Quote:
Originally posted by wonderwench
The reason the financial considerations "win" is because of economic reality. To say that the human side should "win" ignores the facts that: research costs money; manufacturing costs money; distribution costs money; medical education costs money, and on and on. BTW, in the cost equation for each of these are many middle class people who make their livings and support their families via these activities (or is that just greed as well?)
As nice as it sounds to say that all humans on the planet should have equivalent access to modern medical care, the cost is prohibitive; and as it has already been pointed out, when the cost is zero for something, demand is 100%.
I also dispute the notion that compassion and profits are mutually exclusive. One of the most "compassionate" actions one can perform is to enable someone else to earn a living. This is far better than charity. Perhaps in your condemnations you should include the totalitarian regimes which oppress their subjects, have destroyed their economies and divert foreign aid to their cronies. In such countries, no amount of donations are going to solve the problem. The aid doesn't reach the victims.
|
Do health care companies deserve compensation? Yes
Do they need to charge unbelievable markups for these? No, in many cases they take volunteers or pay very little compensation for research candidates. This is fact. So the argument that R&D is outrageous for them is a pointless point. The only reason it is high is because they make R&D high on themselves, for profit.
As for drug companies quitting research if the money isn't there. Some will yes, but others won't. There will always be money in that field, but there is no reason to bankrupt people for needed medications.
Plus, if you can fix problems earlier then cost is cheaper, productivity increases (as workers are healthier), people can work harder and have more to spend so the money gets back into the economy it just gets spread out to other places.
To allow healthcare in the US to keep skyrocketing and growing exponentially over inflation, you saddle everyone with excessive bills and take money out of the system for 1 industry (which is economic suicide). With a government subsidized medical industry, insurance is less, companies are free to offer better benefits, people aren't scared of getting sick and having a catastrophic disease so they spend more on other things.
Just because one industry lowers prices and becomes less profitable does not mean the money is no longer in the system. It can mean the money is being distributed a little more equitably in other areas.
Right now, money is not being spread equitably among industries, and again that becomes economic suicide. One can argue it is equitable to have a major percentage of the GDP going to 1 industry and it doesn't affect other industries, however that is because of the debt people have or the uninsured not caring.
I cannot see how anyone can argue it is better for the Healthcare Industry to charge exuberant prices and hurt an economy more than help it, when the truth is the healthier the nation the more effective the true economy becomes.
Most countries with a form of socialized medicine prove that keeping workers healthy have better economies and standards of living than we do. If anything as healthcare has gone up, our standard of living has gone down. Yes we may have more luxuries than some, but we are farther in debt and have a far greater trade deficit, which someday soon will have to be paid, then we will show we don't have that standard of living we thought.