Healthcare should not be a PROFIT driven field

[The Rabbi]

Ok. Just to put it bluntly: The ability to save a human life, or vastly improve their life, should NOT be one that is driven by profit..

So you don't want health care, medical technology, and pharmaceuticals to improve? Why not?

You sound as if healthcare, medical technology and pharmaceutical improvements can only be had by people seeing to make a profit. I don't get it.

Truer words were never posted on this site!

 

[Chris]

Ok. Just to put it bluntly: The ability to save a human life, or vastly improve their life, should NOT be one that is driven by profit..

So you don't want health care, medical technology, and pharmaceuticals to improve? Why not?

You sound as if healthcare, medical technology and pharmaceutical improvements can only be had by people seeing to make a profit. I don't get it.

Most medical discoveries are made by non profit universities.

 

[Chris]

The best way to be healthy is to eat all natural foods and exercise, but their is less profit in that for large corporations than by selling bad food, drugs, and surgery.

 

[P@triot]

America can't do as much for it's people because we spend an insane amount of money being the World Police. The countries that we protect....have extra cash since they don't need to fund the military that protects the world. We have decided to be World Police.

That's a great liberal narrative. Unfortunately, it's just plain wrong. We don't operate as the "world police", we pro-actively protect America's interests around the world.

Liberals prefer a 9/11 - when the most horrific thing imaginable occurs - before we take action. Conservatives prefer to take action before the most horrific thing imaginable occurs to prevent it from happening in the first place.

 

[P@triot]

The best way to be healthy is to eat all natural foods and exercise, but their is less profit in that for large corporations than by selling bad food, drugs, and surgery.

The best way to run a country is to adhere to the Constitution and ensure every right and freedom people are entitled to - but there is less profit in that for large government liberals than by taxing people to death, creating unconstitutional entitlement departments to operate, and oppressing the population.

 

[Chris]

The best way to be healthy is to eat all natural foods and exercise, but their is less profit in that for large corporations than by selling bad food, drugs, and surgery.

The best way to run a country is to adhere to the Constitution and ensure every right and freedom people are entitled to - but there is less profit in that for large government liberals than by taxing people to death, creating unconstitutional entitlement departments to operate, and oppressing the population.

Out of control corporate power is America's biggest problem.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008. The food industry spends billions of dollars pushing the worst kind of processed food which causes cancer and heart disease. The alcohol, tobacco, and gun industries push their products all of which do great damage to the people who use them. Corporate lobbyists do all they can to allow industries to pollute our food, water, and air and rip off the public at every turn. And now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions....basically legalized bribes.

By contrast Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790, the United States has had 16 banking system failures, and Canada has had 0.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

 

[P@triot]

The best way to be healthy is to eat all natural foods and exercise, but their is less profit in that for large corporations than by selling bad food, drugs, and surgery.

The best way to run a country is to adhere to the Constitution and ensure every right and freedom people are entitled to - but there is less profit in that for large government liberals than by taxing people to death, creating unconstitutional entitlement departments to operate, and oppressing the population.

Out of control corporate power is America's biggest problem.

Not even close - considering that corporations have no power. None. Not even an ounce. McDonald's can force me to buy a Big Mac like Obama forces me to buy health insurance.

America's biggest problem is the oppressive cancer known as liberalism. This belief that freedom is far too scary and that the world will collapse if everyone isn't forced to row in the same Nazi goose-stepping direction.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

The Dumbocrats run a bankrupted Ponzi Scheme called Social Security and the American people are forced into it at the barrel of a gun.

Wall Street didn't run any "ponzi scheme". The took the bad hand dealt to them by the ignorant socialist policies of Bill Clinton in the 1997 Community Re-Investment Act and they played the only hand they could. Greedy people purchased the products blindly and paid the price for it. Those who did their homework properly, flourished. Just ask Dr. Michael Berry who made $700 million by reading the prospectuses of the bad home loans that were rolled up and sold off. He saw how bad they were and he went to Wall Street and asked if he could have insurance against those investments: enter "Credit Default Swaps".

Michael Burry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://youtu.be/FMt_ZczGmEU]60 Min. episode - Wall Street- Inside the Collapse P-1 - YouTube[/ame]

The food industry spends billions of dollars pushing the worst kind of processed food which causes cancer and heart disease.

And people have the freedom not to buy it (unlike failed Dumbocrat policy which forces me to buy Social Security, forces me to buy Obamacare, forces me to buy Medicare, forces me to subsidize all of their failure). Additionally, you have the freedom to start a company in the food industry which could push the healthiest kind of unprocessed foods. But you choose not to (I wonder why that is ).

The alcohol, tobacco, and gun industries push their products all of which do great damage to the people who use them.

I use guns every day - and all they day is save lives. Zero harm as come to me specifically because I do use firearms. As far as alcohol and tobacco, you have the freedom not to purchase them. So what is the problem??? Don't buy it and they will go out of business. See how easy that is?

Corporate lobbyists do all they can to allow industries to pollute our food, water, and air and rip off the public at every turn. And now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions....basically legalized bribes.

And liberals do all they can do to oppress people, control their lives, tell them what they can and can't eat, tell them what can and can't vote, tell them what they can and can't read, tell them what they can and can't read...basically illegal communism. Far worse than anything you've outline above.

By contrast Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790, the United States has had 16 banking system failures, and Canada has had 0.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

Then move to Canada and experience you utopia first hand (psst....Canadians flee Canada and come here for life saving healthcare).

 

[Iceweasel]

Out of control corporate power is America's biggest problem.

Which exists because of the symbiotic relationship with out of control big government power.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008. The food industry spends billions of dollars pushing the worst kind of processed food which causes cancer and heart disease. The alcohol, tobacco, and gun industries push their products all of which do great damage to the people who use them. Corporate lobbyists do all they can to allow industries to pollute our food, water, and air and rip off the public at every turn. And now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions....basically legalized bribes.

Many Americans bought too much house, or too many, flipping for quick money. They buy the fast food so fast food companies make more. People buy alcohol so more is produced, no one forces anybody to drink. Guns can't act on their own, but they can save your bacon if someone missuses theirs. The environment here is doing pretty well, I'm not sure about your country. There is no Constitutional basis for denying anyone from supporting a candidate with whatever they feel like spending. Unions do it all the time and they even use people's money who disagree. Now that should be illegal.

By contrast Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790, the United States has had 16 banking system failures, and Canada has had 0.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

Lots of Canadians come here for health care so apparently things aren't a blissful as you say. Our states are still allowed to decide how to define marriage. I've heard of pastors getting in trouble for preaching against homosexuality. I don't want to live there. In fact I don't even want to visit anymore since the speed limits are so ridiculously slow. I used to love to visit in the past. Can you move there if you aren't there already? It would help us and you.

 

[Katzndogz]

Denmark has the most draconian immigration laws in the world. It saves them 10 billion dollars a year. The health care provided by the Danes are for other Danes.

There is a severely limited ability to sue a health care provider for wrongdoing. There are no Tort laws with unlimited recovery.

If we were to implement just those two Danish provisions the cost of health care in this country would plummet.

Even with the limitations imposed by the Danish system it is still failing as all socialist models do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/w...e-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted%3Dall&_r=0

With little fuss or political protest — or notice abroad — Denmark has been at work overhauling entitlements, trying to prod Danes into working more or longer or both. While much of southern Europe has been racked by strikes and protests as its creditors force austerity measures, Denmark still has a coveted AAA bond rating.

But Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them.

Some of that is a result of a depressed economy. But many experts say a more basic problem is the proportion of Danes who are not participating in the work force at all — be they dawdling university students, young pensioners or welfare recipients like Carina who lean on hefty government support.

“Before the crisis there was a sense that there was always going to be more and more,” Bjarke Moller, the editor in chief of publications for Mandag Morgen, a research group in Copenhagen. “But that is not true anymore.

 

[Unkotare]

Ok. Just to put it bluntly: The ability to save a human life, or vastly improve their life, should NOT be one that is driven by profit..

So you don't want health care, medical technology, and pharmaceuticals to improve? Why not?

You sound as if healthcare, medical technology and pharmaceutical improvements can only be had by people seeing to make a profit. I don't get it.

No, they all get better when people are seeking a profit. That's where competition and innovation come from.

 

[Unkotare]

Most medical discoveries are made by non profit universities.

Proof?

 

[kiwiman127]

As I stated earlier, the current healthcare costs scenario hurts our economy. It's clear that the costs in the US are by far the highest in the world.. The US has been experiencing a slower recovery from the Great Recession than other industrial nations. Is the high cost of healthcare a contributing reason?
Here's an interesting article from Forbes to consider:
The U.S. Does Not Have A Debt Problem ... It Has A Health Care Cost Problem
"That’s not my line, I took it from The Economist, but it’s a good one. If health care costs were under control, i.e. growing no faster than the economy, we could manage our debt. However, health care spending is growing at about 1.5x the rate of growth of GDP and is already close to 20% of the economy. In this post I will talk about the scary numbers. In the next post I will offer some thoughts on what we can do manage the situation.
If the trends of the last 20 years continue, health care spending will eat up U.S. GDP in our children’s lifetimes. See the first chart. The blue line is the federal government’s projection of health care spending. The red line projects spending at the trend growth rate of the last 20 years.
Health care spending will eat up the federal government’s budget even sooner, and that is the root cause of the U.S. sovereign debt problem. The second chart shows projected federal spending on health care as a percent of GDP rising from 5% today to about 18% of GDP, leaving no room for social security, defense, or any of the other federal government roles. In 2012 the entire federal budget is about 24% of GDP, up sharply from 20% before the financial crisis. If this forecast comes to pass, either taxes will rise to Swedish levels, or the U.S. will be a junk-quality sovereign credit like the European “PIGS”."
For more go to: The U.S. Does Not Have A Debt Problem ... It Has A Health Care Cost Problem - Forbes

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, they all get better when people are seeking a profit. That's where competition and innovation come from.

And it's also where they don't bother with certain types of drugs because they're not profitable, even if they are necessary.
Also they might try out on patients who are vulnerable in order to save money, keep costs down.

Ever seen the film the Constant Gardener?

 

[The Rabbi]

As I stated earlier, the current healthcare costs scenario hurts our economy. It's clear that the costs in the US are by far the highest in the world.. The US has been experiencing a slower recovery from the Great Recession than other industrial nations. Is the high cost of healthcare a contributing reason?
Here's an interesting article from Forbes to consider:
The U.S. Does Not Have A Debt Problem ... It Has A Health Care Cost Problem
"That’s not my line, I took it from The Economist, but it’s a good one. If health care costs were under control, i.e. growing no faster than the economy, we could manage our debt. However, health care spending is growing at about 1.5x the rate of growth of GDP and is already close to 20% of the economy. In this post I will talk about the scary numbers. In the next post I will offer some thoughts on what we can do manage the situation.
If the trends of the last 20 years continue, health care spending will eat up U.S. GDP in our children’s lifetimes. See the first chart. The blue line is the federal government’s projection of health care spending. The red line projects spending at the trend growth rate of the last 20 years.
Health care spending will eat up the federal government’s budget even sooner, and that is the root cause of the U.S. sovereign debt problem. The second chart shows projected federal spending on health care as a percent of GDP rising from 5% today to about 18% of GDP, leaving no room for social security, defense, or any of the other federal government roles. In 2012 the entire federal budget is about 24% of GDP, up sharply from 20% before the financial crisis. If this forecast comes to pass, either taxes will rise to Swedish levels, or the U.S. will be a junk-quality sovereign credit like the European “PIGS”."
For more go to: The U.S. Does Not Have A Debt Problem ... It Has A Health Care Cost Problem - Forbes

From your own article:
What impact will the 2010 federal Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) have on this? Recent analysis of health care reform in Massachusetts reaches ominous conclusions. In 2006, Massachusetts adopted health care reform which strongly resembles the ACA: it created near universal insurance coverage, set minimum standards for health insurance, mandated that employers offer insurance and individuals must have it, and created a health care exchange. Mass health reform was “lite” on cost saving measures, however. It’s been a great success in bringing almost all residents of the Commonwealth into the health care system (>97%), and Governor Patrick, a close ally of President Obama, points out that the impact on the state budget has been a manageable 1 percent increase in spending.

The Beacon Hill Institute, an affiliate of Boston-based Suffolk University, examined the growth rate of total health care spending in Massachusetts since 2006 compared to the national trend. They included both the spending born by the state budget and other forms of spending: federal health care transfers to the state, direct federal spending (i.e., Medicare), and private insurance. This analysis developed a very different perspective:

1. Every major category of health care spending in Massachusetts grew significantly faster than the national average in the five years following health care reform: state spending, direct federal spending, and private insurance rates. Emergency room utilization increased, despite greater access to primary care physicians. Massachusetts is now one of the highest health care cost regions in the U.S.

2. The modest impact on the state budget is mostly due to the federal government’s decision to expand its Medicaid reimbursements in line with the expansion of coverage in Massachusetts; in other words, the federal government paid for almost all of the state’s increased cost. Kudos to the state’s politicians for bringing dollars home from DC. If the federal subsidy were to be reduced, however, the state would be in trouble, and I wonder if the federal government can be so generous on a national scale.

3. BHI attributes the surge in costs to several factors: more demand for medical services versus concentrated and slow-to-expand supply caused prices to rise; the law mandated additional coverages in private insurance; and the reform act lacked significant cost-containment features. There was significant savings in payments to hospitals for treatment of the uninsured, but this savings is overwhelmed by the other costs.


The problem is not health care spending. The problem is govt driving up costs. Obamacare will drive up csts exactly the same as every other system similar to it did.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they all get better when people are seeking a profit. That's where competition and innovation come from.

And it's also where they don't bother with certain types of drugs because they're not profitable, even if they are necessary.
Also they might try out on patients who are vulnerable in order to save money, keep costs down.

Ever seen the film the Constant Gardener?

Again. liberals' reality is shaped by fiction. No wonder Hollywood celebs overwhelmingly are liberal Democrats.

 

[Chris]

Most medical discoveries are made by non profit universities.

Proof?

Nobel Laureates and Research Affiliations

 

[Chris]

Denmark has the most draconian immigration laws in the world. It saves them 10 billion dollars a year. The health care provided by the Danes are for other Danes.

There is a severely limited ability to sue a health care provider for wrongdoing. There are no Tort laws with unlimited recovery.

If we were to implement just those two Danish provisions the cost of health care in this country would plummet.

Even with the limitations imposed by the Danish system it is still failing as all socialist models do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/w...e-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted%3Dall&_r=0

With little fuss or political protest — or notice abroad — Denmark has been at work overhauling entitlements, trying to prod Danes into working more or longer or both. While much of southern Europe has been racked by strikes and protests as its creditors force austerity measures, Denmark still has a coveted AAA bond rating.

But Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them.

Some of that is a result of a depressed economy. But many experts say a more basic problem is the proportion of Danes who are not participating in the work force at all — be they dawdling university students, young pensioners or welfare recipients like Carina who lean on hefty government support.

“Before the crisis there was a sense that there was always going to be more and more,” Bjarke Moller, the editor in chief of publications for Mandag Morgen, a research group in Copenhagen. “But that is not true anymore.

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

Most medical discoveries are made by non profit universities.

Proof?

Nobel Laureates and Research Affiliations

You understand that's not proof, right?

 

[Chris]

Proof?

Nobel Laureates and Research Affiliations

You understand that's not proof, right?

You understand that reading is fundamental, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobel Laureates and Research Affiliations

You understand that's not proof, right?

You understand that reading is fundamental, right?

Translation: No, I do not understand that. I think only Nobel Prize winners invent things.
You're a dolt. Next.