Org Mobile Site
Thread: The U.S. Health Care Debate
Originally Posted by :
I'm thinking in economic freedom, but also the freedom to possess useful tools, like firearms.
So Mars , what did you do that stops you from having a firearm in Germany? I'm thinking in economic freedom, but also the freedom to possess useful tools, like firearms.
Are you an ex-con, have a record of mental illnes or a history of violence or substance abuse?
If not then you are free to possess a useful tool.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
So Mars , what did you do that stops you from having a firearm in Germany?
Are you an ex-con, have a record of mental illnes or a history of violence or substance abuse?
If not then you are free to possess a useful tool.
I didn't say we were barred, did I? I said better access would be nice. And what is it about German law that could make me say that, since I am a law-abiding, sane citizen who has never taken drugs in his life?So Mars , what did you do that stops you from having a firearm in Germany?
Are you an ex-con, have a record of mental illnes or a history of violence or substance abuse?
If not then you are free to possess a useful tool.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
You're right there, but I think that you're going to have a very difficult time of finding a country more free than the United States.
Switzerland?You're right there, but I think that you're going to have a very difficult time of finding a country more free than the United States.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Weed and prostitutes aren't exactly my definition of freedom. I'm thinking in economic freedom, but also the freedom to possess useful tools, like firearms. Lower tax rates would be nice too, but I can dream...
So a free country is a country were you pay very little taxes (economic freedom) and got an easy access to guns (useful tool)? That would be like Afghanistan or Somalia?Weed and prostitutes aren't exactly my definition of freedom. I'm thinking in economic freedom, but also the freedom to possess useful tools, like firearms. Lower tax rates would be nice too, but I can dream...
Is the PATRIOT act a sign of freedom?
Is camera monitoring, both private and public?
Is very liberal abortion laws a sign of freedom?
Is it a country with few laws?
Is it a country with few laws that you need to bother about?
Is it a country where the public information about people are enough for others to monitor and/or stalk people?
Is there a such as too much freedom?
So what is freedom? And more importantly, what is good freedom?
So what some people really mean by freedom is freedom to do things I like... not just freedom to do stuff...
For one I would point out that America has quite strict drug laws.... far stricter than dictatorships like that of Portugal and Netherlands...
I now for one legalised drugs (or just decriminalised weed) would do wonders for my freedom... so excuse me for not joining in this gushing priase for 'the land of freedom'
More like the land of conservative freedom...
Ironside In the same way allowing any old nutter to grab any weapon he wanted would be freedom (or more freedom) giving an abortion at the last possible second would also be more freedom (wouldn't have the freedom to do that in most other countrys) having the freedom to do something isn't nessecarily always a good thing. Its a catchy buzzy word that people like to always attach to thier own side and accuse the other side of having less...
For one I would point out that America has quite strict drug laws.... far stricter than dictatorships like that of Portugal and Netherlands...
I now for one legalised drugs (or just decriminalised weed) would do wonders for my freedom... so excuse me for not joining in this gushing priase for 'the land of freedom'
More like the land of conservative freedom...
Ironside In the same way allowing any old nutter to grab any weapon he wanted would be freedom (or more freedom) giving an abortion at the last possible second would also be more freedom (wouldn't have the freedom to do that in most other countrys) having the freedom to do something isn't nessecarily always a good thing. Its a catchy buzzy word that people like to always attach to thier own side and accuse the other side of having less...
Originally Posted by :
So what is freedom?
It is a word used by Mel Gibson, so I think it means "cut my head off"So what is freedom?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Becuase old people vote and there's fixin to be allot more of them. We need to scrape medicare and medicaid, it's like the worst of every system put into 1.
I really am sick of old people and there crap. I'm not paying millions of pesos to go to school only to have nana take it away down the road simply becuase she's old and gives Wethers caramels.
Becuase old people vote and there's fixin to be allot more of them. We need to scrape medicare and medicaid, it's like the worst of every system put into 1.
I really am sick of old people and there crap. I'm not paying millions of pesos to go to school only to have nana take it away down the road simply becuase she's old and gives Wethers caramels.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
Seniors are jerks. all they care about is getting that check in the mail and they vote for whoever promises to uphold it.
You askme before we make more reform we have to either scrap medicare and social security or drastically reform it, before *shudder* the baby boomers get into the game. They ruined every other public institution they touched (schools)..... they are like a cancer, they just eat away.
Someday (not here, it'd derail the thread) we ought to look at this (the anti-senior sentiment) and see if it holds any water. I think I'm safe in predicting that such attitudes will be expressed more often, and more loudly, in the next 5-15 years.Seniors are jerks. all they care about is getting that check in the mail and they vote for whoever promises to uphold it.
You askme before we make more reform we have to either scrap medicare and social security or drastically reform it, before *shudder* the baby boomers get into the game. They ruined every other public institution they touched (schools)..... they are like a cancer, they just eat away.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Someday (not here, it'd derail the thread) we ought to look at this (the anti-senior sentiment) and see if it holds any water. I think I'm safe in predicting that such attitudes will be expressed more often, and more loudly, in the next 5-15 years.
All seniors care about is their issues. They like to complain Obama is spending there grankids money when in reality they have been doing that for years! Social security, medicare, and most social legislation is all becuase senoirs vote en masse. Someday (not here, it'd derail the thread) we ought to look at this (the anti-senior sentiment) and see if it holds any water. I think I'm safe in predicting that such attitudes will be expressed more often, and more loudly, in the next 5-15 years.
Dont get me wrong I love my nana but at the same time she is bankrupting the country.
I'm also not saying they should be put out to pasture either, I'm just saying we need to fix the system and everything should be on the table. Yet Medicare is like a sacred cow.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Weed and prostitutes aren't exactly my definition of freedom. I'm thinking in economic freedom, but also the freedom to possess useful tools, like firearms. Lower tax rates would be nice too, but I can dream...
Low taxes and firearms are not my definition of freedom.Weed and prostitutes aren't exactly my definition of freedom. I'm thinking in economic freedom, but also the freedom to possess useful tools, like firearms. Lower tax rates would be nice too, but I can dream...
Originally Posted by :
So what some people really mean by freedom is freedom to do things I like... not just freedom to do stuff...
That. Most american liberals are supporting the freedom to wear firearms and have low taxes. But the freedom of abortion, oh god no. And I'm not even talking about the Patriot Act.So what some people really mean by freedom is freedom to do things I like... not just freedom to do stuff...
Gentlemen,
The topic is The U.S. Health Care Debate.
Those who wish to discuss which nation has the most freedom are free to start a new thread.
Thank you kindly.
The topic is The U.S. Health Care Debate.
Those who wish to discuss which nation has the most freedom are free to start a new thread.
Thank you kindly.
Looks like Chuck Grassley has ruled out any possibility of compromise. I guess this is news. Maybe.
Grassley’s position really appears to be that a key reason he can’t back the bill now is that Dems haven’t sworn a blood-oath not to do a bill alone later if no bill emerges that can get “broad” Republican support. This amounts to asking Dems to promise in advance to do nothing at all in the event that a “broad” number of Repubicans don’t agree to get behind some kind of compromise bill.
By this standard, in order to satisfy Grassley’s definition of true bipartisanship, Dems quite literally must cede all their power and leverage in advance, even as Republicans are refusing en masse to back any proposal that can reasonably be called a compromise. That really is Grassley’s position, with no exaggeration.
By this standard, in order to satisfy Grassley’s definition of true bipartisanship, Dems quite literally must cede all their power and leverage in advance, even as Republicans are refusing en masse to back any proposal that can reasonably be called a compromise. That really is Grassley’s position, with no exaggeration.
It is a debate and less freedom was called as a side effect of the prescription drug UHC.
IMDHO
I think that UHC = Less Freedom was a strawman argument. 
I do however what to see how that is so, because I'm well known to having a couple of planks in my eye.
Like any government utility it does need to be paid for either by income or corporate taxes or by government bonds/investment. So restricting ones cashflow (by higher taxes) I coincide would impinge on personal freedoms as a by product of more taxes to pay for more health. But with transparency, accountability, focused spending (more money going to frontline and less to bureaucracy, non-elective not elective) the ROI for society (much like education) should be palatable to all citizens.
IMDHO
I think that UHC = Less Freedom was a strawman argument. I do however what to see how that is so, because I'm well known to having a couple of planks in my eye.
Like any government utility it does need to be paid for either by income or corporate taxes or by government bonds/investment. So restricting ones cashflow (by higher taxes) I coincide would impinge on personal freedoms as a by product of more taxes to pay for more health. But with transparency, accountability, focused spending (more money going to frontline and less to bureaucracy, non-elective not elective) the ROI for society (much like education) should be palatable to all citizens.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
IMDHOI think that UHC = Less Freedom was a strawman argument.
I agree with you there (it depends on what kind of UHC), but I disagree that America is less free than many other nations. In deference to Banquo, however, I won't defend my views further in this thread.IMDHO
I think that UHC = Less Freedom was a strawman argument. Quote for the morning:
The problem is that the demand curve for drugs is vertical, or nearly vertical. Sick people will consume only the quantity they need to stay alive/healthy, but will pay any price for that. If pricing were left up to the market, supply and demand for patented, life-saving drugs would reach equilibrium at about 100% of the consumer's assets, plus five years of indentured servitude.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Quote for the morning:
Just like big agriculture does with food! Oh, wait...Quote for the morning:
The problem is that the demand curve for drugs is vertical, or nearly vertical. Sick people will consume only the quantity they need to stay alive/healthy, but will pay any price for that. If pricing were left up to the market, supply and demand for patented, life-saving drugs would reach equilibrium at about 100% of the consumer's assets, plus five years of indentured servitude.
So where did that quote come from? I want to know, so I can tell people about a case study in not understanding economics - not understand that if prices are severely high that a new player will enter the market undercutting prices. As long as there's not to much regulation inhibiting it.
CR
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
not understand that if prices are severely high that a new player will enter the market undercutting prices. As long as there's not to much regulation inhibiting it.
CR
That is where Patent laws come in, also, start-up companies will stand next to new chance since they won't have the production or the means in-place. If there came a small rival, what the bigger comapnies would do, is undercut that new rival and drive them out of buisiness, or buy them through the stock-market, or make people sign exclusivity contracts, amongst other things. Other comapnies will try to ensure a monopoly and other things.not understand that if prices are severely high that a new player will enter the market undercutting prices. As long as there's not to much regulation inhibiting it.
CR
The market is not free and never will be free and only way to fix it would be lots of regulation and laws.
One only has to take a look at the African healthcare issue.
Ever wonder why Americans allow the healthcare industries to shaft them over and over again? This link offers some insight.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0
Basically, most people have bought that steaming pile of dung that is "the American Dream" hook, line and sinker, and believe that the reason that the insurance companies are where they are is through bootstrapping themselves up there, and so they should be repsected for that. I'm not kidding.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0
Basically, most people have bought that steaming pile of dung that is "the American Dream" hook, line and sinker, and believe that the reason that the insurance companies are where they are is through bootstrapping themselves up there, and so they should be repsected for that. I'm not kidding.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
So where did that quote come from?
Sorry I forgot teh linkie. You want cotext? Imma give you context. The quote was a response to this post:So where did that quote come from?
I like new pharmaceuticals in the context of a market where supply is matched to consumer demand through a price mechanism. If people, in their role as consumers, decide that the new pharmaceuticals coming out aren't worth their price, and decline to buy them, I like that too.
What I don't like is the government stepping in and deciding what drugs are worth how much money. The government does not do a good job at setting prices. How do we know this? Generations of attempts at wage and price controls. Price controlled markets don't work well, whether the price controls are a ceiling or a floor.
What I don't like is the government stepping in and deciding what drugs are worth how much money. The government does not do a good job at setting prices. How do we know this? Generations of attempts at wage and price controls. Price controlled markets don't work well, whether the price controls are a ceiling or a floor.
To which a reader writes:
The problem with Megan's position is that the demand curve for drugs is vertical, or nearly vertical. Sick people will consume only the quantity they need to stay alive/healthy, but will pay any price for that. If pricing was left up to the market, supply and demand for patented, life-saving drugs would reach equilibrium at about 100% of the consumer's assets, plus five years of indentured servitude. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it would be ugly.
I take this personally. I have narcolepsy, a rare disease, and only one company manufactures the drug I need (Xyrem). It's an "orphan" drug: The monopoly is the government's incentive to make it available, otherwise no company would find the R&D investment worthwhile, given the small number of patients. However, without insurance, my monthly drug costs would be greater than my monthly earnings. What does Megan think about this?
"If people, in their role as consumers, decide that the new pharmaceuticals coming out aren't worth their price, and decline to buy them, I like that too."
What really bothers me is that medicine is literally the Econ 101 textbook example of vertical demand curves. How does Megan not know this?
I take this personally. I have narcolepsy, a rare disease, and only one company manufactures the drug I need (Xyrem). It's an "orphan" drug: The monopoly is the government's incentive to make it available, otherwise no company would find the R&D investment worthwhile, given the small number of patients. However, without insurance, my monthly drug costs would be greater than my monthly earnings. What does Megan think about this?
"If people, in their role as consumers, decide that the new pharmaceuticals coming out aren't worth their price, and decline to buy them, I like that too."
What really bothers me is that medicine is literally the Econ 101 textbook example of vertical demand curves. How does Megan not know this?
Just another reminder why, for sanity's sake, I shouldn't be reading YouTube Comments:
Originally Posted by :
Wake up people. A public health system is unamerican & any government regulation denies the function of the market. I know people will say the arbitrary & exorbitant costs of health care is the largest cause of personal bankruptcy & that those costs are indeed making the insurance companies huge profits while "black-mailing" the common folk with their health & lives but the market will have it's say. There might be some collateral victims who can't afford it but that's just what we have to accept. They're the weaker ones anyway right. Survival of the fittest, etc.
This is a Christian nation & the answer isn't hand-outs for those people you aren't responsible enough to afford health insurance but prayer. I don't want to have to hold the less fortunates' heads above water. I'm looking after myself & my family only. That's the American way.
Wake up people. A public health system is unamerican & any government regulation denies the function of the market. I know people will say the arbitrary & exorbitant costs of health care is the largest cause of personal bankruptcy & that those costs are indeed making the insurance companies huge profits while "black-mailing" the common folk with their health & lives but the market will have it's say. There might be some collateral victims who can't afford it but that's just what we have to accept. They're the weaker ones anyway right. Survival of the fittest, etc.
This is a Christian nation & the answer isn't hand-outs for those people you aren't responsible enough to afford health insurance but prayer. I don't want to have to hold the less fortunates' heads above water. I'm looking after myself & my family only. That's the American way.
Originally Posted by jabarto:
Just another reminder why, for sanity's sake, I shouldn't be reading YouTube Comments:
It is the American way indeed.Just another reminder why, for sanity's sake, I shouldn't be reading YouTube Comments:
Though, I think Jesus would like to have a few words to any moron who repeats stuff like that, he was the Lord of Hand-outs and Socialism back in 24 A.D. Yes, that's right. Jesus was a socialist. He said for the Rich to give up their wealth and give it to the poor, bring equality and love your neighbour. Some how, all these Christians seem to forget this.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Yes, that's right. Jesus was a socialist. He said for the Rich to give up their wealth and give it to the poor, bring equality and love your neighbour. Some how, all these Christians seem to forget this.
Yes, that's right. Jesus was a socialist. He said for the Rich to give up their wealth and give it to the poor, bring equality and love your neighbour. Some how, all these Christians seem to forget this.
Wrong.
Jesus was not a socialist, because he wanted people to do this voluntarily.
On average, the right gives more to charity than the left, and in America this is by quite a significant amount.
Essentially, Jesus said that if you help people out, you will be rewarded. He didn't say that the government should help everyone out for you.
Somehow, socialists seem to forget this.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Essentially, Jesus said that if you help people out, you will be rewarded. He didn't say that the government should help everyone out for you.
Ever heard about the Rich man, Camel and Eye of the Needle?Essentially, Jesus said that if you help people out, you will be rewarded. He didn't say that the government should help everyone out for you.
Give it away, get rewarded and go to Heaven. Don't and say hello to down below. Choice is an illusion.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Ever heard about the Rich man, Camel and Eye of the Needle?
Give it away, get rewarded and go to Heaven. Don't and say hello to down below. Choice is an illusion.
I'm going to go with a solid "no" again.Ever heard about the Rich man, Camel and Eye of the Needle?
Give it away, get rewarded and go to Heaven. Don't and say hello to down below. Choice is an illusion.
I fear the "Jesus - Poster Boy for Socialism or Aristocratic Paternalism, We Haz It?" tangent may divert us rather speedily from the complexities of the U.S. Health Care Debate.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Sorry I forgot teh linkie. You want cotext? Imma give you context. The quote was a response to this post:
To which a reader writes:
The reader contradicts herself. So the firm has a monopoly on the one drug that can help her. That doesn't mean they charge $1000 bucks for a day's medicine. A textbook monopoly firm will charge enough to gain the most profit. That is not equal to charging the highest legal price, however. And she acknowledged that the firm charged high prices to gain back their investment, not because they're seeking indentured servants.Sorry I forgot teh linkie. You want cotext? Imma give you context. The quote was a response to this post:
To which a reader writes:
Originally Posted by :
If it walks like a death panel, and it quacks like a death panel ...
Like I said, an insurance firm should have only 30 days or so to reject patients on those grounds.If it walks like a death panel, and it quacks like a death panel ...
Originally Posted by :
The market is not free and never will be free and only way to fix it would be lots of regulation and laws.
The market is not free and never will be free and only way to fix it would be lots of regulation and laws.
CR
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
I fear the "Jesus - Poster Boy for Socialism or Aristocratic Paternalism, We Haz It?" tangent may divert us rather speedily from the complexities of the U.S. Health Care Debate.
True, but you forget, Jesus gave a free health care service to everyone who was with him. I fear the "Jesus - Poster Boy for Socialism or Aristocratic Paternalism, We Haz It?" tangent may divert us rather speedily from the complexities of the U.S. Health Care Debate.
So Jesus was was a proponent of Universal Healthcare.
On average, the right gives more to charity than the left, and in America this is by quite a significant amount.
Isn't quite alot of this money directed in political ways ? or is that discounted...
I would hardly call giving Israel money charity (or at least no more than giving Hamas money is charity)
Same goes for the opposing camps in the abortion war...
Is this money adjusted for different wealth between countries ? (obviously if you have more you can give more)
Amount of millionaires and billionaires ? (they can give away half thier money possibly without having an effect on thier lifestyle, the average man cannot)
Population adjusted also ?
Also im sure alot of religious donations go towards keeping churches going and recruiting new members...
Theres alot of charity with selfish motivation behind in, with America's paticularly hostile debates on some issues its high levels of religious belief and religious fervour (the televangelicals spring to mind) and its closeness to Israel could add up to a decent share of its contributions..
Isn't quite alot of this money directed in political ways ? or is that discounted...
I would hardly call giving Israel money charity (or at least no more than giving Hamas money is charity)
Same goes for the opposing camps in the abortion war...
Is this money adjusted for different wealth between countries ? (obviously if you have more you can give more)
Amount of millionaires and billionaires ? (they can give away half thier money possibly without having an effect on thier lifestyle, the average man cannot)
Population adjusted also ?
Also im sure alot of religious donations go towards keeping churches going and recruiting new members...
Theres alot of charity with selfish motivation behind in, with America's paticularly hostile debates on some issues its high levels of religious belief and religious fervour (the televangelicals spring to mind) and its closeness to Israel could add up to a decent share of its contributions..
Originally Posted by Beskar:
It is the American way indeed.
Though, I think Jesus would like to have a few words to any moron who repeats stuff like that, he was the Lord of Hand-outs and Socialism back in 24 A.D. Yes, that's right. Jesus was a socialist. He said for the Rich to give up their wealth and give it to the poor, bring equality and love your neighbour. Some how, all these Christians seem to forget this. .
Jesus has nothing to do with this. The people who most vhemently oppose reform are not doing so becuase of Christian beliefs. I can't count how many times my church help pay bills for massive medical procedures for members of my church. It is the American way indeed.
Though, I think Jesus would like to have a few words to any moron who repeats stuff like that, he was the Lord of Hand-outs and Socialism back in 24 A.D. Yes, that's right. Jesus was a socialist. He said for the Rich to give up their wealth and give it to the poor, bring equality and love your neighbour. Some how, all these Christians seem to forget this. .
Saying Jesus was a socialist and then making some glib point about how Americans are to dumb to realizes this only shows your ignorance.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Jesus has nothing to do with this. The people who most vhemently oppose reform are not doing so becuase of Christian beliefs. I can't count how many times my church help pay bills for massive medical procedures for members of my church.
Saying Jesus was a socialist and then making some glib point about how Americans are to dumb to realizes this only shows your ignorance.
I was quoting this:Jesus has nothing to do with this. The people who most vhemently oppose reform are not doing so becuase of Christian beliefs. I can't count how many times my church help pay bills for massive medical procedures for members of my church.
Saying Jesus was a socialist and then making some glib point about how Americans are to dumb to realizes this only shows your ignorance.
Originally Posted by :
Wake up people. A public health system is unamerican & any government regulation denies the function of the market. I know people will say the arbitrary & exorbitant costs of health care is the largest cause of personal bankruptcy & that those costs are indeed making the insurance companies huge profits while "black-mailing" the common folk with their health & lives but the market will have it's say. There might be some collateral victims who can't afford it but that's just what we have to accept. They're the weaker ones anyway right. Survival of the fittest, etc.
This is a Christian nation & the answer isn't hand-outs for those people you aren't responsible enough to afford health insurance but prayer. I don't want to have to hold the less fortunates' heads above water. I'm looking after myself & my family only. That's the American way.
Those churches who do indeed help others, are going the right way about it. That was my comment, not ignorance. You have to put it in context, because moving it out of context doesn't look right.Wake up people. A public health system is unamerican & any government regulation denies the function of the market. I know people will say the arbitrary & exorbitant costs of health care is the largest cause of personal bankruptcy & that those costs are indeed making the insurance companies huge profits while "black-mailing" the common folk with their health & lives but the market will have it's say. There might be some collateral victims who can't afford it but that's just what we have to accept. They're the weaker ones anyway right. Survival of the fittest, etc.
This is a Christian nation & the answer isn't hand-outs for those people you aren't responsible enough to afford health insurance but prayer. I don't want to have to hold the less fortunates' heads above water. I'm looking after myself & my family only. That's the American way.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO