the government cant even handle the DMV
The market will take care of it alright... in a very Darwinian sense. I guess that's part of the American Dream isn't it?Dersmikner wrote:
If a pharmaceutical company SPENDS IT'S OWN MONEY, hires employees, builds labs, and spends 5 years and finally develops a cure for something, and then wants to charge you a hundred thousand dollars a pill, who the hell are you to say they can't? If you don't like it, start a pharmaceutical company. The market will take care of it. If people are willing to pay the price, they'll sell their shit and make money, if not, they'll lower their price. Trust me.
So the fact that they charge several times more for the same medications in America that you can get for a lot less in Canada doesn't bother you at all? People started buying so many drugs from Canada that the companies begged Congress to find a way to make it illegal to buy Canadian drugs. They've somewhat succeeded at it too.Dersmikner wrote:
It's your right to start a construction company, build a piece of shit house, and ask 5 million dollars for it. You won't sell many like that, but that's the way it works. Surprisingly, if you do ask that much some other dude will build one and sell it for $200,000 and sell a ton of them.
If pharmaceutical companies were raping us all, you'd see their stocks going through the roof, you'd see Microsoft and GM buying them, and EVERYBODY'd be trying it.
Technically, you're right. With the way the current system works, pharmaceutical companies can do all that and more. They use the profits they make to buy off our politicians. With this legalized bribery, they create situations where consumers get raped on costs -- like the legislation that lead to our current HMO situation. HMOs can deny coverage even after they've previously greenlighted an expense -- leaving a patient thoroughly fucked.Dersmikner wrote:
Aside form that, even if they were all making gazillions, you have absolutely NO RIGHT to expect that a pharmaceutical company (meaning its employees) will invest in research and development, work long hours, expend their energy and time, and create something that didn't exist twenty years ago, and give it to you for what YOU think is a fair price. You know, I think that a knee replacement surgery is WAY too f-ing expensive, so I ain't getting one, but I don't titty-baby whine about the price.
Hey, how the HELL can Microsoft charge $400 for an X-box 360? BY GOD I DEMAND that they lower the price. It's my right for other people to create, invest, and work so I can have what I want... isn't it?
But hey, giving the rich free reign is the ruthless capitalist way of doing things in this country, and you seem rather delighted by it. I suppose you make a good amount yourself, eh?
Size matters.Soldier-Of-Wasteland wrote:
But for some reasons, UHC works in every wealthy and industrialized country except the US.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That and greed, as Dersmikner shows us.Kmarion wrote:
Size matters.Soldier-Of-Wasteland wrote:
But for some reasons, UHC works in every wealthy and industrialized country except the US.
Like a told Cam, a closer scenario for us would be the EU administering health care for all of Europe. Lower the Fed taxes, since they obviously blow at managing money (read some of the 9,000 earmarks in the latest budget) and impose a county tax for UHC. I'd much prefer that over the feds. It's a lot easier to toss out a county commissioner than someone 2000 miles away.Turquoise wrote:
That and greed, as Dersmikner shows us.Kmarion wrote:
Size matters.Soldier-Of-Wasteland wrote:
But for some reasons, UHC works in every wealthy and industrialized country except the US.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ah yes greed. So doctors cure you just enough so you need to go again, and they take more cash from you. They care more about your wallet than your health haha.
And the money that the government gives back to the hospitals, from our taxes, goes to research too. and the pills are not free, some can be as expensive as 200$ for 12 fucking tiny pills.
And the money that the government gives back to the hospitals, from our taxes, goes to research too. and the pills are not free, some can be as expensive as 200$ for 12 fucking tiny pills.
Amen to that.Kmarion wrote:
Like a told Cam, a closer scenario for us would be the EU administering health care for all of Europe. Lower the Fed taxes, since they obviously blow at managing money (read some of the 9,000 earmarks in the latest budget) and impose a county tax for UHC. I'd much prefer that over the feds. It's a lot easier to toss out a county commissioner than someone 2000 miles away.Turquoise wrote:
That and greed, as Dersmikner shows us.Kmarion wrote:
Size matters.
If you guys want free hospital visits and free medicine and free doctor visits I suggest you (1) lobby to have the government set up public medical schools and nursing schools, build very basic publicly-funded hospitals, (2) you fund it from the taxes of those who opt-in to the government hospital program, and (3) you go to that hospital all you want. I'll spend the money and go see the Baylor trained doctor in the clean private hospital and pay through the bleeding nose for it. Thanks.
On the subject of the drug companies, I simply don't complain EVER about what a private organization chooses to charge for its product. If they receive government funding then by God I want there to be some regulation, but if some asshole was sitting in his living room one day and decided to put his money into a lab, and started developing drugs, and then hired people and borrowed a fortune and came up with a cure for ______ that didn't exist 50 years ago, then fuck it, he should be able to ask for your right leg if he wants. You DON'T HAVE TO BUY THEIR SHIT!
Fifty years ago there was no AZT, there was no Avastin, no Celebrex, no Lipitor, no Plavix. So, some company creates something that controls your blood pressure, and you think you have the right to moderate what they charge? Fuck no you don't. Nobody does. If they want to charge $500 a pill you can either pay it or not but nobody has the right to go whine to the government and have them cap the price. It's a PRIVATE FUCKING COMPANY! Sooner or later if there is enough demand somebody else will invent something similar and charge less. The market will fix it. If it's something so unique that it is patented and a reasonable facsimile can't be made without violating patent laws, then good for them, they worked their whole lives to grab the brass ring and they got it. I hope they reap the rewards. And PS, that drug they just patented didn't exist when your dad was your age so don't make out like it's some God-given right for you to have it. 100 years ago everybody died when they were 50. You don't have some inalienable right to miracle medications that will improve and extend your life.
NOBODY EVER has the right to legislate what somebody ELSE can charge for their products or services, assuming the government hasn't given funded or legislated an advantage to someone. Cable prices can be regulated because the we can't have 400 lines on every street. There can be only one cable company in an area. Satellite TV prices? Nope. Go launch your own if you want to charge less. Nothing stopping you. Electric utility prices? Regulate them because there's only one power box on a street and that needs to be the way it stays, but gasoline prices? Fuck it. If Exxon charges too much people will buy from Shell.
My basic thought process is that you don't get the right to tell someone else what they can charge for their labor or products. I'm a producer. I do shit. It's always the people who haven't excelled in life who want to limit those who have. Maybe you should get up earlier, take shorter lunches, start a business on the side, make a fortune and focus on being successful enough to be able to afford what other people have created instead of trying to regulate how successful they can be because you haven't excelled to the point that you can afford their asking price.
On the subject of the drug companies, I simply don't complain EVER about what a private organization chooses to charge for its product. If they receive government funding then by God I want there to be some regulation, but if some asshole was sitting in his living room one day and decided to put his money into a lab, and started developing drugs, and then hired people and borrowed a fortune and came up with a cure for ______ that didn't exist 50 years ago, then fuck it, he should be able to ask for your right leg if he wants. You DON'T HAVE TO BUY THEIR SHIT!
Fifty years ago there was no AZT, there was no Avastin, no Celebrex, no Lipitor, no Plavix. So, some company creates something that controls your blood pressure, and you think you have the right to moderate what they charge? Fuck no you don't. Nobody does. If they want to charge $500 a pill you can either pay it or not but nobody has the right to go whine to the government and have them cap the price. It's a PRIVATE FUCKING COMPANY! Sooner or later if there is enough demand somebody else will invent something similar and charge less. The market will fix it. If it's something so unique that it is patented and a reasonable facsimile can't be made without violating patent laws, then good for them, they worked their whole lives to grab the brass ring and they got it. I hope they reap the rewards. And PS, that drug they just patented didn't exist when your dad was your age so don't make out like it's some God-given right for you to have it. 100 years ago everybody died when they were 50. You don't have some inalienable right to miracle medications that will improve and extend your life.
NOBODY EVER has the right to legislate what somebody ELSE can charge for their products or services, assuming the government hasn't given funded or legislated an advantage to someone. Cable prices can be regulated because the we can't have 400 lines on every street. There can be only one cable company in an area. Satellite TV prices? Nope. Go launch your own if you want to charge less. Nothing stopping you. Electric utility prices? Regulate them because there's only one power box on a street and that needs to be the way it stays, but gasoline prices? Fuck it. If Exxon charges too much people will buy from Shell.
My basic thought process is that you don't get the right to tell someone else what they can charge for their labor or products. I'm a producer. I do shit. It's always the people who haven't excelled in life who want to limit those who have. Maybe you should get up earlier, take shorter lunches, start a business on the side, make a fortune and focus on being successful enough to be able to afford what other people have created instead of trying to regulate how successful they can be because you haven't excelled to the point that you can afford their asking price.
Last edited by Dersmikner (2007-12-22 08:41:14)
Well, for what it's worth. I'm not an advocate of federally socialized healthcare either. I just think the states should do it.Dersmikner wrote:
If you guys want free hospital visits and free medicine and free doctor visits I suggest you (1) lobby to have the government set up public medical schools and nursing schools, build very basic publicly-funded hospitals, (2) you fund it from the taxes of those who opt-in to the government hospital program, and (3) you go to that hospital all you want. I'll spend the money and go see the Baylor trained doctor in the clean private hospital and pay through the bleeding nose for it. Thanks.
True, I can just buy it for a more reasonable price from Canada.Dersmikner wrote:
On the subject of the drug companies, I simply don't complain EVER about what a private organization chooses to charge for its product. If they receive government funding then by God I want there to be some regulation, but if some asshole was sitting in his living room one day and decided to put his money into a lab, and started developing drugs, and then hired people and borrowed a fortune and came up with a cure for ______ that didn't exist 50 years ago, then fuck it, he should be able to ask for your right leg if he wants. You DON'T HAVE TO BUY THEIR SHIT!
Well, some would argue that all of us dying at 50 would make the world's human population growth more sustainable, but that's another discussion altogether. I agree with you that it's not a matter of rights. It's a matter of power. Right now, the power is in the hands of the corporations. I'd like it to be in the hands of the people.Dersmikner wrote:
Fifty years ago there was no AZT, there was no Avastin, no Celebrex, no Lipitor, no Plavix. So, some company creates something that controls your blood pressure, and you think you have the right to moderate what they charge? Fuck no you don't. Nobody does. If they want to charge $500 a pill you can either pay it or not but nobody has the right to go whine to the government and have them cap the price. It's a PRIVATE FUCKING COMPANY! Sooner or later if there is enough demand somebody else will invent something similar and charge less. The market will fix it. If it's something so unique that it is patented and a reasonable facsimile can't be made without violating patent laws, then good for them, they worked their whole lives to grab the brass ring and they got it. I hope they reap the rewards. And PS, that drug they just patented didn't exist when your dad was your age so don't make out like it's some God-given right for you to have it. 100 years ago everybody died when they were 50. You don't have some inalienable right to miracle medications that will improve and extend your life.
You keep focusing on rights when it is so obviously about power. Do you honestly think these corporations that buy off our politicians have any moral dilemmas with changing laws to suit their interests? I don't think so. Therefore, the people should fight back by getting the government to change laws to favor consumers. So again, this isn't about rights -- this is about the struggle between big business and the common man.Dersmikner wrote:
NOBODY EVER has the right to legislate what somebody ELSE can charge for their products or services, assuming the government hasn't given funded or legislated an advantage to someone. Cable prices can be regulated because the we can't have 400 lines on every street. There can be only one cable company in an area. Satellite TV prices? Nope. Go launch your own if you want to charge less. Nothing stopping you. Electric utility prices? Regulate them because there's only one power box on a street and that needs to be the way it stays, but gasoline prices? Fuck it. If Exxon charges too much people will buy from Shell.
Maybe you should wake up to the reality that most of what is defined as success involves one group oppressing or cheating another. We live in a very ruthless world, and the general public must act ruthless in their own best interests in order to counter the ruthless actions of corporations.Dersmikner wrote:
My basic thought process is that you don't get the right to tell someone else what they can charge for their labor or products. I'm a producer. I do shit. It's always the people who haven't excelled in life who want to limit those who have. Maybe you should get up earlier, take shorter lunches, start a business on the side, make a fortune and focus on being successful enough to be able to afford what other people have created instead of trying to regulate how successful they can be because you haven't excelled to the point that you can afford their asking price.
for once, nothing is free. even public universal health care has to be paid by someone, i.e. by those who pay into the system. Not much different from what private health insurers do.Dersmikner wrote:
If you guys want free hospital visits and free medicine and free doctor visits I suggest you (1) lobby to have the government set up public medical schools and nursing schools, build very basic publicly-funded hospitals, (2) you fund it from the taxes of those who opt-in to the government hospital program, and (3) you go to that hospital all you want. I'll spend the money and go see the Baylor trained doctor in the clean private hospital and pay through the bleeding nose for it. Thanks
The important thing is, though, to provide affordable health care for everyone, including those that - without their own wrong-doing - are unemployed, disabled, or for whatever reason unable to pay for private health care. Even you might one day be one of them. Remember that the next time when you spout elitist bullshit. Thanks.
What he spouted wasn't elitist. It was libertarian. Give the people a choice...don't force your perceived best solution upon them.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think if we put this to a referendum in most states, they would vote in favor of state socialized healthcare. We really do need a referendum on this.FEOS wrote:
What he spouted wasn't elitist. It was libertarian. Give the people a choice...don't force your perceived best solution upon them.
Phhht, can you imagen the bill? The projected bill for the NHS in the UK 2007-08 is in excess of £90billion on our tiny island. Can you imagen what the spending would be in the USA (granted, much of that money goes into improving an infanstructure rattled by the torries), but even then, it would cost an absolute bomb :\
Now, I am not so well equainted with the American health system, its been a number of years since I left US soil, but even just as a UK-USA idea. You could be looking at a + $1 trillion dollar a year political storm. Even if that didnt happen (less than likely, its hard to think of a system worse than the UK's prior to the 97 reforms). The initial year of setting it up would almost certainly push it into the relms of that figure I posted.
The idea, in theroy sounds good, and, its actually imo very nobel, but, it becomes a victim of its own success so fast, that it becomes near impossible to run.
Martyn
Now, I am not so well equainted with the American health system, its been a number of years since I left US soil, but even just as a UK-USA idea. You could be looking at a + $1 trillion dollar a year political storm. Even if that didnt happen (less than likely, its hard to think of a system worse than the UK's prior to the 97 reforms). The initial year of setting it up would almost certainly push it into the relms of that figure I posted.
The idea, in theroy sounds good, and, its actually imo very nobel, but, it becomes a victim of its own success so fast, that it becomes near impossible to run.
Martyn
Two things... First, we already spend more than any other country per capita on healthcare. If we socialized at a state level (not federal), it would be cheaper by far for each of us.Bell wrote:
Phhht, can you imagen the bill? The projected bill for the NHS in the UK 2007-08 is in excess of £90billion on our tiny island. Can you imagen what the spending would be in the USA (granted, much of that money goes into improving an infanstructure rattled by the torries), but even then, it would cost an absolute bomb :\
Now, I am not so well equainted with the American health system, its been a number of years since I left US soil, but even just as a UK-USA idea. You could be looking at a + $1 trillion dollar a year political storm. Even if that didnt happen (less than likely, its hard to think of a system worse than the UK's prior to the 97 reforms). The initial year of setting it up would almost certainly push it into the relms of that figure I posted.
The idea, in theroy sounds good, and, its actually imo very nobel, but, it becomes a victim of its own success so fast, that it becomes near impossible to run.
Martyn
Second, if you think socialized healthcare is expensive, take a look at how much we spend on the military, nation-building, and Social Security. Socialized medicine would still be cheaper than any of those.
The main reason we get less for what we spend is because everyone in the US is sue crazy. You might not want to mention the words Social Security when making a case for UHC also..lol . I'll compare private retirement investment to Social Security any day of the week.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'll admit... tort reform should be in order too.Kmarion wrote:
The main reason we get less for what we spend is because everyone in the US is sue crazy. You might not want to mention the words Social Security when making a case for UHC also..lol . I'll compare private retirement investment to Social Security any day of the week.
The thing is... I'm at a weird crossroads here because I'm against Social Security but for socialized medicine. The key here is that I support socialized medicine at the state level, not the federal one. Social Security doesn't work for 2 major reasons: it's run by the federal government, and its funds don't appreciate with the same effectiveness that private means do.
So yeah, we agree on Social Security, but it's because the federal government sucks, not because socialization is bad.
I just do not have it in me to give any more power/money to the crooks in DC. UHC works in Europe because they do it on a smaller scale. We might be able to as well on a state level. We would need to cut out some of the pork in the Federal system. That might reduce federal taxes so that the average Joe can afford the inevitable increase in state taxes. Something to ponder at least.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
it's immoral not to treat someone because they can't pay
Same here man... I'd rather give my money to Raleigh than to D.C., hence my support for state involvement. I'd assume you trust Tallahassee more than D.C. as well.Kmarion wrote:
I just do not have it in me to give any more power/money to the crooks in DC. UHC works in Europe because they do it on a smaller scale. We might be able to as well on a state level. We would need to cut out some of the pork in the Federal system. That might reduce federal taxes so that the average Joe can afford the inevitable increase in state taxes. Something to ponder at least.
Medicaid is a state-run program...basically the state-instituted version of Medicare. Different states do it differently...eligibility requirements vary dramatically, and there are waiting lists.Turquoise wrote:
Same here man... I'd rather give my money to Raleigh than to D.C., hence my support for state involvement. I'd assume you trust Tallahassee more than D.C. as well.Kmarion wrote:
I just do not have it in me to give any more power/money to the crooks in DC. UHC works in Europe because they do it on a smaller scale. We might be able to as well on a state level. We would need to cut out some of the pork in the Federal system. That might reduce federal taxes so that the average Joe can afford the inevitable increase in state taxes. Something to ponder at least.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
True, but Medicaid is also a much smaller scale program than a typical socialized system. If we had full-fledged state programs with the European design in mind, they would be considerably bigger and better funded. We just need to shrink the federal government before implementing these.FEOS wrote:
Medicaid is a state-run program...basically the state-instituted version of Medicare. Different states do it differently...eligibility requirements vary dramatically, and there are waiting lists.Turquoise wrote:
Same here man... I'd rather give my money to Raleigh than to D.C., hence my support for state involvement. I'd assume you trust Tallahassee more than D.C. as well.Kmarion wrote:
I just do not have it in me to give any more power/money to the crooks in DC. UHC works in Europe because they do it on a smaller scale. We might be able to as well on a state level. We would need to cut out some of the pork in the Federal system. That might reduce federal taxes so that the average Joe can afford the inevitable increase in state taxes. Something to ponder at least.
Until it doesnt cost 1500.00 dollars a night to stay in a hospital
and the drug companies are forced to have some type of price regulation...
and frivilous lawsuits are stopped...(so doctors dont have to spend a 100k a year for insurance...)
it doesnt really matter what is said...
and govt controlled healthcare...? hahahahahaha... more expensive less efficient...
what have they ever taken over and things have gotten better?
and the drug companies are forced to have some type of price regulation...
and frivilous lawsuits are stopped...(so doctors dont have to spend a 100k a year for insurance...)
it doesnt really matter what is said...
and govt controlled healthcare...? hahahahahaha... more expensive less efficient...
what have they ever taken over and things have gotten better?
Love is the answer
Well, for one, government run warfare is certainly cheaper than contractors. The Iraq War has cost us several times more than it would have if we hadn't privatized so much.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Until it doesnt cost 1500.00 dollars a night to stay in a hospital
and the drug companies are forced to have some type of price regulation...
and frivilous lawsuits are stopped...(so doctors dont have to spend a 100k a year for insurance...)
it doesnt really matter what is said...
and govt controlled healthcare...? hahahahahaha... more expensive less efficient...
what have they ever taken over and things have gotten better?
Healthcare seems to be the same case, although I actually prefer privatization of most other things.
I know.. I have made multiple post pointing out the free health care on the state level. Most states have expanded on medicare and have their own programs.FEOS wrote:
Medicaid is a state-run program...basically the state-instituted version of Medicare. Different states do it differently...eligibility requirements vary dramatically, and there are waiting lists.Turquoise wrote:
Same here man... I'd rather give my money to Raleigh than to D.C., hence my support for state involvement. I'd assume you trust Tallahassee more than D.C. as well.Kmarion wrote:
I just do not have it in me to give any more power/money to the crooks in DC. UHC works in Europe because they do it on a smaller scale. We might be able to as well on a state level. We would need to cut out some of the pork in the Federal system. That might reduce federal taxes so that the average Joe can afford the inevitable increase in state taxes. Something to ponder at least.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Firstly does the Fed have a right to implement UHC? Personally I think if states individually want to provide free health care for their citizens then they should be able to, but not all of the nation under one plan. But if there were to be one, then yes, have it managed more by the states, with the fed providing some regulation. However, I would like the idea of being able to opt out this plan though.Turquoise wrote:
Same here man... I'd rather give my money to Raleigh than to D.C., hence my support for state involvement. I'd assume you trust Tallahassee more than D.C. as well.Kmarion wrote:
I just do not have it in me to give any more power/money to the crooks in DC. UHC works in Europe because they do it on a smaller scale. We might be able to as well on a state level. We would need to cut out some of the pork in the Federal system. That might reduce federal taxes so that the average Joe can afford the inevitable increase in state taxes. Something to ponder at least.
But this is in a perfect world, and it's not. If unfunded promises like social security and Medicare are accounted for, it totals to about $400,000 per household in debt. Do we really want the government, state and federal, baby sitting us from cradle to grave? Can we implement a plan to make the government more efficient?