Healthcare reform

[kapkomet]

So no medical research or advancement has come out of Britain and other single-payer countries for several decades? Do you really believe that?

 

 

So you really believe that Britian (and any other single payer country) is the hotbed of medical research and advancement compared to the innovations in the United States?

 

Wait, yea, I know you believe that, because you would have to think that the United States sucks ass in everything they do to keep wanting it to be like everyone else.

[StrangeSox]

No, I don't and I didn't say that. I'm asking you to support your claim that single-payer or nationalized health care leads to zero innovation, because so far you haven't. And we have demonstrable evidence to the contrary, because medical research and advancement does come out of those countries and their is still profit motive to provide better services.

 

But, just to throw another wrench into your argument, where does a lot funding for medical research in this country come from, especially basic science? Spoiler alert: NIH! Government Saves!

 

The ridiculous assertion that Britain hasn't made any significant medical contributions since 1945 aside, you still haven't explained why a single-payer system means there's no reason to improve business operations, medical techniques, customer service, medicine, etc. You can capture larger client bases and/ or reduce expenses even if your price is fixed. You can treat more people with new drugs and procedures and better diagnoses. And, of course, the radical idea that some people might become doctors, pharmacists, chemists, biologists, nurses, etc. because they want to help people.

Edited June 26, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Kap, you never answered, how is your insurance company helping improve your care by them trying to make a profit? It seems those two aims are opposing each other.

 

And isn't most research either done at Universities or private (drug) companies? I know there are teaching hospitals, but are there many research hospitals?

[Balta1701]

The ridiculous assertion that Britain hasn't made any significant medical contributions since 1945 aside, you still haven't explained why a single-payer system means there's no reason to improve business operations, medical techniques, customer service, medicine, etc. You can capture larger client bases and/ or reduce expenses even if your price is fixed. You can treat more people with new drugs and procedures and better diagnoses. And, of course, the radical idea that some people might become doctors, pharmacists, chemists, biologists, nurses, etc. because they want to help people.

The other thing worth pointing out is that a lot of the "Significant medical contributions" the U.S. is making right now, especially in the pharmaceutical industry...is figuring out ways to sneak around patent rules, rather than focusing on newer generations of medicines. Or, you get things like ED treatments, which while useful, I'm not sure that every company needs to develop one.

 

What would be really useful for mankind is not necessarily what is the most profitable. So you end up with billions spent on Cialis ads, while we're 20 years overdue in funding a new method for producing flu vaccine, for example.

[southsider2k5]

The other thing worth pointing out is that a lot of the "Significant medical contributions" the U.S. is making right now, especially in the pharmaceutical industry...is figuring out ways to sneak around patent rules, rather than focusing on newer generations of medicines. Or, you get things like ED treatments, which while useful, I'm not sure that every company needs to develop one.

 

What would be really useful for mankind is not necessarily what is the most profitable. So you end up with billions spent on Cialis ads, while we're 20 years overdue in funding a new method for producing flu vaccine, for example.

 

So where are the flu vaccines from the countries with socialized medicine?

[Balta1701]

So where are the flu vaccines from the countries with socialized medicine?

The EU approved one version a few years ago. The federal government in this country is planning to spend some $500 million to apply the technology and build manufacturing facilities for it in this country.

[kapkomet]

No, I don't and I didn't say that. I'm asking you to support your claim that single-payer or nationalized health care leads to zero innovation, because so far you haven't. And we have demonstrable evidence to the contrary, because medical research and advancement does come out of those countries and their is still profit motive to provide better services.

 

But, just to throw another wrench into your argument, where does a lot funding for medical research in this country come from, especially basic science? Spoiler alert: NIH! Government Saves!

 

The ridiculous assertion that Britain hasn't made any significant medical contributions since 1945 aside, you still haven't explained why a single-payer system means there's no reason to improve business operations, medical techniques, customer service, medicine, etc. You can capture larger client bases and/ or reduce expenses even if your price is fixed. You can treat more people with new drugs and procedures and better diagnoses. And, of course, the radical idea that some people might become doctors, pharmacists, chemists, biologists, nurses, etc. because they want to help people.

I never said "ZERO" - but they are not a leader. That's what I want, I don't know about you.

[southsider2k5]

The EU approved one version a few years ago. The federal government in this country is planning to spend some $500 million to apply the technology and build manufacturing facilities for it in this country.

 

Ah yes, the irony in that statement is great.

[StrangeSox]

I never said "ZERO" - but they are not a leader. That's what I want, I don't know about you.

 

Uh, yeah, you did. You said "no medical advances".

Has the British NHS (or any other single-payer or national health scheme) been stagnant in terms of medical care for decades? Have they not had any medical advances in the country?

 

Let's see - the answer is yes (they are stagnant), and yes (no medical advances)

 

Then you shifted goalposts to something I didn't actually ask. And, of course, you're comparing apples and oranges because the US has a much bigger economy and therefore more resources to spend on medical research. It would make more sense to compare medical contributions normalized against GDP or something like that. Of course the bigger, wealthier country is going to have more medical research.

 

You still haven't actually shown that medical advances and treatment in the dozens of single-payer or nationalized health systems is non-existent, as you explicitly claimed. And you still haven't explained why a fixed price removes any profit motivation. Or why for-profit insurance companies actually add value to the system.

Edited June 27, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Ah yes, the irony in that statement is great.

 

Are you still sticking behind the idea that a single-payer system removes any profit motive for improvement?

[kapkomet]

OH, sniff, sniff, you're right. No profits. No system but single payor. It's FAAAAAAAN TASTIC. Medical innovations are only coming from places where there are single payors. Government is the only answer. Eliminate profits everywhere... we can't have that. We only get bread lines, rice patties, the best medical system in the world (no cutbacks in service whatsoever) etc.

 

UTOPIA BABY!

 

::::

 

There are very little in the way of innovations in a single payor system. The advances that are made are made from our system. Let's get stupid over "ZERO" and "NONE", shall we? You get my point but this is always what you all turn this into - s*** nitpicky crap.

 

Treatment is down MUCH MUCH more because they curb supply AND demand - people don't even bother because they know they are not going to get the services they need. Why do you think the British have terrible teeth (oh oh, because I mean ALL of them... = destroy the point so that you can make yourself look like you know what you're talking about... Balta debate style, again).

 

Insurance companies provide a service and a means to protect both physicians and patients, IF the system were to work the way it should. That's part of the problem. It's called risk. But, you want the government to take care of that risk for you, and in my book, that's not acceptable because now we don't have a choice anymore. With risk comes a very high reward for the most part - and the good there outweighs the bad. See BP - and for the love of God, no, I'm not defending them. I'm only saying that our way of life has given us great rewards, but since you all don't like any of those benefits, go live somewhere else.

[Balta1701]

So, now that your side lost the election and we passed a bill we were at least ok with, isn't it just as fair for us to say that if you don't like it, go somewhere else?

[StrangeSox]

OH, sniff, sniff, you're right. No profits. No system but single payor. It's FAAAAAAAN TASTIC. Medical innovations are only coming from places where there are single payors. Government is the only answer. Eliminate profits everywhere... we can't have that. We only get bread lines, rice patties, the best medical system in the world (no cutbacks in service whatsoever) etc.

 

UTOPIA BABY!

 

::::

 

What part of this incoherent mess is supposed to relate to anything I said? Where have I said profits should be eliminated?

 

There are very little in the way of innovations in a single payor system. The advances that are made are made from our system.

 

source please.

 

And you need to show that the difference in innovations/ advances is because of single payer vs. large clusterf*** private/public insurance debacle.

 

Let's get stupid over "ZERO" and "NONE", shall we? You get my point but this is always what you all turn this into - s*** nitpicky crap.

 

I want to use words that make sense so that an actual discussion can be had. You want to make s***ty, incorrect claims that make your position look better and then cry about it when someone calls you on it. You claimed that Britain hasn't produced any medical advances in about 6 decades in an attempt to hand-wave away a clear, real counterexample to the assertion that there is no innovation in a single-payer system. So, no, it's not "s*** nitpicky crap" to point out how ridiculous the claims you are making are and how you continually fail to support your position.

 

Treatment is down MUCH MUCH more because they curb supply AND demand - people don't even bother because they know they are not going to get the services they need. Why do you think the British have terrible teeth (oh oh, because I mean ALL of them... = destroy the point so that you can make yourself look like you know what you're talking about... Balta debate style, again).

 

source please.

 

Insurance companies provide a service and a means to protect both physicians and patients, IF the system were to work the way it should. That's part of the problem. It's called risk. But, you want the government to take care of that risk for you, and in my book, that's not acceptable because now we don't have a choice anymore. With risk comes a very high reward for the most part - and the good there outweighs the bad. See BP - and for the love of God, no, I'm not defending them. I'm only saying that our way of life has given us great rewards, but since you all don't like any of those benefits, go live somewhere else.

 

Hey, kap, I didn't say any of those things you keep saying I did. I'm asking for an explanation of the benefits a profit model for health insurance gives because I am unaware of them. I am not knowledgeable on the subject. However, your repeated failure to actually post anything of substance instead of a bunch of word salad does not bolster support for the idea of for-profit insurance. What protection does my insurance company offer me? What am I risking that an insurance company protects me from that Medicade or NHS (if I were in Britain) is not capable of protecting? What innovations and benefits do we get from those companies being for-profit instead of non-profit? note: Idealogical platitudes don't constitute an argument or support for a position.

 

And, of course, you're not addressing the idea that you certainly can and do have innovations and improvements in single-payer or nationalized systems. You just keep saying the same assertions over and over and over and over without ever presenting a valid argument for it. Even if you are somewhat-correct that single-payer stifles medical research and innovation, it still stands to reason that we would be the leader in medical research due to the size of our economy and our well-established research base. Oh, and all those yummy federal research dollars supporting basic science and medical research.

Edited June 27, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

So, now that your side lost the election and we passed a bill we were at least ok with, isn't it just as fair for us to say that if you don't like it, go somewhere else?

 

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, KAP.

[kapkomet]

So, now that your side lost the election and we passed a bill we were at least ok with, isn't it just as fair for us to say that if you don't like it, go somewhere else?

 

 

The difference is you want us to be like Europe and everywhere else, and the rest of us want America, not the United States of Socialism.

[Balta1701]

The difference is you want us to be like Europe and everywhere else, and the rest of us want America, not the United States of Socialism.

[kapkomet]

 

You laugh but that's what we're becoming. Government is taking everything out of the private sector. That's not called capitalism. I'm not saying we're commies or anything, but it certainly is socialism. Aka, Europe. And guess what? Their system doesn't work - it's WAY worse then what we (used to) have. Entitlements up the ass never works for ingenuity, growth, or otherwise.

[StrangeSox]

Hey Kap, welcome to a democracy. That means you don't always get what you want.

[kapkomet]

Hey Kap, welcome to a democracy. That means you don't always get what you want.

 

UTOPIA BABY!!!!!!!!!

 

The sad part is you are losing your own personal liberties every day, and could care less... this just proves it. You all really are drones to the government.

[StrangeSox]

Please tell me you're just on a good trolling kick lately and don't actually believe the last two or three posts in this thread.

 

Kap, HCRA of 2010 is America now. Love it or Leave it. Or do you hate America, kap?

Edited June 27, 2010 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

The US economy for a long period of time was the engine of world economic growth. We were sucking in imports from all across the world, financed by huge amounts of consumer debt. Because of the financial crisis, but also because that debt was fundamentally unsustainable -- the United States is not going to be able to serve in that same capacity to that same extent. -- Barackus the Great

 

I think the world understands now that the world -- growth in the future around the world can't depend as -- on the United States as much as it did in the past. So for the world to grow together, you're going to have to see more growth in the other major economies, too, not just in the emerging markets, which are very strong now in the United States. -- Timmay

 

I think it's your boys who hate America and liberty - we gotta be beaten back. We gotta become second rate. The above says it all. We cannot lead according to our leadership.

 

 

I like my America, you know, the one where I can have the freedom ... not yours, where I get told what to do.

[Balta1701]

I like my America, you know, the one where I can have the freedom to be told what to do by a Republican ... not yours, where I get told what to do by a Democrat.

 

[kapkomet]

I can think independently, unlike drones of Obama. Obama could be a Republican and if he were doing the same s***, I would be just as opposed. In fact, probably moreso. Unlike you all, who have to insult by party affiliation, I care about what happens without regard to party.

Edited June 28, 2010 by kapkomet

[Balta1701]

I can think independently, unlike drones of Obama. Obama could be a Republican and if he were doing the same s***, I would be just as opposed. In fact, probably moreso. Unlike you all, who have to insult by party affiliation, I care about what happens without regard to party.

Yup, you're better than all of us. Congrats!

[StrangeSox]

You're being trolled, Balta.

 

At least that's my working assumption.