https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-contin...
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-...
What many people don't realize is that the majority of new medicine is patented and created in the US. Once it's released, governments that have socialized health care create generics and get around these costs, mostly because they don't have to put any money into R&D.
The world of medicine will be in trouble without our system, because govetnments are really not that good at innovation.
Socialized medicine is great for simple checkups, but breaks down as you get older and need major surgery.
I really don't want the government making these life or death decisions.
Medicine is not like building a factory, completely different capital model for Medicine is about "discovery" there is a universal truth out there (yes there is differences in genes not making it perfectly universal) , and advances in medicine is figuring out this discovery.
It actually appears most of our medicine discoveries use basic research that is governmentally funded and not privately funded.
Pretty much you are applying top down ideology that government is bad no matter the situation or context.
The reason is because you need to risk lots of money for R&D well beyond "basic research" and historically, governments arent nearly efficient enough to accomplish this.
Private industry/the free market is the perfect way to do this and historically has proven itself over and over again.
Another problem is that FDA approval takes over a decade and many billions of dollars. We need to find a way to improve this, without sacrificing quality.
A couple of good examples of the free market working in the free market is LASIK eye surgery. 20 years ago it was thousands of dollars. Competition brought it down to less than $500.
You don't get this natural competition with the government monopolizing healthcare and price fixing.
We all win with more competition, and government-run healthcare is the exact opposite of this.
That's a very odd statement - at least in the US - because health care for the elderly is paid for through Medicare. It's done that way because the elderly are more-or-less uninsurable due to the high costs of providing care. In other words, the US's free-market-style health care only works for the elderly because it's socialized.
You’re hand wringing over a system that is already here, and your fears are unfounded. If you want more drug R&D, up the funding for the National Institute of Health; it’s then publicly owned, and you’ve cut out yet another middleman (drug companies).
I'm going to have to ask for a source on this, it sounds like BS.
> I really don't want the government making these life or death decisions
I really don't want for-profit private corporations making these life or death decisions. History has shown that when corporations get to choose between life and profits, they choose profits.
The biggest costs in bringing a new drug to the market aren't in R&D, but in gaining the FDA's approval (which is similarly arduous even in the "me too" drug cases) and in advertising. Here, a small snapshot of just one segment of the health industry: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/22/the-apa-meeting-a-phot...
I don’t like calling it a human right. That implies the doctors are enslaved to provide care. No rational and highly intelligent person will pursue medicine as a career if it’s going to require 12 years of education before conscription into unpaid labor.
That's a ridiculous Shapiro-esque take. Are programmers enslaved by accessibility requirements? Are constructors and building owners enslaved by handicapped bathrooms and wheelchair ramps? Not to mention, the thing you're describing already exists and is one of the least controversial parts of healthcare. Doctors are required to provide care, even above and beyond the Hippocratic oath. They cannot discriminate against their patients in many circumstances. Generally this is agreed to be a good thing.
Healthcare as a human right does not mean that people are forced to become doctors and forced to provide care. It means that the available care should be distributed to everyone, just like the ADA means that available resources must also be distributed to give some level of equity to people born with disabilities. All humans deserve an equal footing, and should not be responsible for bad things happening to them which are not their fault. Disabilities are an obvious and clear example of that. Healthcare is similar.
I have no particular stance on healthcare as a human right but you're being atrociously uncharitable in representing it.
Government as a single buyer of services from private health care providers. What's the problem?
Access to a functioning justice system, as it ensures everyone access to laws, is arguably a human right, and yet no one ever says police, judges, or public defenders are slaves. Why is health care different?
How do libertarians square their notion of freedom from coercion with their embrace of winner takes all economics?
Best as I can tell, the two are mutually exclusive.