Pay your fair share of tax - everyone

[sasguru]

Additionally it's the source of the bulk of research so it effectively subsidises the world's healthcare system.

The crap that continues to flow from you is astonishing.
Kindly back up that ridiculous statement with some evidence.

[Robinho]

The crap that continues to flow from you is astonishing.
Kindly back up that ridiculous statement with some evidence.

Why is it ridiculous?

Medical Research Funding Level by Country: World Psoriasis Day Challenge | Psoriasis Cure Now!

[Paddy]

The £12m tax mystery: Tony Blair's earnings soar by 42% (but he only pays £315,000 to HMRC)
Tony Blair made millions of pounds last year but paid just a fraction of it in tax thanks to the complicated web of companies he has established.

The former prime minister’s secretive business empire declared an income of £12million.

But he was able to reduce his tax bill to just £315,000 after writing off almost £11million as ‘administrative expenses’ – a ‘surprisingly’ high figure, according to one accountant.

The £12m tax mystery: Tony Blair's earnings soar by 42% (but he only pays £315,000 to HMRC) | Mail Online

[sasguru]

Why is it ridiculous?

Medical Research Funding Level by Country: World Psoriasis Day Challenge | Psoriasis Cure Now!

I'm not surprised you're .

That's government funded research, you imbecile.
The US do indeed use a lot of tax-payers money in their NIH. I thought you were against that.
But it's a small fraction of the research done by large pharmas and other private life sciences companies.

[Robinho]

I'm not surprised you're .

That's government funded research, you imbecile.
The US do indeed use a lot of tax-payers money in their NIH. I thought you were against that.
But it's a small fraction of the research done by large pharmas and other private life sciences companies.

Since when were we specifying the sector it occurred in?

[sasguru]

Since when were we specifying the sector it occurred in?

The figures in that link are miniscule and so are irrelevant in backing up your ridiculous claim that the US does "most research and subsidises the rest of the world's healthcare systems"
Most healthcare research is done by private companies, it takes billions to get one drug to market.

Anyway keep digging and show us a bit more of what you know

[Robinho]

The figures in that link are miniscule and so are irrelevant in backing up your ridiculous claim that the US does "most research and subsidises the rest of the world's healthcare systems"
Most healthcare research is done by private companies, it takes billions to get one drug to market.

Anyway keep digging and show us a bit more of what you know

Presumably if you feel i am heavily wrong you have the figures to show otherwise.

[Mich the Tester]

I'm afraid there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case:

Government-Run Healthcare is More Efficient Than Private Healthcare | Mother Jones

Also if you look at healthcare costs as a % of GDP for the US's more privatised system and compare this with the % of GDP for the major European countries who are more public funded, the European countries are far more efficient, for a similar or better outcome e.g. life expectancy is higher in Europe than the US.

But hey, why look at data when an unthinking prejudice will do, eh?

You also have to consider the costs to the economy of people who can't access the healthcare they need; more serious healthcare costs when you do eventually decide to treat them somehow, but also delays in treating people so they can get back to work and be productive. Lost productivity is very expensive.

Plus of course long term disability benefits for people who could have been treated on time and had no further problems with their illness.

[sasguru]

Presumably if you feel i am heavily wrong you have the figures to show otherwise.

I can't be fooked googling, but as I used to be in the industry, I follow it now and then.
And I know that just one company Novartis, not even the largest, spent £10 billion on R&D last year.
That's 1/3 of total US government spending.
So its reasonable to suppose that if we add up the R&D spend of the largest pharmas they would be quite significant.
But you do the research, you're the one who made the ridiculous claim the "US is subsidising the rest of the world". Up to you to prove it.

[Robinho]

You also have to consider the costs to the economy of people who can't access the healthcare they need; more serious healthcare costs when you do eventually decide to treat them somehow, but also delays in treating people so they can get back to work and be productive. Lost productivity is very expensive.

1. It is in the insurance companys' interest to keep costs down for their customers. So if it is cheaper to operate earlier or take preventative care it will be done.

2. If you are a more productive person, you can afford more expensive healthcare and thus you can get treatment earlier, and you can get back and be productive earlier. Thus the productivity loss is smaller in total than averaging the treatment time for 2 people.

Much like it makes more sense for a contractor on 50 quid an hour to spend 5 pounds on a taxi which takes 5 mins to get to work, but a receptionist earning 5 pounds an hour would be better spending 2 pounds on a bus which takes 15 minutes.