You're viewing a single thread.
European and UK universal healthcare is able to exist in it's current form and at it's current cost because the US has private healthcare.
Healthcare Companies give heavy discounts to UK/EU to make extra money, they are fully funded by US payors and thus patients. If US healthcare went public and it ate into profits, and other countries run low on healthcare funds (the NHS, right now), private insurance or more likely, increased taxes, in those countries may be required. The NHS is already considering pay-to-play models.
Note: This is a simplification of lots of details around the international transactions and legislation.
Note 2: Before disagreeing, pick a pharma company and look at their annual report.
Note 3: Clarified form and cost based on an astute commenter below.
Medical goods is around ~12% of healthcare expenditures. Even if US (richest country in the world) pays more they would have to pay insanely much more to subsidize single payer healthcare in the rest of the world.
And why would pharma reduce prices in other parts of the world just because Americans pay more? It's not a charity. They charge what the market will bear. Hepatitis C drugs were incredibly expensive because they prevented much more expensive liver transplants down the road. The market would bear a high price then.
Except that a lot of medical research is funded by governments.
It is true that pharma companies couldn't make as much profit if the US had a working healthcare system, but that doesn't mean they couldn't exist.
For the US, a study was conducted on this showing the industry provides a lot more funding than government: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10349341/
In this cross-sectional study, phased clinical trials of 387 drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 were associated with $8.1 billion of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, primarily for clinical research. This amount represents 3.3% of total NIH funding for basic or applied research related to these products and 9.8% to 10.7% of estimated industry costs, including less than 26% of phase 1 or 2 trials and less than 5% of phase 3 trials.
The findings suggest that NIH spending on clinical development focuses on early-stage trials, representing a small fraction of estimated industry spending.
And if we look at the UK, NHS spent 453.56 Pounds on all research in 2024 (Annual Report: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/nihr-annual-report-202223), a tiny amount compared to the US, even without taking the huge inflation issues into account, meaning the US is driving that development.
"Couldn't exist" is fair to call out, though, I should have said "in their current form". I mention taxes would have to increase to cover the costs, but I may not have been clear enough.
I have never heard this before. What would be some good things to look up for more info?
How Ukraine started the war, maybe. Perhaps practicing some reading of links that are informative on geopolitics and not the usual propaganda from Globalists.
Just ran your bullshit through gpt. Generally I agree with it's assessment. Be better doofis
The text presents a claim that universal healthcare systems in the UK and EU rely on the profitability of the US private healthcare system. It argues that healthcare companies offer discounts to UK/EU markets, subsidized by higher payments from US patients, and implies that a shift to public healthcare in the US could destabilize funding models in other countries. Let us examine the key claims:
- US Private Healthcare Subsidizing Universal Systems:
Argument: The claim relies on the idea that pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers profit heavily in the US, which enables them to sell services and products at lower costs elsewhere.
Analysis: There is some merit to this argument, as the US often pays higher prices for drugs and treatments, which can offset costs in other markets. However, this relationship is not the sole factor enabling universal healthcare in other nations. Structural efficiencies, budget allocation, and lower administrative costs also contribute significantly to the success of universal healthcare systems.
- Impact of US Transitioning to Public Healthcare:
Argument: The text suggests that if US healthcare transitioned to a public model, profits would decrease, affecting the affordability of healthcare in other countries.
Analysis: While a reduction in US profits could impact global pricing strategies for pharmaceutical companies, universal healthcare systems are primarily funded by taxation and national budgets, not by discounts from US profits. The claim oversimplifies the economic dynamics of healthcare funding.
- NHS Considering Pay-to-Play Models:
Argument: It asserts that the UK's National Health Service (NHS) is exploring pay-to-play models due to funding shortages.
Analysis: The NHS has faced financial strain for years, but this is due to domestic issues like underfunding, rising demand, and political choices rather than reliance on US healthcare structures. Any pay-to-play discussions are likely localized responses rather than a reflection of systemic dependence on the US model.
Conclusion: The argument in the text exaggerates the dependence of universal healthcare systems on US private healthcare. While there are interconnections in global healthcare markets, the primary factors enabling universal systems are taxation, public funding, and policy priorities. This analysis suggests the text is reductionist and lacks nuanced consideration of how universal healthcare systems function.
I have 20+ years in healthcare, much of that with payor/pricing, including US to UK. Or, you could trust AI.
In any event, for 1 and 2, GPT confirmed the merit. And these are statements I've personally heard from VPs and up at major pharma companies (that work in pricing). I even mention taxation in my comment, taxes go up if healthcare costs go up and no private system is put in place.
For 3, read a more current article. Assisted dying is the bill on the table right now: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cew2jj94zwyo
I am going to trust AI since it's arguments and conclusions are generally correct.
Why would I trust you.
To be fair. I have 30+ in the healthcare industry as well. Since I have more experience you should trust and agree with anything I say on the subject.
To be more fair nothing you've said about healthcare thus far has been correct in any way.
And they're been talking about death panels since Obama took office in 2008. It's a bunch of bullshit.