But do they pay as much as US citizens do? Note that I'm not suggesting that it's bad if they don't. It seems like part of the purpose of single payer insurance is that you can negotiate much better rates with pharmaceutical companies. So either other first world nations aren't negotiating really good rates, or they are negotiating good rates and they're paying less than US citizens are. (I would hope it's the latter.)
Let me sum up my thoughts this way - if single payer insurance saves money overall, that money is coming from somewhere. As it's been explained to me, that money is most likely coming out of the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and private insurance providers. Obviously saving money is great for everyone - except the pharmaceutical companies and private insurance companies. If that money dries up, is it possible that will stifle innovation?
I don't know the answer, and I'm not using this as an argument directly against single payer insurance. I see the value of single payer insurance. I'm just curious about side effects.
EDIT: Just to be totally clear, I'm not crying any tears for drug and insurance companies losing money. If we can get people the treatments they need at a lower cost I'm all for it. I'm just mildly curious about the macro effects of these types of changes.
> If that money dries up, is it possible that will stifle innovation?
I think its a complicated question. Most of the money spent by drug companies is on advertising and not R&D. If they are in an environment where profits are guaranteed via government contracts, and advertisements are banned, then where else can they spend their money except admin and R&D.
Will people invest as much into drug companies if they aren't seen as volitile anymore?
R&D costs are primarily because of having to navigate the legal structure of drug trials. If the government is more involved in the industry, how will this change? If for instance, the government foots the bill then costs go down, and the only downside is that time-to-market is increased due to government bottlenecking and inefficiencies.
Let me sum up my thoughts this way - if single payer insurance saves money overall, that money is coming from somewhere. As it's been explained to me, that money is most likely coming out of the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and private insurance providers. Obviously saving money is great for everyone - except the pharmaceutical companies and private insurance companies. If that money dries up, is it possible that will stifle innovation?
I don't know the answer, and I'm not using this as an argument directly against single payer insurance. I see the value of single payer insurance. I'm just curious about side effects.
EDIT: Just to be totally clear, I'm not crying any tears for drug and insurance companies losing money. If we can get people the treatments they need at a lower cost I'm all for it. I'm just mildly curious about the macro effects of these types of changes.