Health Care in the US...

crazymike said:
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) spends over 1 billion dollars a year on research. That's quite a bit of money for a country with a population like ours.

But that's a federally funded agency. Are there a lot of privately funded pharmacuetical companies that exist and conduct R&D in Canada though? I wouldn't think they'd be able to survive...
 
Findakáno said:
IF Americans actually pay for it out of their own pocket. You bet they would shop around for the lowest price.
My taxes come out of my own pocket.
 
Drool-Boy said:
levis should be commended for creating a fabric capable of containing your flabby ass without bursting
reinforced elastic.
 
Millions said:
But that's a federally funded agency. Are there a lot of privately funded pharmacuetical companies that exist and conduct R&D in Canada though? I wouldn't think they'd be able to survive...


yes, we only cover healthcare, not medications. Our government also just restructured laws as far as prescription drugs and generic labels. So our drug costs will soon be lower.

They are talking about introducing a nationwide drug plan though. Which would be great IMO.
 
crazymike said:
yes, we only cover healthcare, not medications. Our government also just restructured laws as far as prescription drugs and generic labels. So our drug costs will soon be lower.

They are talking about introducing a nationwide drug plan though. Which would be great IMO.

Okay well apply the same question to the R&D of healthcare procedures instead of medicines.

Your government is basically saying "You get 1 billion a year to do your research, that's it"...where as in a capitialist scenario any company that can fund themselves can conduct as much research as they want provided they can stay in business.

So that's hundreds of companies that can spend billions of dollars researching new cures or new procedures and what have you.

If we switched to a centralized health care system, the government decides what they'll pay for and who they'll budget money to meaning there will be far less money spent on R&D.
 
Millions said:
Okay well apply the same question to the R&D of healthcare procedures instead of medicines.

Your government is basically saying "You get 1 billion a year to do your research, that's it"...where as in a capitialist scenario any company that can fund themselves can conduct as much research as they want provided they can stay in business.

So that's hundreds of companies that can spend billions of dollars researching new cures or new procedures and what have you.

If we switched to a centralized health care system, the government decides what they'll pay for and who they'll budget money to meaning there will be far less money spent on R&D.


I don't know enough about it to comment, but I do know we give government grants, etc...

but you can't really compare canadian politics and policies to americans because we are totally different. What works for one, might not work for the other.
 
crazymike said:
I don't know enough about it to comment, but I do know we give government grants, etc...

but you can't really compare canadian politics and policies to americans because we are totally different. What works for one, might not work for the other.

Yeah that's what I'm saying too...I don't think a healthcare system like Canada's would work as well here in the US...which is why Kerry's plan doesn't sit that well with me. Healthcare costs here are pretty high here and something needs to be done about it...just not sure what.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
A godawful amount, and yet they still make money.

It's a win-win for the government and the companies really, they have no intention of actually getting rid of smokers - too much tax revenue is generated that way.


The taxes are in addition to the prices on cigarettes, so the tobacco companies are still getting the same amount they would have been if the taxes hadn't been raised.


The Tax revenue is just going right back out the door for taking care of the sick smokers.

The real effect the taxes are having is keeping some of the younger kids from getting hooked while they're young.
The kids can't afford to get hooked, and evenutally, when they grow up, they are smart enough not to smoke when they can afford it.
It's actually working, too.