Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner
An observation of the future? You say 'will do'. Is that an indication that currently the opposite is the case?
|
Currently in the US we have a hybrid system. Large percentages receive healthcare coverage from government, some through corporate employers and others with no insurance who rely on emergency room care. I think a true competetive private market with active consumers will do a better job than a centralized "one-size fits all" system. My bias is always with having a choice.
Quote:
Canada is a very small country vs. the United States. I would expect its contribution to the science to be proportional. Do you have any numbers to back up your claim that they are not 'doing their share' on the research side of things? Or is this just inflammatory material.
Europe, and France in particular, have made major contributions which would mean even if Canada is slouching, the fact they have public health care isn't necessarily to blame.
|
I admit to not having numbers on the amount of R&D done by Canadian drug companies. My concern, however is with the US. If we pass national healthcare, and that causes taxation at such high levels that it stops R&D - I think that is bad - it has to be factored into the real costs of such a plan.
So my question about Canada and its R&D activity has to do with how has taxation to pay for national healthcare affected investments in R&D. I don't have the answer, but it doesn't seem like you have the answer either.
It doesn't seem like anyone has any answers other than to say healthcare in Canada is better than in the US. O.k. I guess that settles it. Thanks