we don't have higher costs?

I'm not sure how this comparison works. I usually thought that if A is lower than B, B is higher than A.
 
So they have lower costs because of x, but we don't have higher costs?

I'm not sure how this comparison works. I usually thought that if A is lower than B, B is higher than A.
negatory my dude

There costs are lower for many reasons, but clearly benefiting form the US's innovations and R&D while incurring none of the costs is one of them.

Our market that utilizes those innovations, unfortunately, is not a government subsidized or price controlled one which is why our costs are way higher. The extra costs of medical and drug innovations has nothing to do with why a simple Cast on your arm would cost way more here, as an example. However that same system that stimulates such greed and corruption or whatever, is also what drives all the innovation and advancement.

It's a weird situation, similar to Defense. The US has such a profit based HC system, that it results in private and government supported companies spending exorbitant amounts of money into trying to solve issues, and lets face it market issues that need to be solved. That smug douche that got sued and beefed w/ Wu Tang (Skreli i think) is the perfect example of the things wrong w/ our system. That being said, it's too big to fail status is exactly what creates much of the advancements in that field. Those are then clearly utilized by other countries that have more Social Welfare in mind w/ their government programs. Same w/ us selling others military equipment that they have nothing to do w/ the development of, but still clearly benefit from the finished product. If we didn't have such a crazy Defense budget, we wouldn't have the private companies producing those products and others would have to develop and market their own...

edit: I'm not arguing FOR this situation, I think it's bad. I'm just saying it's easy to tout lower defense and HC costs from other countries when they are in entirely different situations economically and fiscally
 
Back
Top