Hello Juan ████████
1. Seems like you're really passionate about this. I saw you liked the other comments agreeing with you as well, so, I decided it'll help if I respond.
Q1. Can you show me evidence of your claim that "the government developed over 50% of medication and unlike the private sector which is constantly removing medication off the shelves due to rush development"?
2. I'd appreciate if you share articles from reliable, known newspapers or even journals or studies. If this is true, I'll change my views because I was under the impression that the private sector via R&D develops medicines. I tried to search for this evidence because I was surprised, as I thought the private sector develops about 90% of healthcare innovation, but I couldn't find the evidence you might have. If you're not wrong, it might be a misconception that the private sector develops all or 90% of new medical innovation.
3. I also think that the pharmaceutical companies in India or elsewhere produce generic drugs. These generics can probably lower costs. However, certain medical innovations are protected by patents, which drive up the costs to acquire these drugs. This sadly made it tough for AIDS patients to get treatment.
Q2. How do you propose the private R&D companies working on new medicines be compensated for their work developing drugs, if not for their patents? Have you got an alternative model?
4. Well, I can only agree that it is more fair to:
(a) inform patients or if they are on an operating table -- then their next of kin prior to performing services, unless an emergency;
than the alternative which is to:
(b) not charge them, and then perform expensive operations or treatment, and to then charge them.
The second option isn't fair because then they need to declare bankruptcy. With option one, they can at least find alternative places or strategies to receive care which are more feasible.
Q3. How are the hospitals supposed to pay their doctors, staff or for the equipment, medicine or other fees -- if they're not paid?
5. Based on your Facebook comment reply entry: "(I) want poor people to die because the idea of paying taxes scares (me)", I sense, you believe that in response to my Q3, you would reply the government and therefore the taxpayer has to pay for the expenses incurred by the hospitals, right?
Okay, in such a case, can you please suggest:
Q4. Should taxpayers also pay for private healthcare providers? Or this should just be for state run hospitals?
6. I think most hospitals are private in the US and that it's either insurance or if no cash, no healthcare at all, right? In the UK, there's the NHS and then the more effective private sector. Universities often try to develop cures and treatments in the UK. In Singapore, there's substantial subsidies for locals and permanent residents, as foreigners pay the full price. There's also equivalents to Medicaid or other schemes as people fall through the cracks.
Q5. Again, kindly expound what system works best or is supposed to work best in your view? Subsequently, if possible, how do you or how are you supposed to determine success criteria?
7. Yes, I already pay for healthcare costs by paying taxes and even donate to charities that help the sick. However, I humbly don't see how doctors should be forced to treat patients for free. Although you and I disagree, it shouldn't be that everyone pays an unfair amount in taxes to pay for other people's health. I'm happy to put money into it too because the UK's NHS, although imperfect, does a great job.
Q6. How is everyone else supposed to manage if they have to lose most of their money to the government to pay for sick people?
Q7. Isn't it unfair for everyone else to pay too much? What proportion is fair in your view? Clearly, you'll vote Bernie or more likely available Biden, than how I would vote Trump, but I'm keen to learn more from you.