Healthcare and Life-span/life-expectancy

[JMeganSnow]

I do remember someone somewhere said that America pays for the research and development of most drugs, but I couldn't find a source to substantiate that claim

Tomas Sowell talks a bit about this in his book Applied Economics. America doesn't pay for the research and development of most new drugs, it's simply one of the few remaining countries where there is some incentive for pharmaceutical companies to continue research and development on new treatments. It's not as straightforward as the fact that the FDA has looser standards than other agencies in other countries, however, it has to do more with patent protection and government price mandates in other countries where drug prices are subsidized or outright controlled. It is often easier to get drugs developed in the U.S. approved for sale in other countries, and often easier to conduct trials there as well. But the fact that the drug companies can actually make a profit in the U.S. on their EXISTING drugs (even if only for a short time, until the product goes generic) means that there's still drug research here. It also helps contribute to the high prices Americans must pay for drugs--we're subsidizing everyone else.

If pharma here falls to the same pricing mandates as exist in other countries, expect research to vanish.

[Coeus]

Life expectancy is not directly related to health care. To some extent, yes, but not absolutely linked by any means. There are a number of other conditions that must be taken into account as well. For example, obesity is a very large problem in America, but that is a reflection of poor judgement rather than quality of health care. In addition, life expectancy is just a number. The equation is very simple; you take the ages that everyone that has died in the country over the past ~10 years and average them all. Such a statistic has no inherent meaning.

In addition, you should point towards how much more productive our country is with less government intervention. If you look at all the countries with socialized healthcare, and compare the strength of their economies to ours, you will find America's to be in the lead by far, even factoring in the economical rut we are currently stuck in. If you are going to debate social healthcare, be sure to point out how horrendous increased government control in the private sector is. People like to treat it in a vacuum, but it is very much interconnected with how a government conducts itself and treats its people.

[Steven Tucker]

Tomas Sowell talks a bit about this in his book Applied Economics. America doesn't pay for the research and development of most new drugs, it's simply one of the few remaining countries where there is some incentive for pharmaceutical companies to continue research and development on new treatments. It's not as straightforward as the fact that the FDA has looser standards than other agencies in other countries, however, it has to do more with patent protection and government price mandates in other countries where drug prices are subsidized or outright controlled. It is often easier to get drugs developed in the U.S. approved for sale in other countries, and often easier to conduct trials there as well. But the fact that the drug companies can actually make a profit in the U.S. on their EXISTING drugs (even if only for a short time, until the product goes generic) means that there's still drug research here. It also helps contribute to the high prices Americans must pay for drugs--we're subsidizing everyone else.

If pharma here falls to the same pricing mandates as exist in other countries, expect research to vanish.

Agreed. We are facing a precarious situation now. We can only hope that our representatives make enough changes and amendments to the current law to protect the incentives of profit for individuals capable of producing life saving medicine and technology.

[Black Wolf]

Millions and millions of dollars here which are counted before you take into consideration the actual profits of the company. These are expenses and as such this money is counted as part of the operating cost, masking the fact that lower profits for the company are based on these crazy payout schemes of CEOs and high ranking members. This is what allows these companies to claim that they are making less profit annually in a disingenuous but factually accurate way. They are losing profit, but that is in part because they are paying themselves such huge salaries in the past few years.

How do I refute the fact that the reason why insurance companies are claiming small profits because the salaries taken out afterwards aren't counted as profits?

I can't think of an argument to make. Can I agree that the executives don't "Deserve" $1,000,000/year? Not really. You deserve whatever you voluntarily receive, especially if you're an actuary. Can I even argue that insurance companies don't deserve the profits they make?

What about private administration costs vs the 3% medicare administrative costs?

[Cmac19]

I believe the two most obvious answers to this debate, and I apologize if these have been stated already, are the innovative nature of American health care, and the QUALITY of American health care... while it is true that American's did not previous cover all of their population and spent a great deal more, they delivered a much greater quality of health care then any other nation. In Canada, even during a pandemic, such as we had for H1N1, you would need to spend upwards of 8 hours waiting in a clinic room simply to see a doctor and be DIAGNOSED. forget being treated for your illness, you have to spend all day in a waiting room just to be diagnosed. then you have to wait 6 weeks for the doctors calendar to free up, and if you do manage to get an appointment, you will probably either have recovered on your own, or died, by the time that appointment arrives. In America you can, or COULD, be diagnosed and begin being treated the same day you realized the seriousness of your symptoms... that is why socialist health care seems so efficient.. I'll bet Ford would look more efficient too if they started turning out cars before they were finished, however in that case, most people would be smart enough not to buy them.

[Black Wolf]

http://www.donabee.com/health/med-schools.htm

Wow. This clearly does not have any bias.

How do you respond to the notion that Drug companies profit by keeping people sick? I mean, besides maybe assuming that people selling drugs should have a knowledge of economics, realizing that it actually isn't profitable to keep or encourage sickness?

Edited April 17, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Leonid]

How would you guys argue against this claim: Countries with single payer systems are more efficient. People living in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Norway Sweden, England etc. have a life expectancy that is about 3 year higher than in the U.S. However, these countries spend half as much of their GDP on healthcare as compared to the U.S. Their per capita expenditure is also about half that of the U.S."

I tried to point out that those countries ration healthcare considerably, violate individual rights, and that anytime the government gets involved in an industry it becomes hugely less efficient, but the person I'm argueing against ignores these points. Are there better ways I could present my argument to make it clearer/stronger?

Thanks

Nevermind quantity of life, but what about its quality? Would you mind to live 3 years longer as a slave or slave driver?

[softwareNerd]

On the topic of health-care and life-expectancy, the Rand corporation (not related;) ) has a study that claims that 40% of premature deaths in the U.S. are caused by "behavioral" problems: i.e. "Diet, exercise, smoking, and sexual practices". [HT:"Wealth is not the Problem"]