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

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 11:36:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda 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. Why? Why does any compromise have to be made at all? Pareto distributions have an arbitrary exponentiation factor; for the system as a whole, it works just as well to have 99.9999% of power collected at the top as to have 80% collected at the top. So why not just start treating all of us explicitly as raw materials, spare parts and indentured labor to stoke the fires of progress, and get on with enjoying the Good Life? Honestly, what the fuck are we even going to do about it?

DomKen -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 11:41:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth 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). Actually if you look into the details of it relatively few drugs are developed start to finish in house. Most are developed or based on research done in university labs with government grants. For instance I have my HPV vaccine stuff at hand and the initial research into it was done Goergetown U, University of Rochester, the National Cancer Institute and eventually the University of Queensland in oz. Merck then did the clinical trials and got it into mass production but the US and Australian taxpayers mostly paid for the development of the drug directly.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/2/2009 11:44:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually if you look into the details of it relatively few drugs are developed start to finish in house. Most are developed or based on research done in university labs with government grants. For instance I have my HPV vaccine stuff at hand and the initial research into it was done Goergetown U, University of Rochester, the National Cancer Institute and eventually the University of Queensland in oz. Merck then did the clinical trials and got it into mass production but the US and Australian taxpayers mostly paid for the development of the drug directly. Exactly. Tricking the American taxpayers into creating the drugs for them definitely falls into part of the "exploitative top-down practices". The thing is, most corporate "research" money goes into marketing. First you create a disorder, then you whip up a need for a cure, then you market a cure. The great thing is, marketing has enhanced the placebo effect to the point that they could be selling sugar pills and it'd have a 20% net reduction in symptoms. ...sorry, is my cynicism showing yet?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/3/2009 12:31:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda 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. Why? Why does any compromise have to be made at all? Pareto distributions have an arbitrary exponentiation factor; for the system as a whole, it works just as well to have 99.9999% of power collected at the top as to have 80% collected at the top. So why not just start treating all of us explicitly as raw materials, spare parts and indentured labor to stoke the fires of progress, and get on with enjoying the Good Life? Honestly, what the fuck are we even going to do about it? Huh? I thought I was agreeing with you! Your point that the potential for extremely high profits drives aggressive, cutting-edge research is a good one. I'm just saying a balance should be possible where the drug and technology companies still have the potential for high profits, but not at the expense of people's lives. Maybe your point is sailing right over my head at this late hour, but I'm not sure how the Pareto Principle supports the point you seem to be making with this post. What am I missing? Where are we misconnecting?

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/3/2009 12:42:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Huh? I thought I was agreeing with you! Your point that the potential for extremely high profits drives aggressive, cutting-edge research is a good one. I'm just saying a balance should be possible where the drug and technology companies still have the potential for high profits, but not at the expense of people's lives. Maybe your point is sailing right over my head at this late hour, but I'm not sure how the Pareto Principle supports the point you seem to be making with this post. What am I missing? Where are we misconnecting? Sorry, I went one step meta-, and into "sympathy for the Devil" territory. I stopped talking about whether we could sustain our system while being compassionate towards the majority of people, and started examining whether we should - from the hypothetical position of a ruthlessly amoral, nearly infinitely rich American oligarch.

Kirata -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/3/2009 12:52:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth into "sympathy for the Devil" territory. Woo-hoo! K.

Lucylastic -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/3/2009 5:02:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: Archer 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. If you clue me in on the date and time, I'll put the kettle on, or would you gents care more for a beer?(Canadian only) Lucy

Moonhead -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/3/2009 5:34:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth 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 To be fair, the right has no problem with helping Fortune 500 companies (unless, of course, it's a "liberal" doing that). They're quite entitled to a handout, and most of the objectivist and libertarian fiction I've read takes the line that there are small elect groups of people who deserve help or special treatment if they want it, because they're better than everybody else. Heinlein was always very fond of that argument, iirc. It's anything that smacks of wealth redistribution downwards that bothers them: money flowing up from the scum to the people who deserve it they have no problem with.

Brain -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/3/2009 9:05:18 PM)
Majority Favors Dem-Only Health Bill With Public Option Over Bipartisan Bill Without: Poll http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/majority-favors-dem-only_n_308078.html quote: ORIGINAL: gift4mistress Got you with my witty sarcasm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div What do you think?[:'(]<--- that's what I think.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/3/2009 10:27:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slutslave4u 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 Docs in a box, typically, do not have admitting priveledges. Any visit you have to make to an ER, for surgery, for admission for any reason, and you will have to have a new Dr.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/3/2009 10:33:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Huh? I thought I was agreeing with you! Your point that the potential for extremely high profits drives aggressive, cutting-edge research is a good one. I'm just saying a balance should be possible where the drug and technology companies still have the potential for high profits, but not at the expense of people's lives. Maybe your point is sailing right over my head at this late hour, but I'm not sure how the Pareto Principle supports the point you seem to be making with this post. What am I missing? Where are we misconnecting? Sorry, I went one step meta-, and into "sympathy for the Devil" territory. I stopped talking about whether we could sustain our system while being compassionate towards the majority of people, and started examining whether we should - from the hypothetical position of a ruthlessly amoral, nearly infinitely rich American oligarch. Ah, I get it. I was a little disoriented last night. There were some pretty surreal posts flying around by some other posters, and I felt like I'd taken the red pill and gone down the rabbit hole. I think I was second-guessing people's posts a lot more than I typically do, and wasn't sure what to make of anything!

SeekingAZ -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 1:27:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Majority Favors Dem-Only Health Bill With Public Option Over Bipartisan Bill Without: Poll http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/majority-favors-dem-only_n_308078.html quote: ORIGINAL: gift4mistress Got you with my witty sarcasm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div What do you think?[:'(]<--- that's what I think. If you continue to post links to the huffington post I'm going to be forced to post links to vastly superior, vastly more balanced news sources. For example: Mad Magazine.

Archer -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 12:14:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Because as has been debated before and noted before the statistics used to determine life spans is flawed. Fact the WHO says Do not include infants who take heroic measures to attempt to sustain life as a live birth if they die before X amount of time. However the US reports EVERY infant who draws one breath as a live birth as a matter of policy even though it conflicts with WHO policy. The way we in the US report live births queers the data. Add to that the fact that the US population has a less healthy diet and lifestyle by and large and you have all the reason for the data being a comparison of apples and oranges. Doctors cant make the obesity levels here go away, they can only reduce the damage we do to ourselves. Diet and exercise (personal habits) effect something like 60% of life span healthcare systems only effect about 10% , the rest rounded out with things like sanitation of the society etc. (rough numbers recalled from a radio interview with a former Surgeon General. But I'm sure I can find citations if you insist.

Archer -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 12:33:35 PM)
Panda You are right that was not your question but the question from rulemyLife. When you're one libertarian voice with 4 or 5 people disagreeing it can be easy to attribute questions/comments to the wrong parties. Back to th other topoc though When I asked What profit is fair it wasn't a rhetorical question Pharma has a pretty high profit margin. The question is how high is too high. Is 15% too high for an industry with that level of risk to capital? Is 10% fair with that level of risk and investment? Is 5% fair with that level of risk and investment? It is a tough question for most liberals to answer because they rightly fear, it's a trap that will negate their UNFAIR arguments based on raw profit only. I'm not argueing to let folks die, I'm proposing that we approach the problem in a different way. I've put forth my thoughts as far back as two years ago here on the forums on this issue. I had 4 or 5 steps listed out and reduced the number of uninsured from the 30 million or so to about 3 million and proposed that those 3 million be rolled into medicare. And the first 2 steps of what I thought should happen are in the HR3400 two years after I proposed them her on the forums (of course I heard them elsewhere and thought they made sense so I stole the idea).

Sanity -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 12:49:19 PM)
Gun deaths in the United States skew the data too.

Politesub53 -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 3:41:20 PM)
So the data is skewed huh, somehow i doubt it. I think you are clutching at straws guys. First we get that the current system is best, now we get its the data thats wrong, more people are obese, more people get shot. Nice try but I am sorry I dont buy it.

kittinSol -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 3:58:42 PM)
Politesub, these people have never lived in a country where there is universal healthcare. They are clueless: they've never enjoyed its benefits. They argue against it purely out of fear of the unknown. They're quite happy for billions of their tax dollars to go and fund an overinflated military, but they cower at the thought of any money going to help themselves, as well as their fellow citizen (let's not forget: Jesus said, "love your neighbour", and many of these conservatives are Christians), and to get medical services when they need them. I'm starting to think that this country is beyond help: it doesn't want to improve. Its overall mentality is regressive, and reactionary.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 4:59:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Pharma has a pretty high profit margin. The question is how high is too high. Is 15% too high for an industry with that level of risk to capital? Is 10% fair with that level of risk and investment? Is 5% fair with that level of risk and investment? Hey, I got a question. Why is it every time I talk about "fair wages" and "I'm being exploited!", the Randians say "no one ever said life is fair!", but when a big corporation's profit margin is at risk, all the sudden the word "fair" starts wheeling out? How's this sound: The moment ANY industry becomes about "profit" instead of "benefit", that industry has become corrupt and needs regulation. Profit incentive is a STUPID way to run an economy. You can "invisible hand" this and "free market" that, but the fact remains that modern economic theory STILL assumes a rational actor, and research psychology has PROVEN, over and over again, that we don't make economic decisions rationally. IF WE DID, MARKETING WOULD NOT WORK. Here's a fun rational argument for you: If people were purely rational actors, then modern media-marketing campaigns would not work. If people were purely rational actors, then they would not spend money on media-marketing campaigns that did not work. THEREFORE Either, media-marketing campaigns do not work, and therefore people are not purely rational actors, OR, modern media-marketing campaigns DO work, and therefore people are not purely rational actors. EITHER WAY the fundamental basis for "free market" economics is flawed. "Free market" approaches work great in the following narrow situations: 1. All products/goods within the market must have a reasonably elastic demand - i.e., there can't be any life-or-death needs 2. All actors must be capable of making RATIONAL, INFORMED decisions about all the things they could do with their money - i.e., no emotionally manipulative marketing, no "hidden deals" 3. All externalities must be factored into the costs of all goods. Any of those edge cases come up, and you need some kind of regulation. And yes, I'm sick of Big Government. But I'm just as sick of Big Business. And it seems the only solution is to set them at each other's throats, instead of the current situation - where we let them tag-team the little guy.

DomKen -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 5:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Because as has been debated before and noted before the statistics used to determine life spans is flawed. Fact the WHO says Do not include infants who take heroic measures to attempt to sustain life as a live birth if they die before X amount of time. However the US reports EVERY infant who draws one breath as a live birth as a matter of policy even though it conflicts with WHO policy. The way we in the US report live births queers the data. Add to that the fact that the US population has a less healthy diet and lifestyle by and large and you have all the reason for the data being a comparison of apples and oranges. Doctors cant make the obesity levels here go away, they can only reduce the damage we do to ourselves. Diet and exercise (personal habits) effect something like 60% of life span healthcare systems only effect about 10% , the rest rounded out with things like sanitation of the society etc. (rough numbers recalled from a radio interview with a former Surgeon General. But I'm sure I can find citations if you insist. You're not going to find citations showing a 3 year gap in lifespans between Canada and the US is due to differences in reporting infant mortality. There simply aren't enough such baboes being born to affect the average lifespan of a population of 330+ million. As to obeisity the latest study I could find showed 23.1% of Canadians were obese (BMI 30+) in 2004. Which is approximately 10% lower than US figures. That is too small a difference to account for the difference in life expectancy as well. The fact is there is an enormous amount of research available that squarely puts the lower life expectancy in the US on our lower access to and use of preventitive medicine. http://www.prevent.org/content/view/129/72/

Lucylastic -> RE: Government health care is GREAT! (10/4/2009 5:12:11 PM)
The OECD states In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada, Japan and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births For more information , stats, etc http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:IUoxYIrcW5AJ:www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/23/34970246.pdf+infant+mortality+data+difference&hl=en&sig=AFQjCNHV-jxf_bD4vKB4zM49ddXU8_aorQ

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02