>>On the "socialism" comment. It's important to remember two things often get bundled together, certainly right wing types like to do so. Singe payer systems are not, in and of themselves, socialistic, if doctors/health workers are not employed by the state. This would be particularly true in the US, in which one can expect, whatever happens, that those who can afford private insurance, could always buy it.
Socialism as such is present only when healthcare workers are employed by the state.<<
John -
I'm speaking more about partially socializing medical research.
Let's look at a scenario under our present system. John and Jane are two doctors doing research for a big pharmaceutical company. They're working on different projects.
Both of them come up with highly effective drugs. The clinical test results are fantastic.
John's drug, Johnacil, can be produced very cheaply, and sold for no more than five dollars a dose after all markups are applied. An entire course treatment will cost the patient a couple of hundred dollars.
Jane's drug, Janofen, costs a lot to make. And since it costs a lot to make, after the drug company marks it up by the standard percentage, they're going to make a whole lot more money selling it than they would selling Johnacil.
Sure, one course of treatment of Janofen is going to a hundred thousands of dollars, but that doesn't matter because the insurance companies are paying. And people who have cancer are going to demand Janofen, because their lives depend on it.
Which drug will get submitted to the FDA for approval?
In a world where the government has a policy of generously rewarding companies for coming up with effective treatments that are inexpensive, Janofen may be one option, but Johnacil will be available, too.
- Allen |
