John Aravosis asks the following question on AMERICAblog.com: I want your input. Are drugs from Canada safe or not?.
Get over there and help him out. Let him know that Canadian drug suppliers are reliable. These are same generic drugs that are sold to Canadians.
Why does John need to know whether Canadian drugs are safe? Because he can't afford the prescriptions his doctor gave him unless he buys his drugs from Canada where they are half the price. I probably wouldn't hurt to remind him of the advantages of socialized medicine.
[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]
3 comments :
It is easy to criticize the US healthcare system, but we should be clear on one thing: it is not "free market" or "private" healthcare. A free market in healthcare would be more efficient and innovative, and offer better quality products and services, with lower prices than is currently the case.
In addition to the US government's obvious socialist interventions with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, there are a multitude of other measures that hinder innovation in healthcare — and we can expect only increased involvement under ObamaCare.
While socialists point to the "failures" of the US healthcare system and, by some magical feat of legerdemain that merely exposes their (economic) ignorance, attribute it to the "free market," it is crucial for Austrolibertarians to point out the absurdity of this false reasoning.
For example, the US government accounted for over 45% of all US healthcare expenditures in 2006; it spends almost 20% of GDP on healthcare; indeed, it spends more per capita than any other OECD country (see Figure 1), including those with socialist, government-funded healthcare. In short, this is not a free market.
We can quickly list a few of the myriad government and other regulatory programs that keep prices high and stifle innovation: the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, etc. One reason healthcare costs are so high is because the industry is subsidized; and one reason government intervention only grows is because you can expect more of anything that is subsidized. Doctors and physicians raise their prices on those paying privately to cover those who do not pay, i.e., those the government pays for through theft, a.k.a. taxes. Government is a poor individual's (and everyone's) worst enemy, or at least should be when recognized for what it is and does.
Re the 1st comment, I'll restrict myself to saying that a "free" market in health care, which at least implies the ability to voluntarily withhold needed care from the sick and helpless if they cannot afford to pay, is as close to the concept of sin (with or without belief in a god) as I can imagine.
Re the post, I recall with some glee a lunch table conversation at a seminar with an attorney for a U.S. pharmaceutical company re the topic of whether importation of drugs from Canada to the U.S. should be permitted. The Rx attorney was holding forth at length to me and our lunch companions regarding the terrific dangers of permitting imports from a Canadian market with (in her view) completely inadequate safety regulations. When she was done, I drily observed, "Those Canadians must be dropping like flies."
Since the US healthcare system is decidedly not a free market and if the government truly contributes so much to healthcare, then I wonder why there are 40 million Americans without health insurance who cannot sometimes get treated even for simple health problems. Maybe the government should double its 'socialist' interventions then?
Post a Comment