Great topic, Genesis. Quite an eye opener.

no doubt. I watched vid again just so I can articulate issues better to others.

Capital account was an eye-opener; but I don't fear a single payer system.

"Get in line for your heart surgery" is just another boogieman that's suppose to scare me into keeping the status quo. There are plenty of examples around the world (while not perfect) that do a far better job of covering everyone at a much lower cost.

For Christs sake, people are leaving this country for destinations like India and Tiawan (both have government run systems) to get their heart surgery..what does that say about us...and what does it say about the single payer system in those countries?

What does it say when an anti-venom is $83,000 in the USA and less than $500 in Mexico...another Universal Care country.

Look at that hypochondriac Shona Holmes in the new Mittens commercials saying that the wait for care in Canada would have killed her...from what I've found so far, it would not have killed her...she was just scared and wanted surgery right now(understandable)...so she comes to the USA and gets it right now...for $100,000 which bankrupts her! She had to sell her house...Welcome to America!

I have relatives in Austria, Germany, Italy and Ireland...all Universal Systems...I hear no real gripes from them...especially when they hear what we're facing in the USA...and Italy was rated #2 in the world at one point and only spends 6% of GDP; we spend 18% and leave 10's of million uncovered for even the basics.

As far as waits, the wife needs a specialized test...first opening is in late October!...wtf...when did we become Canada?...lol

Single payer can be a disaster, a Nirvana, or something in between...it's not up to the system, it's up to us...the people must demand a system focused on caring for us rather enriching beyond imagination those at the top of the system.

NO MORE OF THIS!!

Compensation for 7 CEO's of Health Insurance Companies in 2008:

* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112 ($66,600 a day!)
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212

That's ~$68,000,000 per year ($186,300 a day) just in CEO pay for 7 people!

The end of our (perverted) "Free Market" system can't come fast enough:)

Debtpie wrote..

Single payer can be a disaster, a Nirvana, or something in between...it's not up to the system, it's up to us...the people must demand a system focused on caring for us rather enriching beyond imagination those at the top of the system.

NO MORE OF THIS!!

* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112 ($66,600 a day!)
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212

That's ~$68,000,000 per year ($186,300 a day) just in CEO pay for 7 people!

Ok. Beyond "the people must demand a system focused on caring for us rather enriching beyond imagination those at the top of the system." which of course seemingly says a lot but in fact says absolutely nothing and is meaningless,

What is your solution for these salaries ?

I have a few questions about this "business model."

Who makes the diagnosis? Does this surgery center have its own diagnostics department or do they just take another physician's word on the scope of the problem? How do they vet the diagnostician, particularly for their Canadian patients or do they just eschew any responsibility for his/her accuracy?

What happens if they contract for a gall bladder removal and the surgeon finds that the gall bladder is OK, do they take it out anyway? What if the surgeon discovers that the problem is more extensive or different than previously thought--do they just close the patient up and subject them to another surgery or do they do more and inform the patient of the upcharge later?

The guy in the video didn't really like the question about "outcomes" citing better "outcomes" for unnecessary surgeries. WTF???

"Healthcare" just CANNOT be made to fit the capitalist model, primarily due to the assymetry of information between the "purchaser" and the provider and the nature of the "product." All of you who think it can need to give it up.

I got to thinking about this topic last night, and your frequent posts about the rise in .gov health care spending since 1980 and the inflation in typical medical expenses (like a normal childbirth) since 1960. So I did a little Googling and some rudimentary calculations - tell me what you think:

According to this site http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-D...., Americans spent an average of $1110, total, in health care in 1980, which increased to $8402 by 2010. Using this site (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_....) as a reference for CPI, I calculated that, if per capita medical expenses had only risen at the rate of core inflation over that same 30-year period, by 2010 the average American would be spending only $2938 annually on health care.

Based on that figure, and the 2010 census population of ~309,000,000, if US per capita health care costs had risen only at the rate of core inflation, Americans would have spent roughly $908 billion on health care (instead of the nearly $2.6 trillion that was actually spent).

To put it another way: according to usgovernmentspending.com, the combined total health care expenditures by state, local and Federal governments in 2010 was $1.6 trillion - a figure which does obviously NOT include private or employer-provided insurance, nor personal out-of-pocket spending. Had medical spending increased ONLY AT THE RATE OF CPI, we could have paid for EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF HEALTH CARE EXPENSE FOR EVERY SINGLE US CITIZEN for $700 billion LESS than we actually ended up paying for less than HALF of all Americans.

I realize these are very rough calculations, using less than reliable data (especially CPI) - but I think they are illustrative of your greater point, that a combination of cost-shifting, greed, and bureaucracy has distorted the health care market to the point of imminent collapse. And it appears that no one in a position of power is interested in preventing it from happening.

population grows exponentially, we just need more people being born
to increase the gdp to match the growth in medical costs.

let us see who wins the foot race.

coming soon to your neighborhood, water wars, food wars, shelter wars
and the military to keep order.

"Single-payer with hard rationing"?

Sounds good to me. It's better than what I have now, which is no access to treatment, unless I show up at an emergency room near death. I qualify for no public benefits in my state. The ever-shrinking pittance I earn, which allows for no health insurance or doctor visits, crosses some kind of line which cuts me off from access to "free" services.

There ain't so such thing as a single payer system. We all pay. There will be a single rationing system when the government takes over.

Think there isn't a racket going on, just go to the emergency room at your local hospital for a simple problem and get the bill. It is cheaper to rent a movie star for a night than to lie on a gurney for 30 minutes. Both ways, you will know you got screwed when it is over.

That guy talked about some stuff I don't quite comprehend. I have a good understanding of bean counting and a receivable is a debit that has to be supported by a credit. If the debit goes bad, the credit has to disappear. Thus in a real system, only the expense involved in delivery of a service not paid for is a loss. If I comprehend him, the government indemnifies the provider for what they didn't collect. The insurance companies run funny games. Looks like the entire business is funny stuff. I would have to see it on paper to buy into the entire story.

I looked at the website of the OK hospital. I might need a procedure myself and OKC is only 200 miles away. They aren't exactly giving anything away, but I know, having been within grasp of the typical hospital a time or 2 that $1000 is tip money and the meal always makes the $1000 a cheap tip. In fact, the $1000 could turn into the coffee in a high dollar restaurant.

For you non-covered poster(s)you might be eligible depending on your state. In Texas a citizen is by state law entitled to a 'one-time' temporary medicaid coverage. The term 'émergency' is the only qualification. All 'green carders' (legal aliens) are automatically medicaid-enrolled according to state law. The first federal law was actually included in the first constitutional amendent.The second federal law was Social Security, which actally became an 'entitlement' only in government terms. In correct terms Social Security is not an entitlement according to Supreme Court edict. Ergo, citizens are entitled to petition 'the government' and I would sign the petition if it also included an amendment to revise Social Security to a Roth-type making Roth an entitlement based only on Roth classification(meaning pre-tax dollars only.) Hint? Hint? To some you brilliant thinkers. who will be able critique both my fact-based and politically based opinions.

This paper seems relevant. Imagine paying only a single day's wage for an entire year of medical care.
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

Quote:

How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis

Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It

by Roderick T. Long

Today, we are constantly being told, the United States faces a health care crisis. Medical costs are too high, and health insurance is out of reach of the poor. The cause of this crisis is never made very clear, but the cure is obvious to nearly everybody: government must step in to solve the problem.

Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was too accessible. But in that era, too, government stepped forward to solve the problem. And boy, did it solve it!

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)

The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company.

Turn-of-the-century America offered a dizzying array of fraternal societies to choose from. Some catered to a particular ethnic or religious group; others did not. Many offered entertainment and social life to their members, or engaged in community service. Some "fraternal" societies were run entirely by and for women. The kinds of services from which members could choose often varied as well, though the most commonly offered were life insurance, disability insurance, and "lodge practice."

"Lodge practice" refers to an arrangement, reminiscent of today's HMOs, whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members. The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor's services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician's services was kept in check by the fraternal society's own "self-policing"; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.

Most remarkable was the low cost at which these medical services were provided. At the turn of the century, the average cost of "lodge practice" to an individual member was between one and two dollars a year. A day's wage would pay for a year's worth of medical care. By contrast, the average cost of medical service on the regular market was between one and two dollars per visit. Yet licensed physicians, particularly those who did not come from "big name" medical schools, competed vigorously for lodge contracts, perhaps because of the security they offered; and this competition continued to keep costs low.

The response of the medical establishment, both in America and in Britain, was one of outrage; the institution of lodge practice was denounced in harsh language and apocalyptic tones. Such low fees, many doctors charged, were bankrupting the medical profession. Moreover, many saw it as a blow to the dignity of the profession that trained physicians should be eagerly bidding for the chance to serve as the hirelings of lower-class tradesmen. It was particularly detestable that such uneducated and socially inferior people should be permitted to set fees for the physicians' services, or to sit in judgment on professionals to determine whether their services had been satisfactory. The government, they demanded, must do something.

And so it did. In Britain, the state put an end to the "evil" of lodge practice by bringing health care under political control. Physicians' fees would now be determined by panels of trained professionals (i.e., the physicians themselves) rather than by ignorant patients. State-financed medical care edged out lodge practice; those who were being forced to pay taxes for "free" health care whether they wanted it or not had little incentive to pay extra for health care through the fraternal societies, rather than using the government care they had already paid for.

In America, it took longer for the nation's health care system to be socialized, so the medical establishment had to achieve its ends more indirectly; but the essential result was the same. Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.

Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices — a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.

The final death blow to lodge practice was struck by the fraternal societies themselves. The National Fraternal Congress — attempting, like the AMA, to reap the benefits of cartelization — lobbied for laws decreeing a legal minimum on the rates fraternal societies could charge. Unfortunately for the lobbyists, the lobbying effort was successful; the unintended consequence was that the minimum rates laws made the services of fraternal societies no longer competitive. Thus the National Fraternal Congress' lobbying efforts, rather than creating a formidable mutual-aid cartel, simply destroyed the fraternal societies' market niche — and with it the opportunity for low-cost health care for the working poor.

Why do we have a crisis in health care costs today? Because government "solved" the last one.

P.S.

I think this is a correct addition to my above comment: The second federal law was the first(?)federal law to be non-constitutional--and that was the first(?)
time the 10th amendment(states' rights) was usurped--and that is still in effect?????????

This topic is so huge, so encompassing...I see little or no difference between Gen's option #1 and #2. (Of course what "I see" is subject to the limits of what I can see, meaning, this is not meant ot be a statement of empirical impossibility)

There is no operators manual for the orderly shutdown of a giant, self-morphing-capable industry such as "healthcare". (nor is there one for banking) Nobody other than a few individuals like the Doc in OK will be able to afford to take the first move. My conclusion is that some form of chaotic collapse is inevitable. But such a collapse could well be worse than the disease. Isn't that the story of every embedded fraud in our society/system? Give us $787 billion or there'll be tanks in the streets and martial law.

The practices that Karl is infuriated about are perfect for the system we live in.

The system we live in allows you to buy government. If the medical industry has bought and paid for the system, then they bought and paid for the system just like you can go into Walmart and buy a shirt. It is the American way.

Debtpie

Quote:

What is your solution for these salaries ?

Limited government

Enjoy this link.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/personalfi....

Quote:

The guy in the video didn't really like the question about "outcomes" citing better "outcomes" for unnecessary surgeries. WTF???

If you read between the lines of what he was saying... He implied that there are a lot of unnecessary surgeries performed by the medical industry. By that implication, he is saying that he does not engage in this practice and comparing outcomes of necessary verses necessary with unnecessary thrown in will skew the statistics.

There may be other factors that would skew a outcomes comparison. The fact that people paying cash up front may wait longer than someone having insurance and thus the operation when placed in their hands maybe proportionately greater than average. Such as, how far is your hernia sticking out before you decide to part with cold hard cash out of your pocket? Obviously that could have a significant impact on outcomes.

How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis!



How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis

Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It

by Roderick T. Long
(to table of contents of FNF archives)

Today, we are constantly being told, the United States faces a health care crisis. Medical costs are too high, and health insurance is out of reach of the poor. The cause of this crisis is never made very clear, but the cure is obvious to nearly everybody: government must step in to solve the problem.

Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was too accessible. But in that era, too, government stepped forward to solve the problem. And boy, did it solve it!

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)

The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company.

Turn-of-the-century America offered a dizzying array of fraternal societies to choose from. Some catered to a particular ethnic or religious group; others did not. Many offered entertainment and social life to their members, or engaged in community service. Some "fraternal" societies were run entirely by and for women. The kinds of services from which members could choose often varied as well, though the most commonly offered were life insurance, disability insurance, and "lodge practice."

"Lodge practice" refers to an arrangement, reminiscent of today's HMOs, whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members. The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor's services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician's services was kept in check by the fraternal society's own "self-policing"; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.

Most remarkable was the low cost at which these medical services were provided. At the turn of the century, the average cost of "lodge practice" to an individual member was between one and two dollars a year. A day's wage would pay for a year's worth of medical care. By contrast, the average cost of medical service on the regular market was between one and two dollars per visit. Yet licensed physicians, particularly those who did not come from "big name" medical schools, competed vigorously for lodge contracts, perhaps because of the security they offered; and this competition continued to keep costs low.

The response of the medical establishment, both in America and in Britain, was one of outrage; the institution of lodge practice was denounced in harsh language and apocalyptic tones. Such low fees, many doctors charged, were bankrupting the medical profession. Moreover, many saw it as a blow to the dignity of the profession that trained physicians should be eagerly bidding for the chance to serve as the hirelings of lower-class tradesmen. It was particularly detestable that such uneducated and socially inferior people should be permitted to set fees for the physicians' services, or to sit in judgment on professionals to determine whether their services had been satisfactory. The government, they demanded, must do something.

And so it did. In Britain, the state put an end to the "evil" of lodge practice by bringing health care under political control. Physicians' fees would now be determined by panels of trained professionals (i.e., the physicians themselves) rather than by ignorant patients. State-financed medical care edged out lodge practice; those who were being forced to pay taxes for "free" health care whether they wanted it or not had little incentive to pay extra for health care through the fraternal societies, rather than using the government care they had already paid for.

In America, it took longer for the nation's health care system to be socialized, so the medical establishment had to achieve its ends more indirectly; but the essential result was the same. Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.

Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices — a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.

The final death blow to lodge practice was struck by the fraternal societies themselves. The National Fraternal Congress — attempting, like the AMA, to reap the benefits of cartelization — lobbied for laws decreeing a legal minimum on the rates fraternal societies could charge. Unfortunately for the lobbyists, the lobbying effort was successful; the unintended consequence was that the minimum rates laws made the services of fraternal societies no longer competitive. Thus the National Fraternal Congress' lobbying efforts, rather than creating a formidable mutual-aid cartel, simply destroyed the fraternal societies' market niche — and with it the opportunity for low-cost health care for the working poor.

Why do we have a crisis in health care costs today? Because government "solved" the last one. D



Bibliogaphy

David T. Beito. "The 'Lodge Practice Evil' Reconsidered: Medical Care Through Fraternal Societies, 1900-1930." (unpublished)

David T. Beito. "Mutual Aid for Social Welfare: The Case of American Fraternal Societies." Critical Review, Vol. 4, no. 4 (Fall 1990).

David Green. Reinventing Civil Society: The Rediscovery of Welfare Without Politics. Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1993.

David Green. Working Class Patients and the Medical Establishment: Self-Help in Britain from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to 1948. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1985.

David Green & Lawrence Cromwell. Mutual Aid or Welfare State: Australia's Friendly Societies. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1984.

P. Gosden. The Friendly Societies in England, 1815-1875. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1961.

P. Gosden. Self-Help: Voluntary Associations in the 19th Century. Batsford Press, London, 1973.

Albert Loan. "Institutional Bases of the Spontaneous Order: Surety and Assurance." Humane Studies Review, Vol. 7, no. 1, 1991/92.

Leslie Siddeley. "The Rise and Fall of Fraternal Insurance Organizations." Humane Studies Review, Vol. 7, no. 2, 1992.

S. David Young. The Rule of Experts: Occupational Licensing in America. Cato Institute, Washington, 1987.

Quote:

population grows exponentially, we just need more people being born

Well then I'd better get to some serious fornicating!

My Dad was Baker Acted twice this year, and received a bill for over $100,000. This for shared room, some meds, "food", and "counseling" for less than 3 weeks cumulative. I don't know what the negotiated bill was, but it was 100% covered. Initially the coverage was denied because there was no pre-approval [how do you get that when the subject shoots up his house with family members in it on a Sunday morning and the police respond in 15 minutes?]

I have been unemployed for over 2 years, and have not had insurance for over 1. My Dad brought some nasty respatory illness back from the behavorial center which he gifted to me, I ended up in ER for an afternoon: the bill for Dr. consult and prescription of antibiotics was over $600. I still have too many assets for Medicaid, but have recently been accepted into VA coverage based on means test. There is a 5 week wait to get screened and seen by a doctor, which may be close to "Option #2".

The family doctor made housecalls in the early 60's and medical care was affordable from what I remember. The system morphed into a disgrace that gets me as steamed as Penn State does to someone we all know :)

If you are a veteran in distressed circumstances, contact VA. If you have any suggestions on how to bring the needed reform, post it. If you are Karl, please keep hammering on this. Thanks

Here's something I've never been able to get straight...

Part of the problem with the medical system is the fact that drug manufacturers are forced to sell their products at cost overseas, and then they got laws passed that restrict the re-importation of such drugs. Karl's been very clear about this.

That is, let's say BigPharmaCo develops its new treatment for procrastination, Inaminutemomaphine, and plans to retail it for $(X + Y) per pill, where $X is their actual cost of production, and $Y reflects a reasonable amortization of their development costs over expected demand. The government of Elbonia is interested in using Inaminutemomaphine in their socialized medicine system...but they say, "We want you to sell it to us for $X, not $(X + Y). And, if you don't, we'll break your patents and make it ourselves." BigPharmaCo caves, and now, since people in Elbonia buy it for $X, they have to sell it in the U.S. for $(X + Z), where Z is much greater than Y, because it reflects the amortized costs of developing the drug across the demand only in the United States, not worldwide. And American consumers have to pay it, because of the law...and, if that law doesn't exist, Americans buy it from overseas, and BigPharmaCo, unable to recoup its development costs at all, goes out of business.

But suppose BigPharmaCo actually grew a pair, and told the Elbonians, "Nope, our price for this drug is $(X + Y). Take it or leave it." And suppose the Elbonians did break the patents, and started manufacturing their own version of Inaminutemomaphine locally. What recourse does BigPharmaCo have?

Could BigPharmaCo sue? Where? How is an American court going to enforce a judgement against Elbonia? And an Elbonian court is likely to say something like "It's for the CHIIIIIIIILDREN, we can't side with a greedy foreign company against the needs of our children!" and throw the suit out. What's left? Ask the U.S. government for trade sanctions against Elbonia? Unlikely, if Elbonia happens to be sitting on top of a lot of oil that they could cut off the supply of in retaliation. Complain to the WTO? The bleeding-heart liberals in the WTO would probably side with the Elbonians.

I really hope someone has a good answer for this, because if it's that easy for the Elbonian government to just walk all over BigPharmaCo's intellectual-property rights, then there's no real alternative to the strategy that the pharmaceutical companies, in cahoots with the Federal government, are employing now...the one that results in American consumers getting the royal shaft.

Quote:

I really hope someone has a good answer for this, because if it's that easy for the Elbonian government to just walk all over BigPharmaCo's intellectual-property rights, then there's no real alternative to the strategy that the pharmaceutical companies, in cahoots with the Federal government, are employing now...the one that results in American consumers getting the royal shaft.

Of course there is -- if the drug is not produced at all then the Elbonians don't get it either.

They are simply told that they either cut that **** out or nobody will get it, and it's not negotiable because we're not going to allow the cross-border subsidization to continue.

Bomb Elbonia and kill the procrastinators there.

Problem solved.

If the treatment for the Elbonian Government is too expensive, then the treatment does not exist. A lesser drug of generic availability would be approved for treatment. Problem solved.