Rationing Health Care - it's a lie!

Francesca R said:
The US is getting legged over by market prices, so lets load up more protectionism. Jesus. :D
Click to expand...

Hells yea! Trade wars are fun for the whole family!

In all seriousness, you'd think that our current treaties would prohibit this kind of thing so that it couldn't escalate.
 
Last edited:
@ Newton's Bit:

Maybe you haven't caught which side of your argument I'm on. Apologies.

If this makes it clearer: You regard the market price as "fixing" / "screwing over" and offer out a proposal to mess with it as "free markets". Apparently. Well that's a laugh!

(ETA--Well it would be more of a laugh if it wasn't the kind of thing rich governments--including Europe--do all the time in the horribly inaccurate name of "anti-dumping")
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Hells yea! Trade wars are fun for the whole family!

In all seriousness, you'd think that our current treaties would prohibit this kind of thing so that it couldn't escalate.
Click to expand...

Prohibit what? In the UK there are many companies/organisations that purchase pharmaceuticals. One of those orders a lot more than the others and it uses its purchasing power to get certain deals. And since it is a free market the pharmaceutical company can decide whether or not to supply at the price its customer is willing to pay.

What you are saying is that you do not want the free-market to "decide" the prices the USA health-care system pays for its drugs!
 
Newtons Bit said:
Hells yea! Trade wars are fun for the whole family!

In all seriousness, you'd think that our current treaties would prohibit this kind of thing so that it couldn't escalate.
Click to expand...

yeah the WTO gonna love that idea :)
 
Darat said:
Prohibit what? In the UK there are many companies/organisations that purchase pharmaceuticals. One of those orders a lot more than the others and it uses its purchasing power to get certain deals. And since it is a free market the pharmaceutical company can decide whether or not to supply at the price its customer is willing to pay.

What you are saying is that you do not want the free-market to "decide" the prices the USA health-care system pays for its drugs!
Click to expand...

Prohibit unfair protectionist practices.

The USA might have UHC one day and set our own price controls. Three things will happen then:

1) Drug companies stop producing new drugs because they can't make a return on their investment in research.
2) Drug companies convince governments to increase prices and everyone is happy.
3) Governments nationalize drug companies. They make new drugs but less inefficiently.

#1 Sucks.
2 won't happen because governments in Europe aren't going to willingly start paying more for drugs. That would be just downright embarrassing.
Looks like it's #3 which still sucks, but sucks less than #1.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Prohibit unfair protectionist practices.

The USA might have UHC one day and set our own price controls. Three things will happen then:

1) Drug companies stop producing new drugs because they can't make a return on their investment in research.
2) Drug companies convince governments to increase prices and everyone is happy.
3) Governments nationalize drug companies. They make new drugs but less inefficiently.

#1 Sucks.
2 won't happen because governments in Europe aren't going to willingly start paying more for drugs. That would be just downright embarrassing.
Looks like it's #3 which still sucks, but sucks less than #1.
Click to expand...

how come this didnt happen after the Swiss UHC was adopted in switzerland?

our pharma is doing pretty well.
 
Newtons Bit said:
...snip...

The USA might have UHC one day and set our own price controls. Three things will happen then:

1) Drug companies stop producing new drugs because they can't make a return on their investment in research.
2) Drug companies convince governments to increase prices and everyone is happy.
3) Governments nationalize drug companies. They make new drugs but less inefficiently.

#1 Sucks.
2 won't happen because governments in Europe aren't going to willingly start paying more for drugs. That would be just downright embarrassing.
Looks like it's #3 which still sucks, but sucks less than #1.
Click to expand...

You seem to be totally unaware that UHC systems are the norm in the developed world, and that none of the above has actually happened.
 
Newtons Bit said:
If the insurance companies get together and all decide together that they won't pay their supplier more than X dollars than two things will happen.

1. The CEOs will all go to jail. Collusion is illegal for private companies to do.
2. The price will go back to what it was before hand.
Click to expand...
Using your bargaining power is wrong? Hell, I've even given an example - the Vet's administration pays half the price for drugs that Medicare pays. Shouldn't you be outraged by that too?

Newtons Bit said:
As I've said a number of times, price fixing is wrong. Just because socialist countries have the ability to do it does not mean that the USA does. We don't. Private insurance companies can't do it (it's illegal) and the federal government won't do it (half of congress believes in free-markets, and most of congress is in the pockets of the drug companies).
Click to expand...
Price fixing is wrong, yes. Ask Ms. Kroes. Nothing wrong with bargaining.

And, a tidbit you tend to overlook: the drug companies still sell their drugs at those prices you think are outrageously low. Nobody is forcing them to.


Newtons Bit said:
Asked and answered. I've already gone over the car analogy.
Click to expand...
Where? I've only seen some outrageous statements about putting a gun to someone's head.


Newtons Bit said:
Take a look at Toyota's Financials.

They had total investment (asset - debt) of 125B in 2008 and a net income of 15.2B. That's a rate of return of 12.2%. They did that that in a world-wide recession. They're not doing nearly as well this year, but they're also not asking for a bail-out because they don't need one.

Please don't assume that just because US car companies are complete crap that every other car company is crap.
Click to expand...
Hey, sure I know. Where did you get those figures, and what currency are they? This page gives as financial highlights: 14.5B$ net assets, 800M$ net income. That's more like 6%.

And Toyota's FY ends on April 1st. That's before the crisis really kicked in.

Newtons Bit said:
There's a number of companies that currently have patented seismic force resisting systems. They have a product that is vastly superior to public systems, they perform better in earthquakes and are much more likely to survive with minimal damage (thus less money to repair after the earthquake) They're even cheaper (in certain applications) than the systems developed by public researchers.

They still charge a premium above labor and materials of the system.

They took the risk of doing the research. They paid for the research, and I honestly think a little compensation is fair for their risk.
Click to expand...
That's no answer to my question. Do the buyers of the systems you design bargain/negotiate with the suppliers, yes or no?
 
I think I proved my point so I'm going to drop this topic. The only things I've been getting now are "setting price controls are unprotectionist, trying to convince other countries to not use price controls is protectionist", "rate of return of 8% is unreasonable!", "rate of return isn't calculated as net income over total investment, you moron!!!@!" and "everyone can pay less for everything if they just pay band together to pay less, yay!" Those positions don't seem to be changing and I'm not interested in spending an inordinate amount of effort in doing so. My original point that the US pays more for new drugs because it doesn't set price controls is unchallenged which is the only point I really wanted to make. I've got a lot of other things I need to focus on other than arguing with people who don't understand economics over the internet.
 
ddt said:
You said yourself in your scenario: the four of them drink equal amounts, and run up a tab of $50 dollars in total. That means that if all four ask for their tab simultaneously, they'd all get a tab of $12.50.

ETA: OK, I'll retell your metaphor as I think it really is.

Four friends - an American, a Belgian, a Czech and a German - sit at a bar and drink equal amounts. The American leaves early, waves with his hand and says to the bartender: "write it on my tab, whatever the price is". The other three empty their glasses and ask the bartender for the bill. According to the bartender, the tab has run up to $50, so he asks them $12.50 each.
The Belgian says: for that price, I could have gotten a real Trappist next door.
The Czech says: you realize that the price of hops has gone down dramatically, don't you?
The German says: this American beer you served isn't even real beer, ever heard of the Reinheitsgebot?
So the bartender says: OK, I'm fine if you all pay me $10.
And so they do.
And the bartender writes $20 on the tab of the American, who just pays it without questioning where the amount came from.
Click to expand...

Naah, this is how it REALLY is :)

16 people - 4 Americans, 4 Belgians, 4 Czechs and 4 Germans all independently want to go out for the evening.

The Europeans each go to a reasonably priced bar, and each group haggles a group discount, as everyone in their group is having a beer.

The americans get together and have a game of online poker. They each pay $10 to register with the online poker site, and put $10 in to play. At the end of the game, 2 players have lost their money, and the remaining players go to buy a beer from a really swanky bar that charges an absolute fortune and each buy a beer in a fancy bottle.

The Beer company gets the same amount of money in order to spend on new fantastic beers, but the Americans spend far more on the ambiance of the bar, and on the online poker site, and two of them stay at home with no money :)

I think I can feel that metaphor creaking under the tension :)
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
That's no answer to my question. Do the buyers of the systems you design bargain/negotiate with the suppliers, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Since this is off the main topic I'll still reply to it. Architects get 6% of the construction budget of a project to do the design. They use this to pay themselves and all of the consultants (structural - me, civil, etc).

They get the job based on how cool of a design they come up with, not on negotiation the price. Every firm gets the same price.

If building owners suddenly decided to band together and set the price at 5% of the construction budget then they would stop getting good products.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Since this is off the main topic I'll still reply to it. Architects get 6% of the construction budget of a project to do the design. They use this to pay themselves and all of the consultants (structural - me, civil, etc).

They get the job based on how cool of a design they come up with, not on negotiation the price. Every firm gets the same price.

If building owners suddenly decided to band together and set the price at 5% of the construction budget then they would stop getting good products.
Click to expand...

Who fixes this "6%"?
 
Newtons Bit said:
Since this is off the main topic I'll still reply to it. Architects get 6% of the construction budget of a project to do the design. They use this to pay themselves and all of the consultants (structural - me, civil, etc).

They get the job based on how cool of a design they come up with, not on negotiation the price. Every firm gets the same price.
Click to expand...
I kinda knew that, same way over here - the architect's income is a percentage of the budget.

Isn't that price fixing? Isn't that that the evil guild of architects has negotiated that percentage with the construction industry? Shouldn't every architect negotiate his share of the budget individually?

Newtons Bit said:
If building owners suddenly decided to band together and set the price at 5% of the construction budget then they would stop getting good products.
Click to expand...
Don't you think building owners - or rather the building development industry - have negotiated that percentage with the architects' guild?

See, now you're looking at it only from your side of the coin. When building developers would band together, it's unfair, but when architects band together to negotiate that percentage it's fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom