On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:26:29 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:

"Brainfried" <obfusc8ed@remove-this.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.13.03.52.45.851000@remove-this.hotmail.com...

While in principle I agree with the Libertarians, the real world has
enough imperfections that the Libertarian theory does not always work.
Consider this, if capitalism is always better for consumers than
socialism, then why are Canadians paying so much less for the same drugs
that Americans are paying for?


Yang

Blame the US government for that one. Reimporation of drugs to the US is
illegal. This is another example of why libertarians want limited
government. Government is people and people can be manipulated and
influenced.

Ah, but you're missing the reason why the same drugs (made in the US, no
less) are cheaper in socialist Canada in the first place.

The simple strategy is this: Canada, because it has one nationalized health
system, can bargain down the drug companies- either Xnatax givethe Candains
their drugs at the price the Canadian government sets, or they lose out on
20 million consumers. Compare that with a decentralized HMO system in the
US. Guess who has the pricing power, the drug company with a monopolistic
brand, or the consumers at the mercy of market power? In intro-to-econ
jargon, the monopolstic power of the drug comapnies are balanced out by the
monopsonistic power of the Canadian govenment, thereby mitigating the
deadweight social loss brought on by the ability of the drug patent holdrs
to set the price at where its marginal revenue equals marginal cost.

Now you might argue that the optimal amount of pharmaceutical research
requires the consumer to be at the mercy of the drug comapnies, but given
the fact that the real world has such details and complexities one simply
cannot taken full acount of (such as, in this example, national
soverignties), it means that someone under the free market system lost out-
the American consumers is in effect subsidizing medical research for
Canadians.

I would argue that in this case people living under the US market system are
worse off in comparison to the people living under the Candaian market
system.


Yang

I work for a Canada-based company, so I know a little about Canada. The
Canadian economy is about the size of California's. Granted, California
has a large economy, but that should put it into perspective.

I thought it was 26 millon people in Canada, but hey, 20 million is
close. Is that all? The US has around 280 millon. Many of that 280
million are part of some very large PPOs, HMOs and such. You don't think
those HMO's have purchasing and bargaining power? Canada only negotiates
like a large US state.

American medical care is simply better. People from other countries
wouldn't come here for medical care if it wasn't. I live in Houston. We
have the world's largest medical center here. Enough said.

A socialist system is bound to fail. Take the USSR for example.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:26:29 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
I work for a Canada-based company, so I know a little about Canada. The
Canadian economy is about the size of California's. Granted, California
has a large economy, but that should put it into perspective.

I thought it was 26 millon people in Canada, but hey, 20 million is
close. Is that all? The US has around 280 millon. Many of that 280
million are part of some very large PPOs, HMOs and such. You don't think
those HMO's have purchasing and bargaining power? Canada only negotiates
like a large US state.

American medical care is simply better. People from other countries
wouldn't come here for medical care if it wasn't. I live in Houston. We
have the world's largest medical center here. Enough said.

A socialist system is bound to fail. Take the USSR for example.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:12:10 -0500, Kate wrote:

Follow the establishment of civilization and small villages and see
why people group up and create governments - then you see why things
are the way they are.

How much larger should government be allowed to grow?

Half of our money
now goes to the government in some form of tax, fee, etc.

Should government be allowed to tell you who you can or cannot marry?

Libertarianism stresses limited government, not no government. Of course
some government is needed.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:12:10 -0500, Kate wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:53:06 GMT, Brainfried
<obfusc8ed@remove-this.hotmail.com> wrote:

Many libertarian ideals are counterintuitive. You've seen things done one
way for far too long. I know I have to look deeper into problems than I
used to in order understand why libertarianism works.

There are lots of countries that are completely free market. They are
usually referred to as 3rd world though.

I've gone through the libertarianism arguments. It doesn't work - if
it did there would be someplace where it was working. It's a pipe
fantasy that has huge holes in it.

Follow the establishment of civilization and small villages and see
why people group up and create governments - then you see why things
are the way they are.

How much larger should government be allowed to grow? Half of our money
now goes to the government in some form of tax, fee, etc.

Should government be allowed to tell you who you can or cannot marry?

Libertarianism stresses limited government, not no government. Of course
some government is needed.

Damn trial lawyers.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 04:15:55 +0000, raven1 wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:53:06 GMT, Brainfried
<obfusc8ed@remove-this.hotmail.com> wrote:

Give the drug companies credit where credit is due (and the money too)
but don't allow them to use government to artificially inflate their
prices. Essentially, government is allowing drug companies to fix
prices. Instead, get government out of the way and make the drug
companies compete according to the free enterprise system.

And when the government ceases regulating them, they'll collude to keep
prices right where they are, or even higher. Libertarianism is a
completely unrealistic fantasy.

Collusion is illegal.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 04:15:55 +0000, raven1 wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:53:06 GMT, Brainfried
<obfusc8ed@remove-this.hotmail.com> wrote:

Give the drug companies credit where credit is due (and the money too)
but don't allow them to use government to artificially inflate their
prices. Essentially, government is allowing drug companies to fix
prices. Instead, get government out of the way and make the drug
companies compete according to the free enterprise system.

And when the government ceases regulating them, they'll collude to keep
prices right where they are, or even higher. Libertarianism is a
completely unrealistic fantasy.

Collusion is illegal.

Proper application of penalties is needed. The
government must be put into a position of referee, rather than teammate.

This could be aided by loser-pays tort reform.

Large companies often sue small companies into oblivion as legal fees eat
up small companies. This keeps smaller companies out of markets and keeps
free enterprise from thriving. The end result is this aids companies in
collusion by having fewer companies within a given sector to collude with.

Loser-pays would work to keep large companies from bullying small
companies. This would also help individuals who can get sued for any
reason, valid or not, and cost the individual money for defense. Damn
trial lawyers.