[ad_1]
During Thursday's Democratic primary debate, Bernie Sanders claimed that the pharmaceutical industry is defined by "greed, corruption, and pricing."
Oh really?
Do not get me wrong, the US pharmaceutical industry should face minimal export prices so that Europeans and other countries in the world do not "benefit" from Americans. But is Bernie right? Does he really tell the truth when he says that the medical innovation industry, including pharmaceutical companies, is fundamentally perverse?
I suggest that it is not it.
Bernie Sanders proposes a socialist system "Medicare for all" that would allow at least all to have access to health care. But let me ask you something: do you like maggots?
I ask this question because maggots and antibiotics can reach the same object, clean a wound, only people prefer antibiotics and they work better.
It may sound silly, but it underscores the crucial importance of innovation. US pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the vast majority of new drugs because they are profit-driven and push them to engage in high-risk research.
This point is also important, it is that the American health care system, although very inefficient and therefore too expensive, is the best in the world. Cancer patients do their best to come here if they have money, and part of the problem is that the link between income and care provision is not accessory.
Bernie's plan would transfer the robust system of patient selection from the current system of many people into the hands of a few people. The choices would all fall on the bureaucrats. And when the sources of revenue available to bureaucrats begin to decline, their choices will inevitably become less patient-centered and more focused on limiting care.
That is why the Soviet Union had a lot of apartment buildings and nuclear power plants, but not very good ones. In the end, socialist systems change the calculation of costs and move people away from what is good for people. We must ask ourselves one question: do we want a health system in which 80% of the population benefits from the best health care in the world and the remaining 20% have at least the means to care for their patients? Or do we want bureaucratic dominance and the end of medical innovation?
[ad_2]
Source link