[–] DickHertz 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Currently US companies and citizens subsidize drugs for the rest of the world. This should not be case for any reason. The pace of drug development would not slow if other countries made up the difference to allow companies to make a profit but even if the pace slowed that's not necessarily bad.
As for doctors some effort would have to be made to either subsidize their educations in return for indentured service for some period of time in (maybe) under-served regions or in some other way. Between that and getting malpractice liability under control they could still make a very good living mostly because they are not a commodity. If they were really after money there are other careers that are already much more lucrative than medicine.
As far as poaching we probably already do and as long as you pay more than anyone else that should still be the case.
[–] ougNaHadNepVed ago
Except if you are a person who dies because the drug to save you wasn't developed.
Yes, this is huge, but unlikely to happen. There are lots of lawyers in Congress.
That's not a sustainable model for a health care system. If that's our plan, I think it would be cheaper to just send patients as medical tourists to developing countries, something that happens already. That way we don't have to pay American wages to those doctors.
[–] DickHertz 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I am as concerned about that as much as I am getting into a plane crash.
They are already here. It's possible to do the medical tourism thing but only if you aren't too sick to get there in the first place. Also if you don't want to pay American wages and will go somewhere else what difference does it make if single payer lowers the income of doctors in the general case?