Canada - Healthcare "Parasite"

Toro

Senate Member
Can anybody offer an intelligent rebuttal to this argument. "Americans are greedy idiots" is not an intelligent rebuttal BTW.

Myth #2 The Canadian Drug Story

Ah … one of the holy myths of the “US health care sucks” crowd. This should be fun.

The general story is how you can buy many drugs in Canada cheaper than you can buy them in the US. This story is often, without specifically tying the logic together, taken as an obvious indictment of the US’s (relatively) free market system. This is grossly misguided.

Here’s what happens. We have a (relatively) free market in the US where drug companies spend a ton to develop new wonder drugs, a non-trivial amount of which is spent to satisfy regulatory requirements. The cost of this development is called a “fixed cost.” Once it’s developed it does not cost that much to make each pill. That’s called a “variable cost.” If people only paid the variable cost (or a bit more) for each pill the whole thing would not work. You see, the company would never get back the massive fixed cost of creating the drug in the first place, and so no company would try to develop one. Thus, companies have to, and do, charge more than the variable cost of making each pill.[2] Some look at this system and say to the drug companies “gee, it doesn’t cost you much to make one more pill, so it’s unfair that you charge much more than your cost.” They are completely wrong and not looking at all the costs.

So, let’s bring this back to our good natured friends to the North (good natured barring hockey when they’ll kill you as soon as look at you[3]). They have socialized medicine and they bargain as the only Canadian buyer for drugs, paying well below normal costs. Drug companies that spent the enormous fixed costs to create new miracles are charging a relatively high cost in the free and still largely competitive world (the US) to recoup their fixed cost and to make a profit. But socialist societies like Canada limit the price they are allowed to charge. The US-based company is then faced with a dilemma. What Canada will pay is not enough to ever have justified creating the miracle pill. But, once created, perhaps Canada is paying more than the variable cost of each pill. Thus, the company can make some money by also selling to Canada at a lower price as it’s still more than it costs them to make that last pill.

However, this is an accident of Canada being a less-free country than the US, able to bargain as one nation, much smaller, and next door. If we all tried to be Canada it’s a non-working perpetual motion machine and no miracle pills ever get made because there will be nobody to pay the fixed costs. I’m a big fan of Canadians in general (particularly Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, who if healthy probably would have eclipsed Gretzky – but I digress), but when it comes to pharmaceuticals they are lucky parasitic hosers. Drug companies in general sell their products to Canada at low prices, making a little profit, and reducing slightly the amount they need to charge other North Americans. This does create the silly illusion that the Canadian system is somehow better than ours because our own drugs are cheaper there. They are only cheaper to the extent we are subsidizing them by paying their portion of drug development costs and, unfortunately, we cannot subsidize ourselves (or we go blind).[4]

So, what is the purpose behind those who tell tales of these cheap Canadian drugs? Obviously they seek to ridicule our freer system by putting the parasitic and socialist system on a pedestal. They seek to imply that our system is broken, and delivers only expensive drugs, when the socialist Canadian system delivers the goods for its people. Thus, they implicitly argue that we need to have socialism here. It’s not complicated.

So, repeat after me. We could go with the Canadian system and have super cheap drugs, if only we can find a much bigger, much more medically advanced, much freer country right next to us to make miracle drugs for themselves, and then we insist that we pay them only a bit above their variable cost for our share, and then they in turn agree to let us be their parasite. Mexico, would you mind helping us out?




Zero Hedge: A "Criminally Insane" Cliff Asness Takes On Health Care Mythology And Pretty Much Everything Else
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Its a red herring attempt to equivocate on the terminology "free market" in order to endorse protectionism.

Maybe I will explain, in case I am accused of vagueness or jargon.

1. Its a straw man/red herring: your typical anti-(political)capitalist is aware of research costs and includes these things in their analysis. This whole piece is based on attacking the straw man argument that they are ignoring it.

2. It equivocates on free market: to me free market means free, as in freedom. As in, I don't like the price of this thing, I will make it cheaper. Not, I am the only person allowed to make this (the argument is assuming this very state to be right and existent) therefore I can charge whatever I want. Although in the free (as in freedom) market one would be able to charge whatever they want.

3. Patents are protectionism: they are granted by law, by the government, and enforced by the government. That is government interference in the market, and believe me, these companies don't want their drugs to arrive in countries whose governments are unwilling to interfere.

They could simply be honest and say in a single line "We need to charge high prices to cover our R&D." That would sum it up. Instead they attempt to use this sad fallacy to motivate a desire to abuse Canadian protection of their monopoly to enslave sick Canadians to their prices.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
That's not it.

I am interested to know if he is correct or not. I am wondering if anyone can offer a factual rebuttal to his argument.

I do believe that Americans generally subsidize the world for healthcare but I never thought it was because of the fixed costs of pills.

I mean, if you aren't even going to shore up intelligent responses, why should I bother?
 

Toro

Senate Member
Well, if I were to respond snarkily as you just did, my response would be "Well, you haven't responded intelligently yet." But I'm not going to do that.

Usually, "protectionism" means restricting trade via tariffs or nontariff barriers. That is what I assumed you meant by protectionism, as opposed to patent laws.

Instead, I wanted to know if it were true that the fixed costs were not covered by Canadians. I'm surprised by the argument in the OP because I did not think it was necessarily true.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It starts of with a false premise I think R&D expence is phoney from the start. The whole article sUCks. There is only a fraction of the R&D claimed that actually happens. The story leads to a gingerbread house in the forest. I know that wasn't intelligent but it's free. haha:lol:
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Well, if I were to respond snarkily as you just did, my response would be "Well, you haven't responded intelligently yet." But I'm not going to do that.

But you just... I mean you just... you don't see how you are...

Whatever, you can chew on my elucidation and read parliamentary committee minutes to understand how the pricing schedules work and reflect on what a red herring is.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
It starts of with a false premise I think R&D expence is phoney from the start. The whole article sUCks. There is only a fraction of the R&D claimed that actually happens. The story leads to a gingerbread house in the forest. I know that wasn't intelligent but it's free. haha:lol:

Of course the whole article sucks, darkbeaver. I read up a bit on the author, Clifford S. Asness.

This is what I found.

Asness is a right wing ideologue, a stanch conservative, he belongs to far right. Far right is fiercely patriotic (unlike Canadian far right, which is fiercely pro USA); he is expected to defend anything American. According to the far right, any good idea comes from USA, any bad idea comes from outside. Since the drugs are so expensive in USA and so cheap in Canada, of course Canada is at fault for that, that is how the far right logic works.

In addition, Asness is a manager of a hedge fund. These are wildly speculative funds which are responsible for reckless investing in the markets, shorting the markets and in general causing mayhem and misery to the investors.

I don’t know how many of you remember the Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund which went belly up a few years ago and triggered financial crises. Hedge fund managers are the sharks or piranhas of financial markets, the ultimate low life (actually in this I am insulting the sharks and piranhas by comparing them to hedge fund mangers).

Hedge fund managers played a big part in Chrysler’s bankruptcy. A while ago Obama took the Hedge fund managers to task and Asness was hopping mad about that. So there is no love lost between Asness and Obama, Asness is a committed Republican.

As such, anything he says is suspect; I wouldn’t believe a word he says. If this article is written by somebody who is independent minded, somebody who doesn’t have an axe to grind, I would respond to it.

Toro, if you are interested in serious discussion, post articles written by reputable, respectable journalists and you will generate such discussion. But when you post articles by a right wing nut, right wing ideologue, then the ideologue becomes the subject of discussion, and not the article posted by him.
 

Toro

Senate Member
Niflmir. I am interested in whether or not the OP is correct. I am not interested in an esoteric argument about patent laws or philosophical discussions about whether or not we are all truly free. If you wish to proceed down that tangent, I am not interested in participating.

SirJoseph. If you are interested in serious discussion, don't make ad hominem attacks and address the issue. Simply because someone is of a political persuasion does not mean his argument is wrong.

The issue is this - Do Americans subsidize Canadian drug prices by paying the full fixed costs whereas Canadians only pay for the variable costs?

As I said, I do not know if it is true or not. I suspect it is not. But so far, no one has addressed the issue.
 

Polygong

Electoral Member
May 18, 2009
185
3
18
Between Ireland and Russia
If they do, it is purely voluntary. I don't buy the argument that if the US changed its laws to be like ours that America could no longer financially support drug development. If they did, would the drug companies simply cease to research new drugs? If they did, they'd go out of business. What kind of company would chose going out of business over reduced profits?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Another place to look for evidence is in the profit margins of the big pharmaceuticals. How many billions in profit per annum. Compare profits from the US and Canada or any other countries they do business in. I suspect that it is the pharmaceutical lobbyists in the US who have garnered the right to hose Americans through legislation by buying off legislators.
 

Toro

Senate Member
Cliffy

I think there is some truth to this. The pharma industry is pretty powerful here in America.

It is also interesting to note that Canada has every few companies producing new pharmaceuticals. If one were to take the relative size of each country's economies, Canada would be producing far more pharmaceutical products.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Well, then my advice would be that a pharmaceutical company should not create a drug based on what Canada will pay. They ought to study the drug's interactions, and if it works out, then sell it. If they are selling a drug in Canada at a price that they can still make a profit on, then arguably you could say that some portion that is above the variable cost of producing the drug is split between the gross profit and the fixed costs of bringing the drug to market.

Since the variable cost doesn't consider the fixed cost, it means that the profit margin in a regulatory jurisdiction like Canada is not as favorable. It doesn't mean Canada isn't paying the fixed cost. This argument is suffering from conflation.
 
Last edited:

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
SirJoseph. If you are interested in serious discussion, don't make ad hominem attacks and address the issue. Simply because someone is of a political persuasion does not mean his argument is wrong.

Sorry Toro, but sometimes messenger taints the message. I am not saying that the argument is necessarily wrong. What I am saying is that the messenger is unreliable enough not to believe anything he says.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Cliffy

I think there is some truth to this. The pharma industry is pretty powerful here in America.

It is also interesting to note that Canada has every few companies producing new pharmaceuticals. If one were to take the relative size of each country's economies, Canada would be producing far more pharmaceutical products.

I read somewhere that there are at least 4 pharmaceutical lobbyists for every legislator in Washington. That is a lot of pressure and money to throw around.
 

Toro

Senate Member
SirJoseph

No doubt you would say the same thing if a very liberal American extolled the virtues of Canadian medicare and the evils of the American system.

Or is there a double-standard on skepticism dependent upon ideology?

I do not know if the OP is correct. However, one would look pretty silly if one dismissed it out of hand because of ideology and it turned out to be true.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
That's not it.

I am interested to know if he is correct or not. I am wondering if anyone can offer a factual rebuttal to his argument.

I do believe that Americans generally subsidize the world for healthcare but I never thought it was because of the fixed costs of pills.


A portion of the answer lies on the liability-side of the ledger. The article is accurate, however it is also incomplete in a manner that seeks to strengthen their argument 'against' (wrong word) Canada.

American healthcare providers are at a distinct disadvantage, relative to Canada, when it comes to things like receivables and legal liability. One of the limitations of Canada's "less free" society is that law suits launched for damages that could be directly linked to a pharmaceutical are extremely limited (on an individual basis) when compared to the same in the USA.

Healthcare service providers in the USA (this includes drug companies) can experience significant losses due to non-payment. In Canada, you have (essentially) one payer and there is basically no opportunity for non-payment from Canada as a customer base.

Second, teh legal system in Canada places restrictions on law suits and essentially has a minimalist formula that compensates patients for things like malpractice or liability for drug companies.

I think that you get the gist of what I'm suggesting and can easily fill in the blanks, but in the end, it comes down to this - doing business in Canada (from the liability side) is vastly less expensive.... The reduced cost is (likely) in part a reflection of this.