Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
Public spending being around 1/3 of the total roughly based on the last numbers I saw, the other 2/3 being private healthcare spending.
A good universal healthcare system is not a 'one-size fits all' system. There is no reason to limit consumer choice.
Quote:
|
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.
|
A couple of assumptions that aren't necessarily valid. I mean it is true, it could be done that way--I don't think anyone would deny there are many ways to do universal coverage poorly. But it is certainly dependent on how the system is set up, and how the tax code is amended to pay for it. It is very certainly possible to do it in a way that companies in fact see a reduction in cost with the increase in taxes more than compensated for by the elimination of the health care benefit premiums they are paying now.
Right now, as a country, the US pays $5,274 per capita for a system that close to 40% of the people don't have adequate access to, while most other developed nations pay $2,000 to $3,000. The US number is 10.0% of the GNP, and out of 21 other major developed nations, only Germany (10.9%) and Switzerland (11.2%) pay more. Most are closer to 9%. France has a very comparable system, at $2,736 per capita costs (9.7% of GDP) and a quality of care comparable to that most covered Americans recieve, but which covers all French. Each system has its unique situation, but it is clearly a mistake to assume that to transition to a universal care system from our current system would automatically entail a rise in costs and/or a reduction in quality.
Quote:
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
|
No, I don't have the numbers either, and I'm not even saying you're wrong, just that I wouldn't presume Canada (or anyone for that matter) to be slouching in R&D without having some stark data first.
Canada may or may not be better than the US in healthcare provision, but I don't think the right approach is to say Canada is better, let's go with it. Even if Canada's system is doing better for them than our system is for us, it doesn't mean their system will work for us. What we can do however, is to look at their system, at what it does well and where it fails, and take those lessons into our approach as we develop a better system here in the States.