Republicans, Australia and the Free Trade Agreement

[arjue]

The US is awful as far as doling out farm subsidies goes. It's having a really bad effect on Mexico and Canada's not happy about it. The negative attitude towards this silly demand is a "practice what you preach" sort of thing.

Its also really detrimental to our economy. and you know why the last few presidents have continued doing it, considering where they're from and all.

[The_Meach]

The US is never guilty of subsidizing, as we know.

Unfortunately we subsidize too much. Boo! From corporate welfare to farm/steel subsid, subsidiz, subsidizing...whatever! We should knock it off.

Free trade w/Oz? A winner is everyone!

[AstroBlue]

Free trade w/Oz? A winner is everyone!

I swap you some uranium and a sheepie for a box of Hershey's syrup and White Castle Fries. Deal?

[Captain Vegetable]

He said THIS subsidy not subsidies in general. I agree that "proper" subsidies are detremental.

I know what he said, and I addressed him correctly. Look a bit further down in my post.

Benefit: All Australian's can afford drugs which they need to remain happy, healthy, functioning people.
Loss: Drug Companies only make a good profit, instead of a EXCELLENT profit.

How can cheap drugs not be a good thing? Some people through no fault of their own cannot afford drugs such as insulin, asthma, cholestrol and hypertension medication, antipsychotic agents, etc. Without this form of goverment discount, they would just not be able to function. These forms of subsidies are a benefit to the economy, since you then have a healthier workforce which can function.

Fitter, healthier, more productive.

The benefits are still short term. You're relying on the government's money for your health. That's never a good thing, man. They more money they have in something, the more control they have over it. I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm certainly no anarchist, but I just can't see the good in that. It's like selling your soul. You may end up with riches (prescription mends) in the short term, but at what long term cost?

[Matt]

The benefits are still short term. You're relying on the government's money for your health. That's never a good thing, man. They more money they have in something, the more control they have over it. I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm certainly no anarchist, but I just can't see the good in that. It's like selling your soul. You may end up with riches (prescription mends) in the short term, but at what long term cost?

With drugs, you sell your soul either way. I'd rather sell it to a government that's trying to help me than a greedy drug company that's after my money.

Drug companies hold the power of life and death over their customers, and can therefore charge whatever they want for their products. Anything to stop this practice of exploiting the sick and needy is a good thing for the world.

Or people like me who will have to pay $300 a month for prescribed antidepressants. That is like half my freaking income per month after rent.

Doesn't the knowledge that half of that money goes to marketing costs make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

[Captain Vegetable]

Doesn't the knowledge that half of that money goes to marketing costs make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

That isn't necessarily true, especially with pharmaceuticals. Most of the $300 dollar price tag goes toward recouping the product development costs. Marketing is important, but neglegable when compared to other costs.

[AstroBlue]

The benefits are still short term. You're relying on the government's money for your health. That's never a good thing, man. They more money they have in something, the more control they have over it. I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm certainly no anarchist, but I just can't see the good in that. It's like selling your soul. You may end up with riches (prescription mends) in the short term, but at what long term cost?

People not dying and being sick? The way the PBS is structured the government could not have any more control over the drug companies other than just normal health standards.

So you're saying it's better to rely on coperations such as your employer or insurer to pay copayments directly to the drug companies? Especially considering those coperations goal is to make profit (i.e. screw you over) and your goverments goal is to run the country (i.e. keep you happy so you keep them in). Many studies have proven that health policies like Australia's are superior to that of America, and it's not like our economy sucks because of it, our growth rate is one of the highest in the world.

There's no shame in relying on the goverment, you pay their taxes, it's a symbiotic relationship.

[Matt]

That isn't necessarily true, especially with pharmaceuticals. Most of the $300 dollar price tag goes toward recouping the product development costs. Marketing is important, but neglegable when compared to other costs.

I got that figure from my health insurance company's latest policy leaflet, and I can't imagine that they'd print something like that without checking it first.

You're right though - early on, the development costs are very large. After the drug has paid for itself, however, the price doesn't drop as fast as it should. This is especially true after the drug's patent protection has expired; by that point brand-name drugs can cost 5-10 times as much as generic versions, largely due to the advertising that's necessary to keep them popular.

[Captain Vegetable]

Especially considering those coperations goal is to make profit (i.e. screw you over) . . .

Hmph. Would you mind explaining how "making a profit" equates to screwing me over? I would argue exactly the opposite. You work for the company. The company needs you if they want to turn that profit. Therefore, of course they're going to do what it takes to take care of you. The motivation behind the action isn't altruistic, but I'm an ethical egoist myself, so I have no problem with it, so long as the outcome is the same. And the private corporations will do it better than the government ever could, as we all know governments are extremely inefficient when it comes to spending. I say let the private corporations do it. It's more safe for me, as I do not have to rely on the government's eventual perversion of the plan and inefficient spending.

[AstroBlue]

Hmph. Would you mind explaining how "making a profit" equates to screwing me over? I would argue exactly the opposite. You work for the company. The company needs you if they want to turn that profit. Therefore, of course they're going to do what it takes to take care of you.

In theory, but in theory communism works. The American health system is in crisis because it relies on corporations to care for their employees. Because of the rise of the "permanent temp", there are a _LOT_ of people, even in highly skilled white collar jobs that have little or no health plan. And even if they are in permanent positions and have a health plan, most of the time employees will not give adequate copayments to pay for their medication. Your theory would only work if a worker was actually an indispensable commodity, but in reality; if a clerk, accountant, manager, etc, etc. got sick and out of action, do you think there wouldn't be another 10 others to replace them?

Anyway, check out this very recent journal article:

The New England Journal of Medicine - 350(1) 01/01/2004 pp 9-10
The New Medicare Prescription-Drug Legislation

Here's a good quote from it:

Regardless of the result, there is no disagreement that the problem being addressed is real. Many seniors have drug coverage that they purchase privately or get through their employer's retiree health benefit plan, but about one quarter of Medicare's elderly and disabled beneficiaries, or about 10 million people, do not. The median household income for a senior is just over $23,000. As a result, whether they have drug coverage or not, many seniors struggle to pay for medicine, and beneficiaries with no drug coverage can suffer particularly serious health consequences. For example, studies show that more than one quarter of seniors without coverage who have congestive heart failure, diabetes, or hypertension report not filling prescriptions because of their cost, and about one third report skipping doses to make their medicine last longer.

The biggest super power in the world and you can't even get grandma her heart medicine. Aren't you ashamed?

In Australia, with the PBS there is no such problem. Sure, it's not perfect. There is some "wastage", but the goverment is doing there best to educate the public, and it's working. As I said, our economy has one of the best growth rates in the world, and in world markets we a punching well above our weight (i.e.population). The goverment is not breaching our autonomy in any way, or the drug companies autonomy. So where exactly is the disadvantage?

And the private corporations will do it better than the government ever could, as we all know governments are extremely inefficient when it comes to spending..

It's been shown that's not the case, and speak for your own goverment