Well, showing us someone who did not get coverage is anecdotal as well. Can someone show a percentage of insurance claims that are accepted/denied and what were the circumstances of those claims?
I would argue that anecdotal evidence is appropriate in this case because one person being denied life saving medical service due to cost to a corporations bottom line is a tragedy.
I would argue that anecdotal evidence is appropriate in this case becauseoneperson being denied life saving medical service due to cost to a corporations bottom line is a tragedy.
I would argue that anecdotal evidence is appropriate in this case becauseoneperson being denied life saving medical service due to cost to a corporations bottom line is a tragedy.
What if the money the insurance company saves by not saving that one incredibly expensive patient, who may or may not have had a high chance of survival, saves 100 other people with much better chances of survival? There are not enough medical resources, and not enough money, to save everybody, period. We have to have some system to decide who gets treated how and when in order to save the most people. Looking at all the possibilities in the world, I think that pretty much every system sucks ass, but the US system is definitely preferable to a universal one.
Even if we switch to complete socialist medicine, people will die while waiting in line for care. Also, people with money might bribe doctors and get better service. Or maybe, someone who can afford to have a new, expensive, and advanced treatment for their rare illness will be denied treatment because the government won't allow it. The amount of tragedy will be the same.
We already spend all of our medical resources as much as we possibly can. The medical machine is running full steam. There are more patients than the machine can process. Whether we power that machine with insurance money or tax money, it gets powered just the same. The only way to make it better is to increase the size and efficiency of the machine, and the way to do that is with research.
Without incredible scientific advancement, which, as I already said, is the only final solution, tragedies will occur. Reality sucks. We have to deal with that. If you can't learn to deal with it, get ready for a shitty life.
What I think is funny is that people always say, " Oh, I will pay anything for [insert loved one here] to be alright." Then when they get the bill, they get all pissed off at how much it costs.
Let's use the development of drugs as an example. In the clinical research process, the most expensive step is the initial research, which is already mostly subsidized by the government, and topped off by people paying college tuition, providing grants, paying fundraisers, etc. The second most expensive part is the actual clinical trial. This is performed at clinics and hospitals and doctors offices, which again is mostly subsidized by public moneys and supplemented patrons of the clinics.
All that is left for the pharmaceutical companies is to manufacture, market, and distribute the drugs. Although, this is not a trivial expense, it could never amount to what pharmaceutical companies claim as their R&D; costs. Most of the money is in fact consumed by corporations under the guise of research. You will hear people bitch and complain about how their tax money is being wasted, but will have no problem paying the research and development costs of a drug that they have already effectively paid through their taxes.
How is it that you can buy the same drugs for less money in Canada? Does it make any sense that we can export a drug to Canada, and it it would be cheaper to re-import it than to simply buy it from the local drug store? How can a drug company sell for a profit in Canada at those prices if they really need to pay so much for R&D;?
Can you give me some references backing up your initial claims of the expenses involved in drug development? I'm not currently involved in pharmaceutical research, but I AM a scientist, and I can say that your claims sound, well, bogus.
Science research is expensive, and the companies that develop the products charge a lot specifically because the government does NOT subsidize everything they do.
1) Reaffirming what has been said already, "Free" health care is not free. If you believe that the current state of politics will allow for more spending without raising taxes (rather than re-appropriation) you're fooling yourself.
2) Do you think that the publicity stunt in Cuba was in any way indicative of the normal state of things there? If cameras weren't rolling and it wasn't a chance to stick it to the USA, would those guys have gotten help? Would normal Cuban citizens get the same quick treatment?
1) Reaffirming what has been said already, "Free" health care is not free. If you believe that the current state of politics will allow for more spending without raising taxes (rather than re-appropriation) you're fooling yourself.
2) Do you think that the publicity stunt in Cuba was in any way indicative of the normal state of things there? If cameras weren't rolling and it wasn't a chance to stick it to the USA, would those guys have gotten help? Would normal Cuban citizens get the same quick treatment?
You can't cite an article from 2000, that cites reports from 96 to 98 when its 2007. Thats nearly a decade of difference.
Also, no shit the government would have to raise taxes to pay for it, so what? The "free" health care is that for all intents and purposes, when you walk into a hospital or clinic and need to be treated you pay nothing, thus its free. Yes you are paying for it in your taxes, but because its apart of your taxes you aren't considering it part of your spendable income anyway.
And as for Cuba; in the movie the guy that dislocated his shoulder in England had no problem getting taken care of even though he was American, and neither did the French guy who hadn't lived or paid taxes in France in like 10 years, but they had no problem giving him full treatment for cancer, no problem.
You can't cite an article from 2000, that cites reports from 96 to 98 when its 2007. Thats nearly a decade of difference. ... And as for Cuba; in the movie the guy that dislocated his shoulder in England had no problem getting taken care of even though he was American, and neither did the French guy who hadn't lived or paid taxes in France in like 10 years, but they had no problem giving him full treatment for cancer, no problem.
Why can't I cite an article from 2000? Do you have newer information that renders it invalid?
And what do England and France have to do with Cuba?
Because, as I said, although the article is from 2000 (7 years ago) the information it cites is 10 years old, and 10 years is a really long ass time when it comes to statistics. And no I don't, but the burden of proof is on you not me. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying you need more recent statistics.
And what does Cuba have to do with England and France? National socialized medicine.
There are a number of factors at hand. "Universal Health Care" is a misnomer: true "universal" health care, which would theoretically cover any and all possible treatments that are known to exist for all citizens of a nation is entire unfeasible.
You have to consider all of the factors. The sad truth is that it plays out according to game theory. You can't have everything you want, so you have to make painful, difficult decisions. You have to seperate the emotional response from the logical one. No one wants to deny another human being medical treatment of any kind in the absense of mitigating factors: they simply do not have the economic liberty to avoid doing so.
Consider the following. I'm sorry if I sound cold, but it all comes down to numbers in the end.
Highest Level of Care
To what extent will the system go to treat an individual person? What is the most costly (cost involves more than just money) procedure that will be covered? What is the cap of care? Is every terminal cancer patient to be afforded multi-million dollar bleeding edge treatment? Are brand new and extremely expensive drugs covered? Is there no limit at all?
This is a clear diminishing returns curve. Each incremental increase in care provided comes at an increasingly increasing cost, and furthermore raises the total possible liability of the system (the "everybody has AIDS problem"). These costs are mitigated somewhat by the low demand for certian specialty treatments, but is simultaneously exacerbated by incremental improvements of existing treatments for common ailments.
To put it simply, how can you get the most bang for you buck? 10 cubes cost 5 dollars. 11 cubes cost 6. 12 cubes cost 8. 13 cubes cost 12. At what point is the next cube not worth the incremental cost? Could the system handle a "bank run?"
The bank run/everybody has AIDS problem cannot be ignored in health care. If an incrementally better treatment with a slightly higher success rate is developed for a common illness, any rational person with said illness will desire the better treatment. The better treatment, at least initially, will cost substantially more than the existing treatment, but for a marginal gain. Society as a whole loses, as the opportunity cost of the better treatment for all is greater than the net benefit of said treatment. The individual wins, as they personally get better individual treatment, and indeed would be foolish to settle for less if they have the option of more.
Lowest Level of Care
To what extent will the system go to accomodate minor complaints? Must they treat a scraped knee? Must they provide a consultation for a broken pinky toe? A bruised elbow? A single migrane headache? Is there a level of injury or illness below which the system has the right to ignore you?
Insignificant medical complaints take a great deal of productive time away from skilled practitioners. You must decide to what extent you are willing to deny care to patients, and what risks concurrent with denied care you are willing to accept.
Scope of Care
What kinds of care are you willing to provide? Medical? Injury? Psychological? Cosmetic? Elective? Is a benign but disfiguring tumour worth removing? How about an unsightly mole? Fitness training for the overweight? Substance abuse intervention? Nutrition assistance? Informational consultation? For each increase in scope, you take on a massive burden. What scopes of care are important, and which are you willing to ignore?
Triage for Limited Resource Allocation
Some quantities are limited regardless of resources expended. Transplantable organs are a primary example. How are such treatments distributed? What factors are considered? Is an elderly or terminal patient worth more or less than a young or otherwise fit patient? Should likely survivability factor in?
Without the limited factor of individual economic disincentives, many treatments become scace and in demand. If a procedure can only be carried out at certain, expensive locations, and said treatment is available to all, then either more of these expensive locations must be created and maintained, or this level of care must be distributed, denying it to some in order to provide it to others.
Barrier to Entry
Should the system accept all patients without limit or unit cost? Should there be a small fee for any care? Should there be a limit to repeated care requests for certain illnessess or patients?
If the cost of receiving care or consultaiton is zero, then the collective burden on the system increases monumentally. There is no barrier to entry, no reason not to seek care for any reason. A small copayment or initiation fee forces possible patients to consider their request for treatment more carefully, and can drastically cut down on abuse of the system. It has the drawback of possibly preventing very poor people from seeking care.
Scope of Coverage
Who is eligible for care? All citizens? All persons? All taxpayers? Foreign nationals? Foreign visitors? Can a Mexican or Canadian citizen drive across the border, get care, and drive home? Is there a waiting period? I believe the ramifications in this case are obvious.
Taking all of these basic factors into account, you then have to weigh the net benefits against the net costs. You then have to weigh the different levels of cost against the economic output of the society as a whole. You have to make the decision as to what will be covered. There isn't enough money in the world to provide it all to everyone: no matter what you decide, people will die.
The real problem is that people react emotionally. The sad fact is that there are no easy answers, and only difficult decisions. By and large, people in the United States are not willing to quantify such "sacred" factors as human lives or human suffering. It's easier to argue vaguely for or against "universal" health care than it is to consider the reality of the situation.
Because, as I said, although the article is from 2000 (7 years ago) the information it cites is 10 years old, and 10 years is a really long ass time when it comes to statistics. And no I don't, but the burden of proof is on you not me. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying you need more recent statistics.
And what does Cuba have to do with England and France? National socialized medicine.
If there is no newer information, it's the best information out there, regardless of how old it is.
Also, simply citing 10 year old studies, or using them as the basis of a current study, does not render a given data set invalid. They can use 10 year old data as the foundation of their testing, or compare their current data against older data.
If you don't have new research to counter this study, you can't dismiss it on the basis of age.
Because, as I said, although the article is from 2000 (7 years ago) the information it cites is 10 years old, and 10 years is a really long ass time when it comes to statistics. And no I don't, but the burden of proof is on you not me. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying you need more recent statistics.
And what does Cuba have to do with England and France? National socialized medicine.
If there is no newer information, it's the best information out there, regardless of how old it is.
Also, simply citing 10 year old studies, or using them as the basis of a current study, does not render a given data set invalid. They can use 10 year old data as the foundation of their testing, or compare their current data against older data.
If you don't have new research to counter this study, you can't dismiss it on the basis of age.
You can dismiss it on the basis of age if the item being studied ages rapidly.
Would you use the physical of a 50 year old man when he is now 60 or would you request new data?
What about the knowledge testing of a 10 year old compared to that of the same person who is now a 20 year old?
You can dismiss it on the basis of age if the item being studied ages rapidly.
If you know that it ages rapidly, then you must have measured it some how. Where is this data?
I am not the one dismissing it based on age. I am simply countering this:
Also, simply citing 10 year old studies, or using them as the basis of a current study, does not render a given data set invalid.
That statement is vague enough to apply to any study which is why I am countering it, the statement, not the medical data facts.
What I do know about data sets is that they can change over time if you are studying something that is not fixed.
Example: Data Set on dinosaur bones - Nothing major happens in this field anymore unless it is a new discovery. A T-Rex is still a T-Rex. one year or ten year old study will be very similar.
Example: Health Care Date Set - Medicine advances all the time. What was common practice a few years ago is not common practice anymore. Lyme Disease was virtually unheard for ten years ago but now it is becoming a big deal.
That doesn't really counter the statement so much as qualify it (which I sort of did, but not sufficiently). Age of cited studies does not necessarily render a given study invalid.
It's important to note that, even in the field of medicine research, old data can still be useful. It all depends on how you use the data you cite.
So, again, you have to look at the data being used, how it's being used, and the nature of the study in question. Only then can you dismiss the study on the basis of age of information.
Theory of relativity? Obviously it's not true anymore. It was discovered almost 100 years ago! Newton's theories are 300 years old. Obviously those aren't true anymore either. Copernicus? That dude has been dead for almost 500 years, nothing he said can possibly still be true!
It is possible, however, it appears to be highly unlikely in your case. Now, if you had made some joke about the '97 information being newer than the '07 information because of the "higher number" then we would have all laughed.
It is possible, however, it appears to be highly unlikely in your case. Now, if you had made some joke about the '97 information being newer than the '07 information because of the "higher number" then we would have all laughed.
You raise some difficult questions and some necessary ones. I completely agree that all of these things (and likely more) would need to be touched on when creating a more-universal health care system. I guess I don't understand where you stand.
Do you think we can answer these questions to build a better more-universal health care system? Do you think our inability to answer these questions (as Americans or as mankind) necessitates our current system?
I think there are more-universal health care systems out there (such as Canada, Briton, or France) that have made great strides in showing us how a society of people choose to answer these questions and implement a system around their answers.
Yes, some places such as Canada have shown us ways to implement this system but even those systems have an "out" in that you can come to the USA and pay money for procedures that you might not be able to get back home without waiting forever.
That is the key part that bothers me. Free is useless to me if I can't get what I need.
I go to work to get money so that I can trade it for goods and services that I want, that includes medical items. I don't want to have some government (or insurance) bean counter telling me I can't get a surgery because I'm too old. I want to know that, if I have the money, I can get the surgery.
Put me in the camp with Ryan, I am a far left leaning idealistic person who believes that the Great Society was the right idea and we as human beings should help our fellow man. I don't feel bad about what I have. Sorry for shattering some preconceived notions, maybe it's some of the old stuff I learned in Catholic school haunting me.
Agree. I know you guys hate taxes. If you REALLY want to hate taxes, try working for yourself and paying quarterlies. Even so, I'd be willing to pay more to have a decent national health system.
This is the same speech that John Stossel made when I met him earlier this year:
The video won't play for me, but let me guess his opinion:
1. Become a successful broadcaster. 2. Everyone else is on their own.
I've seen the film and think it makes a few important observations, but it's portrayal of France as some utopia is what I take issue with. France's socialist policies result it massive unemployment, huge economic defecits, a shrinking GDP, and other problems.
In France an employee receives instant tenure the moment he/she is hired and it is almost impossible for the business owner to terminate that employee if he/she is shit. In France you can pretty much take paid vacation days whenever you want as often as you want (somewhat hyperbolic, but not really). In France you can receive unemployment benefits equal to about 75% of your former salary for years while you "look" for a new job. All of this equals an environment in which no one has an incentive to work, businesses have even less incentive to hire (as employees are much more of a liability than an asset), and no one makes any money on the private market.
So generally a bad economic situation. But HEY! You get 5 weeks of vacation a year.
Can you give me some references backing up your initial claims of the expenses involved in drug development? I'm not currently involved in pharmaceutical research, but I AM a scientist, and I can say that your claims sound, well, bogus.
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It by Marcia Angell, MD. I have worked for two clinical research facilities, and have seen first hand the sheer number (easily hundreds) of non-profit/goverment subsidized facilities being used. I have spoken to my brother, who is a doctor at a hospital in an urban area, and the reason he cites for the free use of their facilities is the fact that there is some hesitation to take money from the pharmaceutical companies because of the ethical implications. Basically, they don't want anyone to think that they might skew the results of reasearch because they are being paid, or give the impression that they are trying a new procedure because there is financial implications beyond the welfare of their patients.
It's a very touchy subject, though they amount of money involved should make people take notice.
I'd like to know, though, what you mean by "use" the facilities. Are you saying the pharmaceutical companies are doing clinical research without paying for it at all? Are the subsidized facilities providing the staff to do the research? Are they providing the materials? Or do the companies just get acess to lab space, and then pay for the materials and research?
I'd like to know, though, what you mean by "use" the facilities. Are you saying the pharmaceutical companies are doing clinical research without paying for it at all? Are the subsidized facilities providing the staff to do the research? Are they providing the materials? Or do the companies just get acess to lab space, and then pay for the materials and research?
True, anecdotal evidence can be acquired to support any claim and is not something that should sway an intelligent, reasonable, intellectually honest, and objective person.
Incidently, if you're interested in a poorly constructed anecedotal argument trashing the Canadian healthcare sytem check out this "documentary" (it's only about 20 minutes).
Comments
Michael Moors website has a citations page for his film.
Even if we switch to complete socialist medicine, people will die while waiting in line for care. Also, people with money might bribe doctors and get better service. Or maybe, someone who can afford to have a new, expensive, and advanced treatment for their rare illness will be denied treatment because the government won't allow it. The amount of tragedy will be the same.
We already spend all of our medical resources as much as we possibly can. The medical machine is running full steam. There are more patients than the machine can process. Whether we power that machine with insurance money or tax money, it gets powered just the same. The only way to make it better is to increase the size and efficiency of the machine, and the way to do that is with research.
Without incredible scientific advancement, which, as I already said, is the only final solution, tragedies will occur. Reality sucks. We have to deal with that. If you can't learn to deal with it, get ready for a shitty life.
Science research is expensive, and the companies that develop the products charge a lot specifically because the government does NOT subsidize everything they do.
1) Reaffirming what has been said already, "Free" health care is not free. If you believe that the current state of politics will allow for more spending without raising taxes (rather than re-appropriation) you're fooling yourself.
2) Do you think that the publicity stunt in Cuba was in any way indicative of the normal state of things there? If cameras weren't rolling and it wasn't a chance to stick it to the USA, would those guys have gotten help? Would normal Cuban citizens get the same quick treatment?
3) Wait times for treatment in Canada? http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/162/9/1305
Also, no shit the government would have to raise taxes to pay for it, so what? The "free" health care is that for all intents and purposes, when you walk into a hospital or clinic and need to be treated you pay nothing, thus its free. Yes you are paying for it in your taxes, but because its apart of your taxes you aren't considering it part of your spendable income anyway.
And as for Cuba; in the movie the guy that dislocated his shoulder in England had no problem getting taken care of even though he was American, and neither did the French guy who hadn't lived or paid taxes in France in like 10 years, but they had no problem giving him full treatment for cancer, no problem.
And what do England and France have to do with Cuba?
And what does Cuba have to do with England and France? National socialized medicine.
You have to consider all of the factors. The sad truth is that it plays out according to game theory. You can't have everything you want, so you have to make painful, difficult decisions. You have to seperate the emotional response from the logical one. No one wants to deny another human being medical treatment of any kind in the absense of mitigating factors: they simply do not have the economic liberty to avoid doing so.
Consider the following. I'm sorry if I sound cold, but it all comes down to numbers in the end.
Highest Level of Care
To what extent will the system go to treat an individual person? What is the most costly (cost involves more than just money) procedure that will be covered? What is the cap of care? Is every terminal cancer patient to be afforded multi-million dollar bleeding edge treatment? Are brand new and extremely expensive drugs covered? Is there no limit at all?
This is a clear diminishing returns curve. Each incremental increase in care provided comes at an increasingly increasing cost, and furthermore raises the total possible liability of the system (the "everybody has AIDS problem"). These costs are mitigated somewhat by the low demand for certian specialty treatments, but is simultaneously exacerbated by incremental improvements of existing treatments for common ailments.
To put it simply, how can you get the most bang for you buck? 10 cubes cost 5 dollars. 11 cubes cost 6. 12 cubes cost 8. 13 cubes cost 12. At what point is the next cube not worth the incremental cost? Could the system handle a "bank run?"
The bank run/everybody has AIDS problem cannot be ignored in health care. If an incrementally better treatment with a slightly higher success rate is developed for a common illness, any rational person with said illness will desire the better treatment. The better treatment, at least initially, will cost substantially more than the existing treatment, but for a marginal gain. Society as a whole loses, as the opportunity cost of the better treatment for all is greater than the net benefit of said treatment. The individual wins, as they personally get better individual treatment, and indeed would be foolish to settle for less if they have the option of more.
Lowest Level of Care
To what extent will the system go to accomodate minor complaints? Must they treat a scraped knee? Must they provide a consultation for a broken pinky toe? A bruised elbow? A single migrane headache? Is there a level of injury or illness below which the system has the right to ignore you?
Insignificant medical complaints take a great deal of productive time away from skilled practitioners. You must decide to what extent you are willing to deny care to patients, and what risks concurrent with denied care you are willing to accept.
Scope of Care
What kinds of care are you willing to provide? Medical? Injury? Psychological? Cosmetic? Elective? Is a benign but disfiguring tumour worth removing? How about an unsightly mole? Fitness training for the overweight? Substance abuse intervention? Nutrition assistance? Informational consultation? For each increase in scope, you take on a massive burden. What scopes of care are important, and which are you willing to ignore?
Triage for Limited Resource Allocation
Some quantities are limited regardless of resources expended. Transplantable organs are a primary example. How are such treatments distributed? What factors are considered? Is an elderly or terminal patient worth more or less than a young or otherwise fit patient? Should likely survivability factor in?
Without the limited factor of individual economic disincentives, many treatments become scace and in demand. If a procedure can only be carried out at certain, expensive locations, and said treatment is available to all, then either more of these expensive locations must be created and maintained, or this level of care must be distributed, denying it to some in order to provide it to others.
Barrier to Entry
Should the system accept all patients without limit or unit cost? Should there be a small fee for any care? Should there be a limit to repeated care requests for certain illnessess or patients?
If the cost of receiving care or consultaiton is zero, then the collective burden on the system increases monumentally. There is no barrier to entry, no reason not to seek care for any reason. A small copayment or initiation fee forces possible patients to consider their request for treatment more carefully, and can drastically cut down on abuse of the system. It has the drawback of possibly preventing very poor people from seeking care.
Scope of Coverage
Who is eligible for care? All citizens? All persons? All taxpayers? Foreign nationals? Foreign visitors? Can a Mexican or Canadian citizen drive across the border, get care, and drive home? Is there a waiting period? I believe the ramifications in this case are obvious.
Taking all of these basic factors into account, you then have to weigh the net benefits against the net costs. You then have to weigh the different levels of cost against the economic output of the society as a whole. You have to make the decision as to what will be covered. There isn't enough money in the world to provide it all to everyone: no matter what you decide, people will die.
The real problem is that people react emotionally. The sad fact is that there are no easy answers, and only difficult decisions. By and large, people in the United States are not willing to quantify such "sacred" factors as human lives or human suffering. It's easier to argue vaguely for or against "universal" health care than it is to consider the reality of the situation.
Also, simply citing 10 year old studies, or using them as the basis of a current study, does not render a given data set invalid. They can use 10 year old data as the foundation of their testing, or compare their current data against older data.
If you don't have new research to counter this study, you can't dismiss it on the basis of age.
Would you use the physical of a 50 year old man when he is now 60 or would you request new data?
What about the knowledge testing of a 10 year old compared to that of the same person who is now a 20 year old?
What I do know about data sets is that they can change over time if you are studying something that is not fixed.
Example: Data Set on dinosaur bones - Nothing major happens in this field anymore unless it is a new discovery. A T-Rex is still a T-Rex. one year or ten year old study will be very similar.
Example: Health Care Date Set - Medicine advances all the time. What was common practice a few years ago is not common practice anymore. Lyme Disease was virtually unheard for ten years ago but now it is becoming a big deal.
It's important to note that, even in the field of medicine research, old data can still be useful. It all depends on how you use the data you cite.
So, again, you have to look at the data being used, how it's being used, and the nature of the study in question. Only then can you dismiss the study on the basis of age of information.
Do you think we can answer these questions to build a better more-universal health care system? Do you think our inability to answer these questions (as Americans or as mankind) necessitates our current system?
I think there are more-universal health care systems out there (such as Canada, Briton, or France) that have made great strides in showing us how a society of people choose to answer these questions and implement a system around their answers.
That is the key part that bothers me. Free is useless to me if I can't get what I need.
I go to work to get money so that I can trade it for goods and services that I want, that includes medical items. I don't want to have some government (or insurance) bean counter telling me I can't get a surgery because I'm too old. I want to know that, if I have the money, I can get the surgery.
1. Become a successful broadcaster.
2. Everyone else is on their own.
Deep.
In France an employee receives instant tenure the moment he/she is hired and it is almost impossible for the business owner to terminate that employee if he/she is shit. In France you can pretty much take paid vacation days whenever you want as often as you want (somewhat hyperbolic, but not really). In France you can receive unemployment benefits equal to about 75% of your former salary for years while you "look" for a new job. All of this equals an environment in which no one has an incentive to work, businesses have even less incentive to hire (as employees are much more of a liability than an asset), and no one makes any money on the private market.
So generally a bad economic situation. But HEY! You get 5 weeks of vacation a year.
It's a very touchy subject, though they amount of money involved should make people take notice.
I'd like to know, though, what you mean by "use" the facilities. Are you saying the pharmaceutical companies are doing clinical research without paying for it at all? Are the subsidized facilities providing the staff to do the research? Are they providing the materials? Or do the companies just get acess to lab space, and then pay for the materials and research?
Incidently, if you're interested in a poorly constructed anecedotal argument trashing the Canadian healthcare sytem check out this "documentary" (it's only about 20 minutes).