without reading the post at this point. i have to say it isn't that the democrats don't understand, it is they don't care. of course i am talking about the idiots in washington. not the voters.

this is true for doctor prices.


this is not true for drug prices.


at least i believe that the reason drug prices are so high is because of universal medicine in ever other country on the planet.


i have written this before. every other country has a price cap on meds. the companies that make and research meds have to make enough money to do so. so the only country on the planet that doesn't have price caps has to pay for all of that research. ie the united states is paying for the meds for the whole planet.

Always have, always will (fail to understand the effect of income taxes).

I don't like the concept of income taxes.

Last year, I got a rent increase after the house I live in was sold.

Had the government taxed the land value of the house rather than productive income, the government would have made nearly the same amount of money from my living there, but I would have kept the wealth I produced.

Instead, the tax money would have come out of the pocket of the land lord, except that it would have been the money for the value of the location of the house, which is a value the land lord did not create (rather society did by deciding to move there and be productive).

The land lord would have received the money for the value he produced (the house).

I would have received the money for the value I produced (my wages).

The government would have received the money for the value society produced (the land value).

I wouldn't be negatively affected and would try to make more money because I wouldn't lose 40% of what I create.

The land lord would try to make the house itself more valuable, so that people would want to pay more for living in it.

And the government can work on the infrastructure in my area and improve land values (and hence collect more money in the future).

I'd rather have government tax what I use (land, petrol, electricity etc.) than what I create. The first would make me use these things less, which is good for others (more land available) and the environment (less pollution), the second would make me produce less, which is not good for anyone; although some liberals apparently believe it creates jobs. (I think productivity creates jobs.)

at least i believe that the reason drug prices are so high is because of universal medicine in ever other country on the planet.

Universal health care creates a monopsony (many producers, only one buyer). Monopsonies tend to make prices lower because the buyer can choose and the seller cannot.

It's the opposite of a monopoly (one producer, many buyers). A monopoly tend to make prices higher.

If there is only one producer of medicine and lots of buyers, prices should be high.

If there are many producers of medicine and only one buyer (government or some form of public health service), prices are low.

The reason doctors leave the continent for Britain/Ireland/USA is that the continent pays less. If medicines are more expensive in countries with universal health care, the reason should be something else. Perhaps regulation or safety requirements impact prices?

sorry you would have still payed the taxes on the house in your rent.

why don't you quote the whole thing.

in other words if you live in another country. the people in the united states is paying for part of your meds. we are also paying for all of the research for new meds.

sorry you would have still payed the taxes on the house in your rent.

I am paying that same amount of money now. So what's your point?

I am not saying that I am against paying taxes. And I won't have a problem with paying the taxes for the land value I use. My opposition is to income tax, not to the other taxes I advocates should be used instead.

i have written this before. every other country has a price cap on meds. the companies that make and research meds have to make enough money to do so. so the only country on the planet that doesn't have price caps has to pay for all of that research. ie the united states is paying for the meds for the whole planet.

That's how the market works.

If some customers are willing to pay more and others are not, the first group will pay more. Changing that would be socialism.

So thanks to the US for paying more for medicines and thanks to the early iPhone buyers for paying more for iPhones.

if the democrats get their way. you can kiss your meds goodbye. because then the producers will give the bulk of the meds that they produce t the highest bidder.

If the Democrats get "their way" (presumably nationalised health care), medicines will be even cheaper as the market consolidates more on the buyer side. If American customers stop competing among themselves, the total monopsony power will increase and prives will go down.

Of course the downside is that if prices go down, many medicines will disappear from the market (when prices fall below cost).

The balance is important in a market.

The point is that national healthcare does not make health care more expensive. It makes it cheaper as the number of customers is being reduced to one. The downside is that the quality of care might go down with the prices. It's not so simple.

Danielost,

You are still not getting the whole picture. What you quoted was an extreme. Prices are unlikely to fall below cost, because there is demand that doesn't go away (sick people do not want to die).

There are countries, like Germany, that have a national health care system and all medicines are available, simply because Germany remains a market that pays more than cost for medicines.

(Germany also produces a large percentage of medicines available on the world market. It's not just the US. Same for France and Switzerland. In fact, if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies you will find that Europe and the US spend about the same for R&D and have about the same sales.)

First, Leauki, the problem is that quality is reduced. As competition is reduced, so is incentive.

Fact is, in America, we already have socialized medicine. We call it our Medicare/Medicaid system. And today I will be watching a close friend bury his one month old son quite possibly BECAUSE of that system. If my suspicions are confirmed, get ready to see a whole host of articles dedicated to that purpose.