The Grand Facade

Scott Hedrick wrote:

(except their beer is better).


If you get it fresh it is; but it doesn't age well at all, and gets a
skunky smell to it after a couple months or so. This is noticeable on
both Labatt's, and Moosehead in particular.
"And another one's gone, another one's gone, another one drinks a Moose!"

Pat- Distressed Gentlefolk's Wine Appreciation And Freethought Society

My parents buy medicines in Mexico. I used to, but the stuff I take now
costs more in Mexico than in the US.

I wonder how much the Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing the US drug consumer?
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:
I wonder how much the Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing the US drug consumer?

Not at all, as far as I know. The lower prices are not from subsidies,
but from the greater bargaining clout of a "single payer" health system.
(And probably also from a less berserk liability-law system.)
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

On or about Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:30:03 -0400, Scott Hedrick made the sensational claim that:
Why should Puerto Rico become a state and stop the gravy train? Right now,
they get just about all of the benefits, including citizenship, with almost
none of the obligations.

Exactly the same reason for Merritt Island to become a city! ;-) It's just
something That Will Never Happen, but will never happen soon now.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:
I wonder how much the Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing the US drug
consumer?

Not at all, as far as I know. The lower prices are not from subsidies,
but from the greater bargaining clout of a "single payer" health system.
(And probably also from a less berserk liability-law system.)

I wrote a paper on pharmacist liability; while in Mexico buying drugs I
asked the pharmacist about liability. He was highly informative- he said
that Mexico has liability laws similar to the US, but the *people* are
different. Extended families to help when needed, a general reluctance to
rely on authority (i.e., less likely to sue), and overall lower cost of
living.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03

In article ,
Rick DeNatale wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:14:42 +0000, Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:
I wonder how much the Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing the US drug consumer?

Not at all, as far as I know. The lower prices are not from subsidies,
but from the greater bargaining clout of a "single payer" health system.

Does this also apply to health care costs in general? I know that many
border states US citizens find it less expensive to travel to Montreal or
Toronto for surgery, major dentistry etc. than to get such stuff done in
the U.S. The US citizens have to pay the doctor/dentist of course, and I
don't think that the Canadian government contributes in such cases.

Meanwhile, down here south of the border our health insurance premiums,
co-pays, and overall medical costs seem to be monotonically increasing.

The single most important factor in U.S. health care costs is the
insurance industry - an industry so powerful that the merger of CitiBank
and Traveler's Insurance, completely illegal by the terms of 60+
year-old antitrust law, was approved by both companies, subject to a
2-year integration period, despite the illegality. The
now-illegally-combined company made great use of the two year
integration period, lobbying Congress to make the merger completely
legal AFTER THE FACT. Which is now why every insurance company is
offering loans and banking services and why your local banks are now
trying to sell you car insurance. Of course, the fact that the
antitrust legislation which prohibited such a merger was designed to
prevent many of the factors which led to the Great Depression is a fact
conveniently ignored by proponents of financial horizontal integration.

In any event, another huge factor is that in the wake of 9/11/01,
medium-small insurers are tanking left and right. The economy has
suffered terribly in ways that make insurance companies much less
profitable than befo for instance, the costs of reinsurance (what
insurance companies buy to spread their own risks) has skyrocketed in
the wake of the natural disasters and terrorism. The stock market is
where most insurance companies invested goodly amounts of their
premiums, which for quite some time allowed these companies to keep
premiums artificially depressed. With the protracted and deep slump in
worlwide markets, insurers haven't had this crutch and premiums are
hurting them because they don't now (and in some cases like medical
malpractice premiums NEVER HAVE in most states!) covered the costs of
claims paid.

That's right - insurers have been using med/mal premiums to doctors as
loss-leaders. "Look, Doc, at the great rates we've got for your
practice! Aren't we a great company? Now, while I'm here, can I
interest you in some nice, high-profit-margin whole-life policies or car
insurance?" They sucker in high-earners in with artificially-low
premiums on their professional liability insurance and then make their
money back in bucketfulls on higher-return policies, trusting the
ever-increasing stock markets to make good their chicanery if they goof
with a particular policy or risk assessment. Even the proponents of
"malpractice reform" admit (when pressured) that such "reform" is not
designed nor expected to reduce premiums paid by doctors. For that
matter, legal insurers are tanking, too. Is there any movement afoot to
fight the "legal malpractice crisis?" Of course not, because there is
no crisis of any kind in any insurance field with the exception of
natural disaster insurance (witness the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew
and what might happen after Hurricane Isabel this week) and property
loss due to terrorism in the wake of 9/11. Well, that combined with the
world markets slump which deprives insurers on non-premium income to
offset their losses from claims paid.

As in all interesting debates, follow the money. In this case, follow
the REALLY BIG MONEY.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

In article ,
says...
Does this also apply to health care costs in general? I know that many
border states US citizens find it less expensive to travel to Montreal or
Toronto for surgery, major dentistry etc. than to get such stuff done in
the U.S.

It isn't just $$$. My officemate went to Montreal this summer for laser
eye surgery because the best available technology has yet to be approved
by the FDA for use in the USA.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

In article ,
lid says...
The single most important factor in U.S. health care costs is the
insurance industry

A neighbor who was an insurance buearucrat once explained to me that it
is in the financial interest of the insurance industry to add $0.99 of
paperwork if it save $1.00 on what is paid to doctors, pharmacists, etc.
So the insurance companies don't have an incentive to reduce total
health care costs, just to shuffle things around so maximize the
fraction of health care costs go to the insurance companies.

I once that that kind of thing was too cynical to be true...
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:12:44 -0400, Kevin Willoughby wrote:

A neighbor who was an insurance buearucrat once explained to me that it
is in the financial interest of the insurance industry to add $0.99 of
paperwork if it save $1.00 on what is paid to doctors, pharmacists, etc.
So the insurance companies don't have an incentive to reduce total
health care costs, just to shuffle things around so maximize the
fraction of health care costs go to the insurance companies.

Since insurance companies really make their money by investing the
premiums before they pay out claims, it's to their benefit to increase the
premiums even if claims costs have to go up to justify the increased
premiums.

When the auto-safety trend started a few decades ago, the insurance
industry backed them. An early example was the safety bumper standards in
the mid 70s. The 5 mph standard called for no body damage in a 5 mph
crash, which would of course save claims money in such a low-speed
collision. Unfortunately most collisions are at a higher speed, and the
net effect was that the more expensive bumper componentry typically needed
to be replaced, which raised overall claims. Critics claimed that the
insurance industry knew this and that it would allow them to justify
premium rate hikes, while not playing up the source of the increased
costs.

In article ,
Rick DeNatale wrote:
...The lower prices are not from subsidies,
but from the greater bargaining clout of a "single payer" health system.

Does this also apply to health care costs in general?

Yes, in general (i.e., there are exceptions). Most things are cheaper
here, sometimes very much so.

I know that many
border states US citizens find it less expensive to travel to Montreal or
Toronto for surgery, major dentistry etc. than to get such stuff done in
the U.S. The US citizens have to pay the doctor/dentist of course, and I
don't think that the Canadian government contributes in such cases.

Dentistry actually is an interesting case, because it remains largely
private here -- for historical reasons, it was *not* included in the
national health legislation. (There are several such exceptions, very
annoying ones.) Lower dentistry costs are an indirect effect of things
like cheaper supplies and a more favorable legal environment.

Meanwhile, down here south of the border our health insurance premiums,
co-pays, and overall medical costs seem to be monotonically increasing.

The fundamental problem is that no part of the US system really has much
incentive to hold down costs. Fixing that is easier said than done,
however. The Canadian system is by no means perfect either, although it's
generally better. (Most older Canadians can remember the days before
government-run health care here, and complain though they might about our
system's problems, very few have any desire to go back.)
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |