Good piece on the Potential Problems

[Guest MikeSC]

No time for Kerry's Europhile delusions

 

October 24, 2004

 

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Advertisement

 

Orbitz

 

Maybe I'm getting old. I've been covering politics for 53 years, and that's just since John Kerry's convention speech. I'm sick of this election, even before the Democratic Party's chad-diviners have managed to extend it to mid-December. These are serious times and the senator is not a serious man. And so we have a campaign that has a sharper position on Mary Cheney's lesbianism and the deficiencies of Laura Bush's curriculum vitae than on the central question of the age.

 

There are legitimate differences of opinion about the war, but they don't include Kerry's silly debater's points. On the one hand, the Tora borer drones that Bush "outsourced" the search for Osama bin Laden to the Afghans, though at the time he supported it ("It is the best way to protect our troops," he said in December 2001. "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively."). But, on the other, he claims he's going to outsource Iraq to the French and the Germans, though neither of them wants anything to do with it.

 

As for this Bush-failed-to-get-bin-Laden business, 2-1/2 years ago I declared that Osama was dead and he's never written to complain. There's no more evidence for his present existence than there is for the Loch Ness monster, which at least does us the courtesy of showing up as a indistinct gray blur on a photograph every now and again. Osama is lying low because he's in no condition to get up.

 

But, even if he weren't, that's a frivolous reductive way of looking at this war. He's not a general or head of state; he can't sign an instrument of surrender, and make all the unpleasantness go away. The enemy is an ideology that appeals to various loose groupings from the Balkans to Indonesia, as well as to entrepreneurial free-lancers like the shooter who killed two people at LAX on July 4, 2002. If Kerry's oft-repeated "outsourcing Osama" crack is genuinely felt, it shows he doesn't get this war. And, if it's just cheapo point scoring, it's pathetic.

 

Almost everything falls into that category. Iraq's messy. So? What isn't? America has no Colonial Office, no political administrators with decades of experience in far-flung climes; its occupation of Iraq was learnt on the fly, because there was no other way. But the ludicrous defeatism over what's at worst a partial success is unbecoming to a great nation. If the present Democratic-media complex had been around earlier, America would never have mustered the will to win World War II or, come to that, the Revolutionary War. There would be no America. You'd be part of a Greater Canada, with Queen Elizabeth on your coins and government health care.

 

Speaking of which, if there's four words I never want to hear again, it's "prescription drugs from Canada." I'm Canadian, so I know a thing or two about prescription drugs from Canada. Specifically speaking, I know they're American; the only thing Canadian about them is the label in French and English. How can politicians from both parties think that Americans can get cheaper drugs simply by outsourcing (as John Kerry would say) their distribution through a Canadian mailing address? U.S. pharmaceutical companies put up with Ottawa's price controls because it's a peripheral market. But, if you attempt to extend the price controls from the peripheral market of 30 million people to the primary market of 300 million people, all that's going to happen is that after approximately a week and a half there aren't going to be any drugs in Canada, cheap or otherwise -- just as the Clinton administration's intervention into the flu-shot market resulted in American companies getting out of the vaccine business entirely.

 

The war against the Islamists and the flu-shot business are really opposite sides of the same coin. I want Bush to win on Election Day because he's committed to this war and, as the novelist and Internet maestro Roger L. Simon says, "the more committed we are to it, the shorter it will be.'' The longer it gets, the harder it will be, because it's a race against time, against lengthening demographic, economic and geopolitical odds. By "demographic," I mean the Muslim world's high birth rate, which by mid-century will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia. By "economic," I mean the perfect storm the Europeans will face within this decade, because their lavish welfare states are unsustainable on their shriveled post-Christian birth rates. By "geopolitical," I mean that, if you think the United Nations and other international organizations are antipathetic to America now, wait a few years and see what kind of support you get from a semi-Islamified Europe.

 

So this is no time to vote for Europhile delusions. The Continental health and welfare systems John Kerry so admires are, in fact, part of the reason those societies are dying. As for Canada, yes, under socialized health care, prescription drugs are cheaper, medical treatment's cheaper, life is cheaper. After much stonewalling, the Province of Quebec's Health Department announced this week that in the last year some 600 Quebecers had died from C. difficile, a bacterium acquired in hospital. In other words, if, say, Bill Clinton had gone for his heart bypass to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, he would have had the surgery, woken up the next day swimming in diarrhea and then died. It's a bacterium caused by inattention to hygiene -- by unionized, unsackable cleaners who don't clean properly; by harassed overstretched hospital staff who don't bother washing their hands as often as they should. So 600 people have been killed by the filthy squalor of disease-ridden government hospitals. That's the official number. Unofficially, if you're over 65, the hospitals will save face and attribute your death at their hands to "old age" or some such and then "lose" the relevant medical records. Quebec's health system is a lot less healthy than, for example, Iraq's.

 

One thousand Americans are killed in 18 months in Iraq, and it's a quagmire. One thousand Quebecers are killed by insufficient hand-washing in their filthy, decrepit health care system, and kindly progressive Americans can't wait to bring it south of the border. If one has to die for a cause, bringing liberty to the Middle East is a nobler venture and a better bet than government health care.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn24.html

[NoCalMike 0]

Aren't our companies making drugs outside of the USA though and then gouging the reimportation of them?

[Guest MikeSC]

Aren't our companies making drugs outside of the USA though and then gouging the reimportation of them?

According to Steyn, no. I thought we had always exported drugs into Canada and the companies accepted the losses since the Canadian market isn't that big and they could write it off with prices on the American market.

 

And his point on gov't interference destroying our country's flu vaccine industry is pretty much dead-on.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

the thing I see happening is that if the drugs from Canada could be imported is that American drug prices will go down enough to cope.

[Guest MikeSC]

the thing I see happening is that if the drugs from Canada could be imported is that American drug prices will go down enough to cope.

I see no reason to expect that to happen.

 

Again, gov't interference killed the flu vaccine industry. Force countries to take losses selling in the US and they'll simply stop making medications and do something else.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

the thing I see happening is that if the drugs from Canada could be imported is that American drug prices will go down enough to cope.

I see no reason to expect that to happen.

 

Again, gov't interference killed the flu vaccine industry. Force countries to take losses selling in the US and they'll simply stop making medications and do something else.

-=Mike

I'd think what Kerry is going for is allowing for such a thing to happen.

 

Which could cause a drop in American drug prices, so they don't lose too much business. It would be their decision, not the Government's decision.

[Guest MikeSC]

the thing I see happening is that if the drugs from Canada could be imported is that American drug prices will go down enough to cope.

I see no reason to expect that to happen.

 

Again, gov't interference killed the flu vaccine industry. Force countries to take losses selling in the US and they'll simply stop making medications and do something else.

-=Mike

I'd think what Kerry is going for is allowing for such a thing to happen.

 

Which could cause a drop in American drug prices, so they don't lose too much business. It would be their decision, not the Government's decision.

How would it do anything but cause companies to get out of the business?

 

Unless you slash the costs of getting a drug to market (astronomically high --- even worse, when you consider that a lot of drugs DON'T make it and the approved ones have to make up THAT difference, too) and help them with tort liability (the reason flu vaccine makers stopped making it) --- this is a loser of a proposition.

 

Taking losses in a market of 30M is one thing. Expecting them to take losses in a market 10 times a large is bad business.

 

And kudos to Steyn for mentioning that making health care free simply erodes the quality of the care.

-=Mike

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Yup, all of Europe and Canada. Not a good Doctor to be found. Just millions of people dying because of inadequate care as opposed to America, where everything is just perfect in the realm of health care.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The few times I've listened to that show in C-Span that aires British Parliment in action it seemed that way regarding their health care system...

[Highland 0]

It's not exactly free, since we pay for it with our higher taxes.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Of course it's free. That's what all the socialists say.

 

Well, ok, maybe not. But it's "free-er" for you than for THE RICH, and that should make you feel better...

[Highland 0]

Man, I wish I was part of THE RICH, that way I'd have assloads of money and I'd still get "free" medicare.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

We wouldn't see much change. Laws of economics tell me this. Right now, the US is paying high prices so that the rest of the world has health care. Should we allow reimportation, all these other countries will get to pay prices alot higher than they are right now. US prices could drop, but not by much, since were the largest buyer in the market. Supply isn't going to dramatically improve.

 

Our health care system is a welfare system for the rest of the world.

 

Oh, and about the rest of the world's crappy health care system. Money talks. Follow it. The rich people in foreign countries come here, and that tells me that our doctors are that much better.

 

Of course, it will be argued with, by someone who doesn't understand economics.

 

Sigh

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

How would it do anything but cause companies to get out of the business?

I could be wrong, I think American drug companies are making a profit. But there's a managable way that they could lower prices voluntarily. If they lower it enough that they go out of business, that's their choice. The Government won't force them to do anything.

 

Unless you slash the costs of getting a drug to market (astronomically high --- even worse, when you consider that a lot of drugs DON'T make it and the approved ones have to make up THAT difference, too) and help them with tort liability (the reason flu vaccine makers stopped making it) --- this is a loser of a proposition.

 

I'm sure something can be managed.

 

Taking losses in a market of 30M is one thing. Expecting them to take losses in a market 10 times a large is bad business.

 

If need be, I'd imagine the prize freeze with the Canadian drug companies would only apply to business in Canada (unless I suck at intrepreting Canadian law), and if they wanted to, they would raise prizes for what they offer to America.

 

It's about opportunity and having a market with another open door.

[Guest MikeSC]

How would it do anything but cause companies to get out of the business?

I could be wrong, I think American drug companies are making a profit. But there's a managable way that they could lower prices voluntarily. If they lower it enough that they go out of business, that's their choice. The Government won't force them to do anything.

The profit margin being worth all of the liability is an issue. I, again, will mention that Clinton deciding to make the flu vaccine available, cheaply, to everybody has caused the constant shortages we have now.

Unless you slash the costs of getting a drug to market (astronomically high --- even worse, when you consider that a lot of drugs DON'T make it and the approved ones have to make up THAT difference, too) and help them with tort liability (the reason flu vaccine makers stopped making it) --- this is a loser of a proposition.

I'm sure something can be managed.

Until it IS managed --- and with our government, I have no faith in it being managed --- it's going to be a black hole of money.

Taking losses in a market of 30M is one thing. Expecting them to take losses in a market 10 times a large is bad business.

If need be, I'd imagine the prize freeze with the Canadian drug companies would only apply to business in Canada (unless I suck at intrepreting Canadian law), and if they wanted to, they would raise prizes for what they offer to America.

That is basically precisely what they're doing right now. So, if your plan is to continue, why even pursue this plan at all?

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

and help them with tort liability (the reason flu vaccine makers stopped making it) --- this is a loser of a proposition.

 

This is what Bush said but from what I've read and seen on TV the main reason that they stopped making it was because it just wasn't profitable--market failure. You have a good that society recognizes as valuable but that the market doesn't. Seems like a case when the government should intervene in the interest of public health.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The rich people in foreign countries come here, and that tells me that our doctors are that much better.

 

Maybe they come here and go to the same doctors that American rich people go to. Just because rich people have access to good health care does that mean the system as a whole is better?

 

Also, how would you respond to the lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies in countries with "crappier" health care systems?

[Guest MikeSC]

and help them with tort liability (the reason flu vaccine makers stopped making it) --- this is a loser of a proposition.

This is what Bush said but from what I've read and seen on TV the main reason that they stopped making it was because it just wasn't profitable--market failure. You have a good that society recognizes as valuable but that the market doesn't. Seems like a case when the government should intervene in the interest of public health.

Actually, before the gov't interfered, we never had shortage problems.

 

The market was handling it fine, but gov't interference absolutely decimated the profit margin and made the undertaking not worth the effort.

 

They have to spend untold millions to get the facilities in proper shape to pass inspections. No problem with that. They also have to sell them for virtually no money, as the gov't decided that making the vaccine easily and readily available to all (which also led to people who don't even remotely need it requesting the vaccine), massively undercutting the profit.

 

And, again, they did nothing to protect them from lawsuits --- since every vaccine on Earth has side effects --- so they were bleeding money.

 

Gov't interference caused the problem ---- it cannot fix the problem by doing anything but getting out of it.

Maybe they come here and go to the same doctors that American rich people go to. Just because rich people have access to good health care does that mean the system as a whole is better?

If it wasn't better, they wouldn't travel here for care. They'd go elsewhere. Our specialists are the best in the world and if we decide to go the gov't health care route, that will cease being the case.

Also, how would you respond to the lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies in countries with "crappier" health care systems?

How do you explain Canada's problem with unsanitary hospitals when we don't have similar problems? How do you explain the elites of other countries coming over here for treatment?

 

We also have a more varied and large population, with many people from countires with poor health care (thus, they do not know much about such things as prenatal care).

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

I need more than the rhetoric of a columnist using an uncited source before I believe that Canadian hospitals are Third world cess pools.

I also don't care if the poor drug companies are made to make their products affordable: if it's a choice between people having the treatment they need made available to them and lining someone's coffers.

 

Ah, here's the source. Amusing he didn't bother to mention that it is isolated to a single hospital, and instead uses it to bash the entire medicare system.

 

Here.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If it wasn't better, they wouldn't travel here for care. They'd go elsewhere. Our specialists are the best in the world and if we decide to go the gov't health care route, that will cease being the case.

 

If people can't afford them it doesn't matter if they're the best. Also, what about primary care?

 

How do you explain Canada's problem with unsanitary hospitals when we don't have similar problems?

 

See Highland's post.

 

We also have a more varied and large population, with many people from countires with poor health care (thus, they do not know much about such things as prenatal care).

 

Other countries have immigrants, too. And the population is so varied because of social inequalities and economic disparity--symptoms of the type of thinking that has caused the health care situation to become what it has.

 

Why are you trying to explain away these bad health indicators? Can't we just acknowledge that it's bad and something needs to be done about it?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Our primary care is better~! Fools!

 

Okay. If anyone can prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there exists a better healthcare system than the United States, that is more cost-efficient, provides as much variety of service, provides better quality service, and serves more people, and does it all with much reduced wait time, I will mail you 20 bucks.

 

Arguments I will accept: Statistical surveys, research articles from reputable journals, anything that is based on data that can be falsified if it is indeed wrong.

 

The offer stands for 2 weeks.

 

I make this offer because I know it doesn't exist. I mean, (OMG HE'S GOING TO SAY IT) it's not like I don't do this stuff for a living!

 

There will always be winners and losers. I follow the money, that tells me enough.

There will never be a world where the poorest poor and richest rich have the same house, the same income, and the same health care. Get over your socialist dreams. Say hello to reality for me. Give me the system that gives everyone the best opportunity, that is completely blind to your race, gender ethnicity, and only relies on your ability to pay. I'll take that over rationing any time.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Give me the system that gives everyone the best opportunity, that is completely blind to your race, gender ethnicity,

 

Yeah that would be a great system, woudn't it?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

that is more cost-efficient, provides as much variety of service, provides better quality service, and serves more people, and does it all with much reduced wait time

 

Shouldn't the success of a health car system be based on public health?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

No.

 

You obviously do not understand the priniciples behind the allocation of scarce resources. Neither do you probably understand economics, social welfare, or any rudiment of modern philosophy.

 

Believe it or not, the American system is largely blind, because it is based on the ability to pay.

 

A system should be judged on how efficiently it allocates its resources across society so that overall societial utility is maximized...aka, what is best for the country as a whole.

[Highland 0]

Don't bother arguing with him. He'll harp on and on and on and on how he's an economist and does this for a living, conveniently ignoring the flaws inherent in the medical system he is championing.

[Slayer 0]

Give me the system that gives everyone the best opportunity, that is completely blind to your race, gender ethnicity, and only relies on your ability to pay.

Gasp

 

But then only EE-VIL~! rich people will have health care

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You obviously do not understand the priniciples behind the allocation of scarce resources. Neither do you probably understand economics, social welfare, or any rudiment of modern philosophy.

 

I'm just trying to understand things better. You don't have to insult me. At least I'm trying. Simply being an economist doesn't make you right.

 

Okay. If anyone can prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there exists a better healthcare system than the United States, that is more cost-efficient provides as much variety of service, provides better quality service, and serves more people, and does it all with much reduced wait time, I will mail you 20 bucks.

 

How is it the most cost-efficient when we spend the most money but don't have the healthiest population?

 

Don't get angry just because someone questions assumptions.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Don't bother arguing with him. He'll harp on and on and on and on how he's an economist and does this for a living, conveniently ignoring the flaws inherent in the medical system he is championing.

Yeah, God forbid he takes your points and shoots them down one by one.

 

And I thought he was a nurse...

[Slayer 0]

And I thought he was a nurse...

Maybe he served in Vietnam like that one presidential guy

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

If it wasn't better, they wouldn't travel here for care. They'd go elsewhere. Our specialists are the best in the world and if we decide to go the gov't health care route, that will cease being the case.

 

They do it because it is jumping the line. The weakness in the Canadian system is not the quality of care, it is the long wait times.