The left side of the blogs is all agog over Matt Welch’s comment that he and his friends would prefer things the French way – as far as health care is concerned.
“Wait a minute wait a minute,” one guy said. “If you were sick — I mean, really sick — where would you rather be? France or the U.S.?”
“Um, France,” we both said.
Matt later touches on the core issue – that U.S. health care is better if you can afford it.
And yes, our system is broken, and relies increasingly on rationing by a combination of price and patience.
And yes, the French health care system is far better if you are a young, working-class couple, or a chomeur.
But have we forgotten the 11,000 deaths due to summer heat in 2003?
Every system has its problems and advantages.
If I were young, underemployed, and healthy, I’d far rather be in France.
If had a chronic or serious disease, and insurance, I’d rather be here. Without insurance, I’d rather be there.
You pays your money (in taxes, insurance, or fees) and you takes your choice.
The heat deaths had little or nothing to do with the health system. “Public health” and accomodation support etc. is separate in both countries from medical care. Non sequiter, AL.
I disagree, Brian. When elderly suffered heat prostration, there were no air conditioned hospital beds available and little staff to care for them — one reason the death toll was so high.
Not a non sequiter at all.
Heck, I have insurance, and I’d rather have ANYTHING other than the US system. As someone with a chronic illness (severe asthma) I can tell you that our system, sucks.
When I was working, I paid $500 a month to wait months for a specialist appointment. I spent eight months fighting a $3000 emergency room charge that my insurance was supposed to cover, thanks to arcane billing errors made by both hospital and company. I paid another $100 per month when my insurance decided to drop the only medication that let me live a normal life. And I would’ve been completely screwed if I hadn’t been living in Massachusetts, with laws against basing insurance rates on pre-existing conditions.
Did I have a choice? No. I was self-employed, and already paying for the best coverage I could get through a broker. If I had had a regular corporate job, I would’ve been insulated from some of the cost but would’ve probably had even worse coverage.
A more compelling question is: “where would you rather be in 10 years”. Let us not forget that France is in a death spiral of an aging population combined with an influx of undereducated and usually unemployed aliens. This is untenable. You shouldnt judge the wisdom of being shot out of a cannon by how fun it is on the way up.
Sorry to hear about your condition and the meds that work for you, Matt. I know how that can be – a close relative isn’t insured at all and we’re helping with the meds bills, $hundreds/month.
If I had had a regular corporate job, I would’ve been insulated from some of the cost but would’ve probably had even worse coverage.
Not based on my experience and those of my relatives. From what I can see, many do have good coverage and see a doctor as needed in a timely fashion – my elederly in-laws do and they’re with one of the big HMOs.
But it’s pretty variable and if you’re self-employed with a pre-existing condition it can be harder to afford really good coverage.
agree w/ Brian. The heat deaths are a red herring.
As an owner of insurance, let me add that there is nothing nicer than showing up to the emergency room with a serious injury and finding 3 dozen uninsured people (ahead of me,) whose chronic long-term conditions have finally landed them there.
Then im sure you’ll enjoy the same experience _every time_ you visit the doctors office under socialized medicine.
Robin said:
> Not based on my experience and those of my relatives. From what I can see, many do have good coverage and see a doctor as needed in a timely fashion – my elederly in-laws do and they’re with one of the big HMOs.
Thanks for the kind words Robin. I admit I haven’t had a wide variety of personal experiences with W-2 employment. I worked at one company for four years, and we had fairly good insurance. We were pretty famous for our benefits, though, and made a conscious choice to pay lower salaries in return for providing them. I’ve heard quite a few secondhand horror stories from friends employed in the private sector and having to settle for whatever care they were provided.
Now that I’ve gone back to school, I have student insurance with almost no prescription coverage. However, even though it’s a state school, our Student Health Services is a positive joy. Great doctors and more efficient than the hospital system I used to have in Boston. I think this is an exception though.
SAO said:
> As an owner of insurance, let me add that there is nothing nicer than showing up to the emergency room with a serious injury and finding 3 dozen uninsured people (ahead of me,) whose chronic long-term conditions have finally landed them there.
Absolutely. People can’t afford their health upkeep, and then pack in the Emergency room with acute conditions.
I’m not saying a fully socialized health system is possible or even desireable, however things are Very Wrong Right Now. And, being fairly ignorant of issues in American health polcy, I can’t suggest a useful solution.
Mark said:
Then im sure you’ll enjoy the same experience every time you visit the doctors office under socialized medicine.
“Socialized medicine” does not unilaterally work or not work. The UK has socialized medicine, and Canada has socialized medicine. The UK medical system is a mess like you describe, while Canada’s is pretty much exemplary. The number one thing my Canadian friends miss about their home country is the medical care. One friend returns home to Vancouver every time she needs a major procedure done (she has severe problems with repetitive stress injury) because otherwise she has a waiting list of seven months. And she works at a hospital.
What’s needed is a system of medical care and regulation that fits the needs and values of our country. Our current system fails at the former, and as an American I’d certainly like to think it’s failing at the latter
Here in California, a “universal” system still wouldn’t preclude the emergency room situation I described because a great deal of the patients are not legal residents. Things definitely are “wrong” though, especially considering our government pays more per cap for health care than France does. The WHO lists french health spending as 13.7% of total gov expenditure, compared to 17.6% in the U.S. I’ve heard that all sorts of silly things enter these equations including large capital projects that “affect health,” so the number is probably skewed. Nevertheless, the point stands.
Mark, I don’t know if you’ve ever lived in a country with socialized medicine, but by your exageration- it sounds like you haven’t. Assuredly it’s crowded, but no more than any US hospital that is anywhere near a working class area.
As for waiting times in France, I believe much of that is mitigated by the fact that, proportionally they have 3 times as many doctors as we do.
There is an interesting piece on this subject at
“Driving Jobs Away”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7446005/site/newsweek/
Zakhria claims that an American worker costs GM $6500/yr in health costs, while a Canadian worker costs $800/yr. So market forces drive a public company to build more cars in a country with socialized medecine (irony alert).
Mark’s claim “Then im sure you’ll enjoy the same experience every time you visit the doctors office under socialized medicine.” is a ridiculous canard. Do you know anybody that lives in any other country beside the US? The rest of the world has some form of national health care and that “every time” claim has nothing to do with the experiences of my friends and relatives in Canada and Europe, or with my own experience of medical care overseas. Maybe it is time to turn off Fox news and get some real world experience. If socialized medecine is so bad why does the US have worse health metrics (life expectancy, infant mortality, cost of care,etc.) than almost every other industrialized country?
Certainly every country has issues and problems with health care but my experience with medical care in Europe was prompt, efficient, and pleasant.
A recent news story mentioned a French citizen living in New York who flew home for medical and dental care because it was cheaper than paying US prices. Would he fly across the Atlantic to face the nightmare you describe?
You seem to think that insurance is somehow free in France. If you paid their taxes you wouldn’t think so.
_A more compelling question is: “where would you rather be in 10 years”. Let us not forget that France is in a death spiral of an aging population combined with an influx of undereducated and usually unemployed aliens. This is untenable. You shouldnt judge the wisdom of being shot out of a cannon by how fun it is on the way up._
So it is just like the US except the US has even more aliens. France has been in this “death” spiral from before WWII when there were large influxes of uneducated and usually semi employed spagetti eaters
_A recent news story mentioned a French citizen living in New York who flew home for medical and dental care because it was cheaper than paying US prices. Would he fly across the Atlantic to face the nightmare you describe?_
Don’t foreigners pay double for medical care?
Also care in your own language is better than in a foreign language.
“The UK medical system is a mess like you describe, while Canada’s is pretty much exemplary.”
The people on waiting lists longer than their life expectancies might disagree. Still, there is one major difference between the UK and Canada, Canada has an emergency valve 50 miles from the bulk of their population known as the United States. If you dont get the care you need in Canada, well Detroit right across the bridge. The US wouldnt have that luxury.
“Assuredly it’s crowded, but no more than any US hospital that is anywhere near a working class area. ”
How extending that to the rural, suburban, and upper class areas of the country constitutes an improvement is beyond me. Share the misery?
“The rest of the world has some form of national health care and that “every time” claim has nothing to do with the experiences of my friends and relatives in Canada and Europe, or with my own experience of medical care overseas. ”
The ‘rest of the world’ doesnt fly to Canada when they need a specialist. The rest of the world doesnt get their miracle drugs from Sweden. Those places simply use the US as a resource when their own fail. The US wouldnt have that luxury.
“A recent news story mentioned a French citizen living in New York who flew home for medical and dental care because it was cheaper than paying US prices. Would he fly across the Atlantic to face the nightmare you describe? ”
Fascinating anacdotyl evidence, but it doesnt begin to compare with the incredibly number that come _to_ America for help when their own systems break down.
Look, obviously we have major healthcare problems in this country. But socialized medicine isnt rainbows and unicorns. The tax burden in Canada and the UK is something the US would never tolerate. Nor the anemic economic growth rates. You simply cant compare those places to the US, because without the US those systems would be defunct. Could Canada afford their healthcare system if they didnt have the luxury of eliminating their military? Doubtful. The entire argument is pointless because the US doesnt have a US to lean on as the rest of the Western world does.
“So it is just like the US except the US has even more aliens.”
The US aliens are actually contributing to economic growth, and as bad as the entitlement cliff is for the US it is nothing compared to what the Euros are about to experience. Plus our unemployment isnt at 10% and growing like Germany and our growth isnt flatlined. The bottom is people come to the US for the opportunity to work. People move to Europe for the opportunity to live off the public dole. The respective results reflect that reality.
What is the trade deficite again? Europe is doing allright. And you compare Sweden, somewhere around 13 million people, with the USA. Does the US still look so good when you compare it with the EU?
‘What is the trade deficite again’
An excuse for economists to have jobs. IE, nothing to anyone else in the country.
‘Europe is doing allright’
“The European Commission said the lack of progress on economic reform could drag the euro zone’s potential rate of economic growth down to slightly above 1 pct from the current level of around 2 pct and from the targeted 3 pct.”
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050412/323/fg6fe.html
And thats averaging in Eastern European nations like Poland growing at upwards of 5%! Its a good thing the EU brought in those nations or it would be readilly apparent just what a wash out Western Europe has become economically. For the record France’s deficit was a higher percentage of their GDP than the US last year and Germany’s unemployment was almost double the US. Needless to say they didnt touch the US real growth rate.
“Does the US still look so good when you compare it with the EU? ”
In virtually every way, while maintaining a military more expensive than the entire EU combined and then some.
Mark,
“Facts and figures on Health Care”:http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/04/real-crisis.html. I understand you are caught in the grip of the boogyman of “socialized medicine”, but the facts don’t support your position, around health care.
Eastern Europe is only 5% of EU total so their growth does not show up in the total EU growth number
But saying that trade deficites don’t matter is like saying that East Asian”98 or Germany”22 didn’t matter. They were all crises produced by large trade deficites.
“Sweden’s largest trade union admitted that the official 5.5 per cent unemployment rate is hiding a “real unemployment” of 20 to 25 per cent, which includes those claiming long-term sick pay or having taken early state retirement.”
Yikes. Wasn’t that the Great Depression for us?
I’m reminded of an article about a doctor in California I read about who decided he would refuse to accept anyone who had health care insurance. This article talked about a number of other doctors who were doing this. He found that when he eliminated the costs related to dealing with health care companies, and forms, etc. the price of a typical appointment was down to $50, and this was in California. If the government put down the money to create a country-wide computerized system that eliminated paper work (hell, if we can create internet browsers and os that are open source, then why can’t we create an open source health care program available for free?), he’d be able to cut his costs even more. Factor in price competition, and it’s possible a general practicioner’s appointment could cost a little more than my co-pay which is 25$ and soon to increase no doubt. I remember when 10$ was considered a lot. I guess my question is: do we really need insurance for some of the things we’re insuring? We pay full price for getting a manicure or a haircut or a massage, why do we need to have insurance for some things? If it’s possible to bring down the cost of a general appointment that much, then why not?
I wish I could find that article. I think it was in the csmonitor.com but I didn’t see it when I checked the site.
k speaking from personal experience as a canuk…
for the vast vast vast majority of procedures, waiting lists are dramatically longer in Canada than in the US.
Matt, i have no idea how your friend could be facing a 7 month wait in US and 0 wait in Can. seriously that is not a broad experience. you can get excellent care in canada, if you are somebody (pols have access to special hospitals, very much like special everything for the senior party members in USSR, Cuba, etc) or if you are connected to medical establishment (golf, ski, play tennis, etc with the right people… i.e. you’re rich and have the right friends).
Sure the line item for GM is less explicitly for healthcare, but it is higher in other ways. Healthcare is eating up most government spending at all levels, crowding out other projects. Plus Ontario just raised a health care tax for employees to $600/year. GM pays more per worker for health in Canada than in the US, its just accounting fictions… Single payer is bad bad bad. Free the market in insurance so that you can buy what you want (no government mandated coverage that makes it more expensive). Get rid of punitive and pain and suffering damages. End medicare. all good ways at improving healthcare and reducing the costs. (ending medicare gets more people paying for their own treatment and encourages more people to buy health insurance, so that they have less catastrophic risk)
This is the article I was referencing. Finally found it. I got one or two facts off but it’s still the same. The actual logistics of the plan don’t seem to be included.
Lindenen,
long term sick is the way to lower the number if unemployed. This trick isn’t only done in Sweden but also in the US.
But to include the early retired in the “real” number of unemployed is IMHO wrong. Large numbers of those would take voluntary retirement otherwise and the people who you are left with are mostly the poor, who do more manual labour. And it is more economical to just pay that group to stop working.
> The UK medical system is a mess like you describe, while Canada’s is pretty much exemplary.
My wife’s uncle would disagree with you (if he were still alive).
He had a bad heart, and was scheduled to have a pacemaker installed. In three months. Two months later, his surgery was postponed for another four months. Three months later, it was postponed again. He died (heart failure) before his third surgical date could be postponed again.
But at least all his health care was “free”.
“The UK medical system is a mess like you describe, while Canada’s is pretty much exemplary.”
Oh my! Take it from a Canadian. Our system has been nowhere near exemplary for many, many years now. Waiting lists (even for procedures considered critical) have been atrocious for years, and are just getting worse! Sorry, but your information is way out of date.
I’m an American long resident in Australia. Here we have both a public and private system. The competition between the two system seems to produce benefits. Like the private picks up where the public system breaks down – certainly with waiting lists and elective procedures. We pay for the public system through a special medical levy on top of income tax…so we see what we pay. At 62 I’m paying about US$1000 on top of the levy a year to be in the private system. I get dental and glasses and chiropractic and a heap of other benefits on top of private hospital care for the $1000. Together they make a good whole system. I had severe heart failure 2 years ago. The emergency care in the public system was excellent. A passing nurse saw my MD’s referral in my hand as soon as I walked into the ER and had me in the cardiac unit and on the monitors in about 2 minutes – bypassing all the waitng room mess. BUT I found that the after care was not tops. Lots of talk about procedures to cure my condition but only tablets in the end. I had to go to a top private cardiologist to find out what the real bottom line was and to be fair medication seems to be the best solution and is wrorking rasonably well. My sense is that a dual system may well be the answer for the US. An openly limited public safety net system, backed up by a private insurance system. BTW Single payer legally outlaws competition – a dumb move IMO.
I also note the California MDs who can make costs affordable by not involving themselves with insurance. I did hear an ex-health bureaucrat say on NPR that 50 cents of the health dollar got absorbed before it got to any MD or other medical practitioner. I doubted it at the time; now I think it may have been closer to the truth than I realized.
I dropped out off insurance in 2001 after losing my job as a result of the dot-com bust. I started seeing a physician (at a clinic) and chiropractor on a private-pay basis. I am generally healthy, but I have severe allergy and sinus problems year-round, especially since the California wildfires.
The most I have ever paid in any one visit was $124 when I went in for an ear-infection and bronchitis, all the result of a bacterial sinus infection. That was in 2004.
The last time I had similar problems was in 1998 when I had some of the best Aetna PPO insurance through my work. However, during my visit for basically the same problem, I received a chest x-ray, blood work of some kind, and the latest commercialized allergy prescription (at the time) Allegra-D. _By the way, I was later told by another doctor that Allegra-D was the wrong Allegra for me to be taking._ Anyway, all of that cost my insurance company more than $800, while I only paid $40 out of pocket (in addition to $90 per month as my contribution to the premium through my employer).
Since going straight private-pay in 2001, I haven’t spent more $1500 between the healthcare and the chiropractor. I’m a fairly healthy person and I couldn’t touch an insurance policy for that.
I’m an uninsured (albiet healthy) American.
I’ve never had health care in France, so I’ve got no real first hand experience with that.
I have seen the health care system work in America, and I think it works really darn well most of the time. Based on the fact that I’ve seen the health care system here work, and the fact that during a crisis I’ve seen both the Canadian (SARS) and French (heat wave) health care systems fail under pressure, and the ancedotal evidence from Canadians and Brits over the failing quality of thier social health care systems, I would say that if I was REALLY REALLY sick then I’d go to France only if I wanted to die.
In my opinion, health insurance as it exists now is simply driving up prices, and the top 6 problems with the American health care system are in order:
1) Medicare Fraud
2) Insurance Fraud
3) Out of control civil liability costs
4) Illegal immigration
5) Aging population
6) Prescription drug marketing
Medicare now pays 50% of all American health care costs. By thier own estimate, at least 1/3rd of the payments are fraudulent.
My experience with insurance, is that the cost of whatever you want done inflates to the level of insurance coverage. I’ve had several experiences with this with health care, but since doctor’s offices are unwilling to talk about the fraud that they engage in, the best example of this I have is from a mechanic. I went to get my windshield repaired, and jawed with the guy in the shop for a while. Eventually, I got around to asking him how much it would cost if I paid with a check. “$24”, he replied. Then I told him, “Well, I think my insurance would cover this, but I don’t want to have my rates go up.” His responce was, “As long as you only get two cracks repaired, they won’t.” “Ok.”, I said, “How much are you going to put on my insurance.” “$45”, comes the responce. “Why the difference?”, I say. “Well, they give us a number on how much the repair is supposed to cost and arguing with them doesn’t do much good.”.
So, in other words, the insurance agency is getting ripped off and is passing the expense on to me indirectly. I’m absolutely positive that the same is true with health insurance, and that health insurance may be inflating the cost of health care by 20% or more.
The U.S.’s problems with out of control tort costs and other legal expenses are well known. In many cases, this leads to hospitals and doctors prescribing more tests and treatments than are actually needed simply so that they can argue (should it come to that) that the doctor did everything he possibly could. That’s fine at some level, but its raises the costs for everyone.
In some states, care of illegal immigrants makes up as much of 20% of the total medical costs.
We’ve got an aging baby boomer population that thinks in thier typical self-centered way, that if someone can pay a few million dollars so that the would get a few extra years of life, well they should. And this comes from a population that didn’t save and which didn’t take care of thier bodies. Of course, much as we’d like to, we just can’t afford that level of care for everyone as a society yet.
Lastly, legalizing the advertising of prescription drugs has increased the cost of prescription drugs by at least 15% in my opinion. The bloating of marketing costs in the parmaceutical sector is ridiculous. And you know that the TV networks would fight restricting it again tooth and nail, because they are barely hanging on right now and prescription drug advertising is one of the main sources of revenue.
The honorable mention problem is government red tape, but since bureaucracy will always be with it I’m less sanguine about the ability to do anything significant about that in the short term.
If you have a serious disease, and are genuinely poor, you do fairly well in the US. Not perfect, but there are tradeoffs everywhere. (And one can tell waiting list horror stories from elsewhere.)
What really gets you in the US is when you have a serious disease and money in the bank (and no insurance), as your money will be completely exhausted first.
Lastly, legalizing the advertising of prescription drugs has increased the cost of prescription drugs by at least 15% in my opinion.
Possible, but the relationship is nowhere near as simple as you seem to believe. The point of advertising is to raise profits by increasing sales. Advertising pays for itself, in other words. You don’t automatically have to raise prices to “pay for” it. (Especially since drugs on patent are generally not sold at marginal cost, they’re sold at a higher price due to the patent protection– something designed to enable companies to recover R&D costs.)
It’s possible, of course, that pharmaceutical advertising is merely about fighting over shares of the same pie. In that case, it would increase prices.
OTOH, if pharmaceutical advertising increases the total number of people who choose to take medicine, then it doesn’t necessarily increase prices. The pure extra sales pay for themselves by increasing profits without a price increase.
So, which situation is likely happening? Judging by the drug advertisements I see, they’re mostly for lifestyle, optional, or preventative drugs. Things like impotence, allergies, high cholesterol level, heartburn, etc. Stuff that people can live with, that people might choose to just suffer with rather than take medicine, might be too embarassed to seek treatment or tell their doctor about, or might not know is a problem that can be treated. Given that, it seems to me like the ads are about growing the pie, selling drugs to people who otherwise wouldn’t treat their conditions. Therefore, it’s probably not increasing prices by much, and could even be decreasing prices. As a crude example, you can make more profit by selling to 10 people at $1000 each and paying $4000 on advertising, then by selling to 1 person at $5000 each.
The big potential problem with advertising (and another problem with drug companies doing junkets for doctors) is when it convinces someone that they must have the latest and greatest expensive still patented drug instead of the now off patent 8 years old equivalent.
If the people use more drugs than they will spend in total more on drugs. 15% is IMHO an underestimation
“If the people use more drugs than they will spend in total more on drugs. 15% is IMHO an underestimation”
We’re talking about the cost of the drug itself, not the amount spent in total. I would agree that at the end of the day it will be lower or equal. Advertising is a drop in the bucket compared to drug R&D, increasingly sales will impact the cost downward.
Otoh, it is absolutely correct that consumers are demanding drugs that they dont necessarily need or can be replaced by equally effective alternatives. Nationalizing health care would simply take these kinds of decisions away from patients, doctors, and insurance companies and have the government deliver from the lowest bidder (or closest crony). Sound like a good deal?
From a small business owner’s perspective, health insurance premiums are out-of-control. I don’t think taxpayor funded health care is a panacea. But I do like the idea of small businesses (and mine in particular).
In my community, the government (federal, state and local) employs about 1/3 of workers and if we add in retirees, it would surprise me if I’m not already living in a government health system that I helped pay for, but I get no benefits from.
Losing the faith.
Patrick
_Advertising is a drop in the bucket compared to drug R&D,_
Drugs companies spend more money on selling the product than on R&D
_increasingly sales will impact the cost downward_
increased sales will decrease the cost of an individual item but will increase the total cost of all the items. And this is only true in a non-monopolistic market which medicine (patents) isn’t
_consumers are demanding drugs that they dont necessarily need_
pills are poison if you don’t need them.
“Drugs companies spend more money on selling the product than on R&D”
Which isnt the same as advertising.
“increasingly sales will impact the cost downward
increased sales will decrease the cost of an individual item but will increase the total cost of all the items. And this is only true in a non-monopolistic market which medicine (patents) isn’t”
You obviously arent taking the economy of scale into account. It costs less per item to manufacture higher volumes. Whats more, pharmaceuticals are not a monopolistic market, and in fact advertising allows different drugs to directly compete (allergy meds, errectile magic, etc). This, obviously, holds prices down.
“consumers are demanding drugs that they dont necessarily need
pills are poison if you don’t need them.”
Eh? I have no idea what that sweeping statement is supposed to mean. People take vitamins all the time and end up pissing them away (literally) because we get almost all that in our diets. Is that poison?
I do have socialized insurance and I live in the USA. It’s called Medicare. Despite having a chronic illness that has no known cure, Medicare has paid for some very expensive treatment that has kept me alive and productive for the nearly eight years since diagnosis. If I were forced to rely on my private group insurance I’d have maxed out several years ago.
Those of us with chronic diseases often form internet support groups. So I’ve had the painful experience of watching younger people get my disease, become too ill to work, leave their job and thus eventually lose their health insurance. Then they stop posting. Don’t need much of an imagination to fill in the blanks.
A single payer system with emphasis on preventive medicine seems to me to be the best alternative to the current US approach.
_”Drugs companies spend more money on selling the product than on R&D”
Which isnt the same as advertising._
But advertising can in that case not be a drop in the bucket compared to R&D.
_increased sales will decrease the cost of an individual item but will increase the total cost of all the items. And this is only true in a non-monopolistic market which medicine (patents) isn’t”
You obviously arent taking the economy of scale into account. It costs less per item to manufacture higher volumes._
Uhm, i am. cost per item goes down but to price of the total volume goes up
_ Whats more, pharmaceuticals are not a monopolistic market, and in fact advertising allows different drugs to directly compete (allergy meds, errectile magic, etc). This, obviously, holds prices down._
But a lot of drugs are one of a kind for which there are no alternatives. Also higher priced items are perceived to be better so people will want the most expensive drugs, especially if somebody else (the insurance company) will pay.
_Is that poison?_
In too high a dose, Yes. But a lot of drugs have severe side effects so you wouldn’t want to use them when you don’t need them