Republicans, Australia and the Free Trade Agreement

[Captain Vegetable]

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?

You make an exceptional case, AstroBlue. I am adamantly opposed to the emmergence of this "permanent temp." Several people I know where put out of their permanent, full-time possitions because of this kind of thing. It's hitting everywhere from UPS to consulting firms. And even if I knew no one damaged by this phenominon, it's still not a good thing for the people.

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:


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?

Hmmm. I'm not at all familiar with Austraila's government, economy, or common business practices, but in so far as you've explained it, there aren't any disadvantages to speak of, out side (of course) the government involvement itself. But that's the conservative in me.

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

I suppose I should have clarified that the US governement is an inefficient spender.

[AstroBlue]

Hmmm. I'm not at all familiar with Austraila's government, economy, or common business practices, but in so far as you've explained it, there aren't any disadvantages to speak of, out side (of course) the government involvement itself. But that's the conservative in me.

Actually, I thought of one possible disadvantage.

Most pharamaceutical companies actually loby to get their brand of drug put on the PBS before other brands, because that guarantees it will be sell more than the other brand. Anticompetitiveness. Especially when there is like a $200+ saving per-prescription. Also, The drug companies were getting pissed off a while back at the goverment because the PBS committee knocked back drugs like Viagra. Rightfully so, might I add.

But still, I think the fact a child with leukaemia from a disadvantaged family will only have to pay $23.70 for a dose regime of much needed Imatinib Mesylate, instead of the retail $5,700; outweighs the cost of drug companies losing money from anti-competitiveness. But that's the utilitarian in me

[arjue]

*everything he said*

wooh! go Australia!