RE: Government health care is GREAT!

RE: Government health care is GREAT! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 12:17:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Using Lucylastic's link The US has 20 of the top 50 companies The next closest is Japan with 10 So the issue of who performs the most drug R&D seems prima facia to be the US. So what? What's the point? For the purposes of this discussion, it almost doesn't make any difference where the drugs are manufactured. That's just deflecting the issue. This debate is about the relative advantages and disadvantages of the different health care systems, and the point is that for whatever reason or reasons, the Canadian system - and the systems of other civilized countries - do a far better job of ensuring the well-being of their citizens than the American system is able to do for American citizens. What you're saying is that we here in America have to pay more because those other health care systems that you say don't work are doing too good a job on behalf of their citizens. You're saying that you're OK with Americans dying so that Canadians can get better health care. Whether you intend it or not - whether you even realize it or not - that's exactly what you're defending. What I'm saying is that I think Americans have the right to expect their government to defend our interests at least as aggressively, and at least as efficiently, as the governments of other countries defend the interests of their citizens. If the drug companies need to rebalance their pricing structure, then that's just what they'll have to do. If the people of other countries have to pay more so that Americans can afford the same level of health care that those other countries enjoy, then so be it. Isn't that the way the free market is supposed to work? This free market that you guys are always hollering about? Or when you're talking about the "free market", do you just mean that drug companies and insurance companies should be enabled to make as much money as they can get their hands on, no matter how many people die?

Archer -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 1:21:47 PM)
You asked the question "How many drugs are actually produced and developed in the U.S. as opposed to other countries? " If you consider it deflecting then why did you ask it? The fact is consumers in the US pay a higher price for the same drug in Canada because the Canadian system is an unfair international trade practice. I propose a tariff. grin That can then be used to help those unable to afford the drugs here in the US to get them.

Archer -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 1:29:15 PM)
And I reject the idea that the US system is that much less effective and efficient. Both a natioanalized and a free market system ration healthcare The difference is if in how you view healthcare. If it's a right then the nationalized system seems a natural choice if it's a product then the free market system seems the natural choice. The only "rights" we have that includes the ability to impose on another person the requirement to give up their time for our benefit is in the right to a jury trial and the right to a legal defense. None of the other rights impose something on another person to act in our benefit.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 2:21:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda This debate is about the relative advantages and disadvantages of the different health care systems, and the point is that for whatever reason or reasons, the Canadian system - and the systems of other civilized countries - do a far better job of ensuring the well-being of their citizens than the American system is able to do for American citizens. What you're saying is that we here in America have to pay more because those other health care systems that you say don't work are doing too good a job on behalf of their citizens. You're saying that you're OK with Americans dying so that Canadians can get better health care. Whether you intend it or not - whether you even realize it or not - that's exactly what you're defending. Actually, if you look more closely at the rhetoric, I don't think that's exactly what's being defended; certainly not by the upper-echelon of the GOP. I think what's being defended is the idea that it's OK to let poor Americans die so that rich Americans can get better health care. It's incidental that other countries happen to utilize the fruits of that decision so that all their citizens get better healthcare. America is the innovator, and America innovates due to profit motives - therefore, America cares most about those who can most afford to pay. Everyone else gets the benefits of our innovation, some later than others. It's primarily about values. For a certain segment of America, the rich are people, and the poor are a resource.

DomKen -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 2:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer And I reject the idea that the US system is that much less effective and efficient. How can you reject facts? The fact is we spend a far greater percentage of our GNP on health care than any other industrialized nation and despite all that money spent we have lower life expectancies and worse over all health by any of a broad range of measurements. That's less efficient and less effective.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 2:58:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen How can you reject facts? The fact is we spend a far greater percentage of our GNP on health care than any other industrialized nation and despite all that money spent we have lower life expectancies and worse over all health by any of a broad range of measurements. That's less efficient and less effective. Only by those metrics. If all you're measuring is your own quality of care, and your own life expectancy, then for some people the US system is the best in the world.

Politesub53 -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 5:12:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The fact is consumers in the US pay a higher price for the same drug in Canada because the Canadian system is an unfair international trade practice. Or, the fact is consumers in the US pay a higher price for the same drug than Canada ( and everywhere else ) because there is no check on unbridled profit in America. As I asked Sanity, do you really think US drug companies sell abroad at a loss ? If the answer is yes, do you think the government should allow said companies, to make consumers subsidise overseas sales ?

Politesub53 -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 5:15:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Only by those metrics. If all you're measuring is your own quality of care, and your own life expectancy, then for some people the US system is the best in the world. This is spot on, I simply dont think that the majority of Americans reject the idea of paying a littler more to help others in need.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 5:33:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 This is spot on, I simply dont think that the majority of Americans reject the idea of paying a littler more to help others in need. I thought this was the entire core of the Republican/Libertarian/Randian ethos, though? Helping those in need is wrong, because it: A) Rewards those who are undeserving B) Sets up a parasitic dependence C) Interferes with the magical powers of the Invisible Hand

MrRodgers -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 5:46:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer And I reject the idea that the US system is that much less effective and efficient. Both a natioanalized and a free market system ration healthcare The difference is if in how you view healthcare. If it's a right then the nationalized system seems a natural choice if it's a product then the free market system seems the natural choice. The only "rights" we have that includes the ability to impose on another person the requirement to give up their time for our benefit is in the right to a jury trial and the right to a legal defense. None of the other rights impose something on another person to act in our benefit. I am afraid it's a lot more than that. Allow me some further insight in the possible and the struggle. There is currently a state lawsuit and I can't find a link but a DR. offered himself as a GP for a flat monthly fee. This cut out ALL insurance cos. Can't have that no...so the state sued contesting he was in-effect acting as one. He is going to go all the way in court as of course the state is crazy. What he offers is a service agreement just like any other such agreement. Also, the state of Md. has since 1971, used the Md. Health Services Cost Review Commission. It is a small regulatory independent agency whose decisions carry the force of law. Thus it is not an advisory committee but empowered to act on its findings. This has had the support of everybody involved in the process but providers appreciate the predictability, the transparency of the process and resulting in profits margins comparable to national models. This has saved the state an estimated $40 Billion and if enacted nationally back then...the Feds nearly $2 Trillion. Ideology does not serve many markets and the health care market the least. With the increasing and universal demand for it...markets become distorted and succumbs to the power of the providers.

slutslave4u -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 8:23:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: slutslave4u quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I watched the first 5 minutes and got bored by the idiocy and transparency of the film maker. They shot this on a Sunday. Anybody tried getting non urgent health care in the USA on a Sunday afternoon recently? Does your doctor have office hours on Sunday at 1PM? If you go to a hospital emergency room in the US and declare, as this guy did, that his condition was not urgent then you can expect to wait while they treat everyone who is urgent just as thi sguy was made to wait in Canada. So for the first 5 minutes the film maker showed a startling lack of knowledge about the US system or was assuming his audience was truly stupid. Now this was posted by pajama.com which makes its money by assuming people are stupid enough to believe the lies they sling so it isn't terribly surprising. Yes my doctor is open on Sundays, his office is open 7 days a week 9-9....it is a clinic, he owns it, actually he owns several throughout the area and all of them are 7 days a week 9-9......I have been seeing them since 1983, and even now I can walk in, either the front or the back door (I have been told if the parking lot if very busy simply walk in the back door) and be generally seen right away. Well I'm glad for you but my doctor doesn't run a bunch of doc in a box clinics and around here those are famous for giving a lower standard of care than hospital ER's. My doctor is physically in the office available to see patients 4 or 5 days a week and is good about having a doctor from the practice available through the answering service 24/7 but that is all I get. IIRC the pediatrician has office hours on saturday but that isn't a doctor I have need of. well actually mine does own several, and yes, works mainly in the one that I have been going to for over 25 years now (closest to my home). They have been much better than any other private physician I have been to before actually. As for lower standards, not with him, he will fire anyone that does so as I have seen him do. I not only have his but the manager that runs the staff (leaving him free to deal with patients and not all the office managerial issues at hand) private cell numbers and home numbers as well and do and have called them at all hours of the night, and even met them at the office in the middle of the night so I do not have to go to the ER. I suppose it all boils down to what kind of relationship do you have with your private doctor and his staff.....mine, is like family, always there

HatesParisHilton -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 10:20:37 PM)
hold up, I've been skimming (somewhat; nerve damage pain is up today)< and RE Pharma-Cons, I saw "Larouche". This is not in anyway a Family Company Name that means LINDON Larouche makes even ONE PENNY from this company's profits, is it? Is this company in ANY way related to that psycho racist homophobe Muppet painted by H.R. Giger?

DomKen -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 10:31:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton hold up, I've been skimming (somewhat; nerve damage pain is up today)< and RE Pharma-Cons, I saw "Larouche". This is not in anyway a Family Company Name that means LINDON Larouche makes even ONE PENNY from this company's profits, is it? Is this company in ANY way related to that psycho racist homophobe Muppet painted by H.R. Giger? No its a swiss pharma company founded by some guy named Hoffmann-La Roche. They invented valium amongst other drugs.

HatesParisHilton -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 10:43:35 PM)
whew. thanks. had a panic attack there for a sec.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 10:52:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton whew. thanks. had a panic attack there for a sec. Whew! Thank god Hoffman-LaRoche is in this thread, with some valium on hand!

HatesParisHilton -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 10:56:54 PM)
Said the man with a gun that can fire HOW many bullets per second?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 11:13:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda This debate is about the relative advantages and disadvantages of the different health care systems, and the point is that for whatever reason or reasons, the Canadian system - and the systems of other civilized countries - do a far better job of ensuring the well-being of their citizens than the American system is able to do for American citizens. What you're saying is that we here in America have to pay more because those other health care systems that you say don't work are doing too good a job on behalf of their citizens. You're saying that you're OK with Americans dying so that Canadians can get better health care. Whether you intend it or not - whether you even realize it or not - that's exactly what you're defending. Actually, if you look more closely at the rhetoric, I don't think that's exactly what's being defended; certainly not by the upper-echelon of the GOP. I think what's being defended is the idea that it's OK to let poor Americans die so that rich Americans can get better health care. Oh, yes, I completely agree. That's the comprehensive overview of the republican position, alright. I'm just saying that in the context of this particular thread, when Archer is defending the pricing practices of the pharmaceutical companies, what he is tacitly defending is just that - part of the reason the drug companies charge Americans such high prices for drugs is because the governments of other countries negotiate such low prices on behalf of their citizens. And our government doesn't, because too many Americans think that just ain't the 'Merikan Way.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 11:17:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Oh, yes, I completely agree. That's the comprehensive overview of the republican position, alright. I'm just saying that in the context of this particular thread, when Archer is defending the pricing practices of the pharmaceutical companies, what he is tacitly defending is just that - part of the reason the drug companies charge Americans such high prices for drugs is because the governments of other countries negotiate such low prices on behalf of their citizens. And our government doesn't, because too many Americans think that just ain't the 'Merikan Way. To be fair, though, he does have a gut-wrenchingly poignant point: a lot of modern medicine wouldn't have happened this quickly without the exploitative top-down practices of American pharmaceutical companies (and European pharmaceutical companies operating in America). The thing is, in order to make an omelette, you do have to break some eggs. The question is, "which eggs?" The immigration debate is all about how many eggs should be brown vs. how many should be white. The health care debate is all about how many eggs should be Grade AAA vs. how many should be Grade B. The taxation debate is all about whether we should just break some eggs, or take a tiny bit of yolk from each of a bunch of eggs without cracking their shells.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 11:18:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer You asked the question "How many drugs are actually produced and developed in the U.S. as opposed to other countries? " If you consider it deflecting then why did you ask it? I'm sorry, man, but I think I see the source of your confusion. You must have me mixed up with someone else in the thread - I never asked that question. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The fact is consumers in the US pay a higher price for the same drug in Canada because the Canadian system is an unfair international trade practice. I propose a tariff. grin That can then be used to help those unable to afford the drugs here in the US to get them. Easier just to invade. I say we do it on a Saturday night, when they're all at hockey games. We could wrap the whole thing up in a half hour, tops.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 11:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Oh, yes, I completely agree. That's the comprehensive overview of the republican position, alright. I'm just saying that in the context of this particular thread, when Archer is defending the pricing practices of the pharmaceutical companies, what he is tacitly defending is just that - part of the reason the drug companies charge Americans such high prices for drugs is because the governments of other countries negotiate such low prices on behalf of their citizens. And our government doesn't, because too many Americans think that just ain't the 'Merikan Way. To be fair, though, he does have a gut-wrenchingly poignant point: a lot of modern medicine wouldn't have happened this quickly without the exploitative top-down practices of American pharmaceutical companies (and European pharmaceutical companies operating in America). The thing is, in order to make an omelette, you do have to break some eggs. The question is, "which eggs?" Oh, yeah, he does. No question about that. It's not a simple equation, that's for sure. But some balance has to be found, some middle ground between the two extremes, that would allow the pharmers to rake in enough money to make it worth their while to develop new products without necessitating that so many people die in order to keep the price up.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875