Kill The Profit Motive And You Kill Modern Medical Advances And Prosperity

[RDD_1210]

Do you actually believe what you wrote and what he wrote were teh same thing? I ask because it is so incredibly obvious I want to make sure you really do think they were the same thing.

It should be easy to explain the difference then.

Only to people with a modicum of intelligence. You've already shown you lack that.,

LOL, EXACTLY like I said you would do. You would do everything you could to not explain the "difference" in what was said.

Why? Because there is none and you're an an insane asshole who is as predictable as they come. And you wonder why you get annihilated in every debate we engage in.

 

[RDD_1210]

You musdt have learned that in your 4th grade class.
You understand that getting paid and getting rewarded are not the same thing, right? Or is it all "just semantics" to you?

Who said anything about getting rewarded? You said, "With no pay". Did you not?

I did.
In a socialized medicine system the pay is determined by the government. That usually results in lower than market salaries, driving out the most talented people to seek reward elsewhere. You dont mind that because you are one of the untalented so simply resent people who are better at their jobs.
When I wrote "no pay" it was somewhat exagerated. It is no pay compared to what a fair market would reward people for their accomplishments.
Clear now? Or do you need another adult to explain it to you?

LOL, do you ever get tired of being exposed as the inbred that you are? First you tried to change what the topic was, when that failed you back tracked your lame/incorrect statement. You're the king of back peddling.

You make this too easy, it's not even a challenge with you anymore.

 

[RDD_1210]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

Or Jonas Salk.

 

[The Rabbi]

It should be easy to explain the difference then.

Only to people with a modicum of intelligence. You've already shown you lack that.,

LOL, EXACTLY like I said you would do. You would do everything you could to not explain the "difference" in what was said.

Why? Because there is none and you're an an insane asshole who is as predictable as they come. And you wonder why you get annihilated in every debate we engage in.

Do you really think there was no difference between the two statements?

 

[The Rabbi]

Who said anything about getting rewarded? You said, "With no pay". Did you not?

I did.
In a socialized medicine system the pay is determined by the government. That usually results in lower than market salaries, driving out the most talented people to seek reward elsewhere. You dont mind that because you are one of the untalented so simply resent people who are better at their jobs.
When I wrote "no pay" it was somewhat exagerated. It is no pay compared to what a fair market would reward people for their accomplishments.
Clear now? Or do you need another adult to explain it to you?

LOL, do you ever get tired of being exposed as the inbred that you are? First you tried to change what the topic was, when that failed you back tracked your lame/incorrect statement. You're the king of back peddling.

You make this too easy, it's not even a challenge with you anymore.

See the issue is you are too stupid to follow the conversation and understand what is going on. You cannot distinguish between two similar statements that differ in subtle meaning. This marks you as having subpar intelligence.

 

[The Rabbi]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

Or Jonas Salk.

In the years after Salk's discovery, many supporters, in particular the National Foundation, "helped him build his dream of a research complex for the investigation of biological phenomena 'from cell to society'." Called the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, it opened in 1963 in the San Diego neighborhood of La Jolla. Salk believed that the institution would help new and upcoming scientists along in their careers, as he said himself, "I thought how nice it would be if a place like this existed and I was invited to work there." This was something that Salk was deprived of early in his life, but due to his achievements, was able to provide for future scientists.

In 1966, Salk described his "ambitious plan for the creation of a kind of Socratic academy where the supposedly alienated two cultures of science and humanism will have a favorable atmosphere for cross-fertilization."[64]

Yes, getting your own institute to achieve your dreams is totally the product of altruism.

 

[bripat9643]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

What makes you think Tesla wasn't interested in making money?

 

[kiwiman127]

That isnt the topic of this thread. So you are offbase.
Rising costs are not due to corporate greed, as much as Dems would like you to believe that. They are due to a variety of complex causes, each of which deserves its own thread: medical liability, poor health among some populations, better quality of care and treatment leading to longer lives, third party payer system that reduces competition, etc etc.

The thread's OP wants to continue the current system so the US healthcare establishment continues to enjoy profits which a portion of will further develop medical advancements. These means keeping the status quo which is driving up healthcare. It's also a fact that that the US has the highest cost of healthcare in the world by quite a margin under the status quo and will continue to do so.
There is also a point that the US can't just keep on doing this. As a country we can't afford it.
I have stated probably over 100 times on these boards that I am no fan of Obamacare, just wanted to get that out of the way, for probably the 100th time.
So, as America can't continue going the direction it is as far as the ever-increasing cost of healthcare, where will the monies come from to continue the advancements in medicine/healthcare? The well is running dry. That's pretty much a fact. That's what I am addressing.

You are assuming all rising costs of healthcare stem from profits for companies. That is simply not true. I outlined several other causes.
Besides, what is your alternative? Mandate research and advances that no one will pay for?

It's gotten pretty damn obvious why there is a constant rise in healthcare costs. The healthcare industry's bureaucracy rivals the US government, Americans can't take care of themselves and are fat and prone to disease, the insured are paying for the uninsured healthcare treatment via high healthcare costs passed on through higher insurance premiums, defensive medicine is over used thus adding to the tab, the list goes on and on.
The bottomline,,,the well is running dry. Economist know this and have warned us about this.
So where should the monies come from for medical advancement? I don't know, maybe healthcare companies can spend more on R & D and less on their thousands of advertisements. I've read where companies spend more on marketing than they do for R & D!

Here you are assuming what you think I assume. Who do you think you are,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,? Carnac?

 

[bripat9643]

You're half wrong about cancer cure rates too.

The U.S. has higher cancer survival rates for some kinds of cancer than other countries but lower cancer survival rates for other kinds of cancer.

Study Of 31 Countries Finds Wide Variations In Cancer Survival Rates - Medical News Today

The only relevant measure is the survival rate based on the stage the cancer was in when the patient was diagnosed. This study doesn't measure that.

You're dealing with people who cannot understand graphs, statistics, and figures. It's almost futile.

Yes, I know. One of their wizards will dispense some sound bites or a bogus chart and they will use it over and over and over without understanding what they are saying.

 

[The Rabbi]

The thread's OP wants to continue the current system so the US healthcare establishment continues to enjoy profits which a portion of will further develop medical advancements. These means keeping the status quo which is driving up healthcare. It's also a fact that that the US has the highest cost of healthcare in the world by quite a margin under the status quo and will continue to do so.
There is also a point that the US can't just keep on doing this. As a country we can't afford it.
I have stated probably over 100 times on these boards that I am no fan of Obamacare, just wanted to get that out of the way, for probably the 100th time.
So, as America can't continue going the direction it is as far as the ever-increasing cost of healthcare, where will the monies come from to continue the advancements in medicine/healthcare? The well is running dry. That's pretty much a fact. That's what I am addressing.

You are assuming all rising costs of healthcare stem from profits for companies. That is simply not true. I outlined several other causes.
Besides, what is your alternative? Mandate research and advances that no one will pay for?

It's gotten pretty damn obvious why there is a constant rise in healthcare costs. The healthcare industry's bureaucracy rivals the US government, Americans can't take care of themselves and are fat and prone to disease, the insured are paying for the uninsured healthcare treatment via high healthcare costs passed on through higher insurance premiums, defensive medicine is over used thus adding to the tab, the list goes on and on.
The bottomline,,,the well is running dry. Economist know this and have warned us about this.
So where should the monies come from for medical advancement? I don't know, maybe healthcare companies can spend more on R & D and less on their thousands of advertisements. I've read where companies spend more on marketing than they do for R & D!

Here you are assuming what you think I assume. Who do you think you are,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,? Carnac?

SO your solution to Americans' obesity, defensive medicine, large bureaucracies in medicine and government is to force companies to cut advertising? Seriously?

 

[bripat9643]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

Or Jonas Salk.

In the years after Salk's discovery, many supporters, in particular the National Foundation, "helped him build his dream of a research complex for the investigation of biological phenomena 'from cell to society'." Called the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, it opened in 1963 in the San Diego neighborhood of La Jolla. Salk believed that the institution would help new and upcoming scientists along in their careers, as he said himself, "I thought how nice it would be if a place like this existed and I was invited to work there." This was something that Salk was deprived of early in his life, but due to his achievements, was able to provide for future scientists.

In 1966, Salk described his "ambitious plan for the creation of a kind of Socratic academy where the supposedly alienated two cultures of science and humanism will have a favorable atmosphere for cross-fertilization."[64]

Yes, getting your own institute to achieve your dreams is totally the product of altruism.

The libturds will claim he didn't get anything out of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only relevant measure is the survival rate based on the stage the cancer was in when the patient was diagnosed. This study doesn't measure that.

You're dealing with people who cannot understand graphs, statistics, and figures. It's almost futile.

Yes, I know. One of their wizards will dispense some sound bites or a bogus chart and they will use it over and over and over without understanding what they are saying.

And when you ask them to explain the chart they have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Indeependent]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

What makes you think Tesla wasn't interested in making money?

The story of his life and that he ripped up his contracts for the good of humanity.
I'm sure he was interested in money, but he wasn't anywhere near the ruthless, greedy **** that Edison or Morgan were.
The majority of inventors aren't sharks, they are too wrapped up in their brilliance and originality to be obsessed with mere profit.
It's the backers of the inventors that usually toss the inventors under the bus.

 

[bripat9643]

The thread's OP wants to continue the current system so the US healthcare establishment continues to enjoy profits which a portion of will further develop medical advancements. These means keeping the status quo which is driving up healthcare. It's also a fact that that the US has the highest cost of healthcare in the world by quite a margin under the status quo and will continue to do so.
There is also a point that the US can't just keep on doing this. As a country we can't afford it.
I have stated probably over 100 times on these boards that I am no fan of Obamacare, just wanted to get that out of the way, for probably the 100th time.
So, as America can't continue going the direction it is as far as the ever-increasing cost of healthcare, where will the monies come from to continue the advancements in medicine/healthcare? The well is running dry. That's pretty much a fact. That's what I am addressing.

You are assuming all rising costs of healthcare stem from profits for companies. That is simply not true. I outlined several other causes.
Besides, what is your alternative? Mandate research and advances that no one will pay for?

It's gotten pretty damn obvious why there is a constant rise in healthcare costs. The healthcare industry's bureaucracy rivals the US government, Americans can't take care of themselves and are fat and prone to disease, the insured are paying for the uninsured healthcare treatment via high healthcare costs passed on through higher insurance premiums, defensive medicine is over used thus adding to the tab, the list goes on and on.
The bottomline,,,the well is running dry. Economist know this and have warned us about this.
So where should the monies come from for medical advancement? I don't know, maybe healthcare companies can spend more on R & D and less on their thousands of advertisements. I've read where companies spend more on marketing than they do for R & D!

Here you are assuming what you think I assume. Who do you think you are,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,? Carnac?

If it can't go on, then it won't.

 

[Politico]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

What makes you think Tesla wasn't interested in making money?

He was. He just didn't live long enough.

 

[kiwiman127]

You are assuming all rising costs of healthcare stem from profits for companies. That is simply not true. I outlined several other causes.
Besides, what is your alternative? Mandate research and advances that no one will pay for?

It's gotten pretty damn obvious why there is a constant rise in healthcare costs. The healthcare industry's bureaucracy rivals the US government, Americans can't take care of themselves and are fat and prone to disease, the insured are paying for the uninsured healthcare treatment via high healthcare costs passed on through higher insurance premiums, defensive medicine is over used thus adding to the tab, the list goes on and on.
The bottomline,,,the well is running dry. Economist know this and have warned us about this.
So where should the monies come from for medical advancement? I don't know, maybe healthcare companies can spend more on R & D and less on their thousands of advertisements. I've read where companies spend more on marketing than they do for R & D!

Here you are assuming what you think I assume. Who do you think you are,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,? Carnac?

SO your solution to Americans' obesity, defensive medicine, large bureaucracies in medicine and government is to force companies to cut advertising? Seriously?

OMG! You really have issues with reading comprehension, don't you? I bet if you opened your mind up some, you're reading comprehension issue would go away.

 

[Publius1787]

Here's what worries me the most about Obamacare. Socialized medicine means the end of all new wonder drugs and miracle medical treatments. No more breakthroughs like artificial joints, MRI machines, artificial hearts, artificial livers, Leukemia cures, etc.. The profit motive is what brought these innovations into existence. Obamacare will put an end to it.

Redirector

One of the hallmarks of socialism is its hostility toward and targeting for elimination of the “bourgeoisie”–the prosperous middle class, who pose an existential threat to the socialists/statists, in large part due to their relative economic autonomy. The fact that they are mostly capable of self-sufficiency and of running their own lives means they neither need nor want big-government central-planners micromanaging their every decision, and therefore the middle class must be decimated by the likes of Obama–even while Obama and his Democrat fellow-travelers hypocritically, falsely speak of “protecting the middle class,” “fighting for the middle class,” and “growing the middle class” in their cynical ploy to get middle class people to vote for more doomed Democrat policies.

Fortunately, some of the biggest lies of Obama and his party have now been realized by millions to be what they are–outright lies.

What is yet unfortunate is that the socialists have still largely succeeded in convincing so many that it is the profit motive of capitalism which is to blame for the alleged awfulness of income inequality, and the alleged awfulness of various other disparate outcomes upon which envy and class-conflict are based, that they think it is a viable campaign strategy for the upcoming mid-term elections.

And so, it is the same old badmouthing and attempt to eliminate the profit motive, which Obama and his fellow travelers have deployed in their destruction of our health care system–the abject economic horror known as Obamacare.

Yet that same profit motive is what has given modern medicine and pharmacology such marvelous breakthroughs over the last several decades, which is and has been in Obama’s cross hairs all along.

Socialized medicine regimes only barely limp along in other Western, developed economies such as Canada, Sweden, and Great Britain, with just enough marginally-satisfied customers to keep their populations from revolt (not to mention that numerous dead and dying recipients of inferior medical care delivery really can’t make much of a political peep, can they now?) only because the profit motive has still been somewhat alive in America in order to drive the innovations enjoyed by patients in the more socialist countries–countries which ride along on the coattails of our advances and revolutionary medical developments!

It is mainly due to the existence of the remnants of capitalism, and the research, development, and marketing activities of extremely competitive, profit-seeking enterprises (mostly here in the United States and wherever making a profit is still allowed), which have produced the miracle drugs and the space-age, mind-boggling medical technologies enjoyed by citizens throughout not only the developed world, but increasingly throughout the emerging economies and the third-world, even more and more.​

Obamacare is not socialized medicine.

You don't even know what socialized medicine is.

You are too ignorant to post about this topic.

Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden do have socialized medicine and they all have higher quality medical care than the U.S. according to the Journal of the American Medical Society--a group that is against socialized medicine.

There's socialized medicine, there's government regulated medicine, there is the free market, and there is medicine that is so regulated that it has the effect of being socialized. I think we all know which of these we have.

Lets compare apples to apples shall we?

Population of Canada 34.88 million
Population of the UK 63.23 million
Population of Sweden 9.517 million
Population of Canada/UK/Sweden 107.672 million

Population of the US 313.9 million

.

 

[bripat9643]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

What makes you think Tesla wasn't interested in making money?

The story of his life and that he ripped up his contracts for the good of humanity.
I'm sure he was interested in money, but he wasn't anywhere near the ruthless, greedy **** that Edison or Morgan were.
The majority of inventors aren't sharks, they are too wrapped up in their brilliance and originality to be obsessed with mere profit.
It's the backers of the inventors that usually toss the inventors under the bus.

The quotes below make it pretty clear that Tesla was interested in making money.

Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tesla gained experience in telephony and electrical engineering before emigrating to the United States in 1884 to work for Thomas Edison. He soon struck out on his own with financial backers, setting up laboratories and companies to develop a range of electrical devices. His patented AC induction motor and transformer were licensed by George Westinghouse, who also hired Tesla as a consultant to help develop a power system using alternating current. Tesla is also known for his high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments in New York and Colorado Springs which included patented devices and theoretical work used in the invention of radio communication,[5] for his X-ray experiments, and for his ill-fated attempt at intercontinental wireless transmission in his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project.[6]

Tesla's achievements and his abilities as a showman demonstrating his seemingly miraculous inventions made him world-famous.[7] Although he made a considerable amount of money from his patents, he spent a lot on numerous experiments.

In 1885, Tesla claimed that he could redesign Edison's inefficient motor and generators, making an improvement in both service and economy. According to Tesla, Edison remarked, "There's fifty thousand dollars in it for you—if you can do it"[44]—this has been noted as an odd statement from an Edison whose company was stingy with pay and who did not have that sort of cash on hand.[45] After months of work, Tesla fulfilled the task and inquired about payment. Edison, claiming that he was only joking, replied, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor."[46][47] Instead, Edison offered a US$10 a week raise over Tesla's US$18 per week salary; Tesla refused the offer and immediately resigned.[44]

As a result of the "War of Currents," Edison and Westinghouse went nearly bankrupt. Edison had lost control of his company to J.P. Morgan, and Morgan was refusing to loan more money to Westinghouse due to the financial strain of the Tesla AC patents[82][83] (at that point Westinghouse had paid out an estimated $200,000 in licenses and royalties to Tesla, Brown, and Peck[84]).

 

[bripat9643]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

What makes you think Tesla wasn't interested in making money?

He was. He just didn't live long enough.

Well, he died penniless, but that wasn't for lack of trying to make money. He made plenty of money in his day.

 

[Indeependent]

What makes you think Tesla wasn't interested in making money?

The story of his life and that he ripped up his contracts for the good of humanity.
I'm sure he was interested in money, but he wasn't anywhere near the ruthless, greedy **** that Edison or Morgan were.
The majority of inventors aren't sharks, they are too wrapped up in their brilliance and originality to be obsessed with mere profit.
It's the backers of the inventors that usually toss the inventors under the bus.

The quotes below make it pretty clear that Tesla was interested in making money.

Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1885, Tesla claimed that he could redesign Edison's inefficient motor and generators, making an improvement in both service and economy. According to Tesla, Edison remarked, "There's fifty thousand dollars in it for you—if you can do it"[44]—this has been noted as an odd statement from an Edison whose company was stingy with pay and who did not have that sort of cash on hand.[45] After months of work, Tesla fulfilled the task and inquired about payment. Edison, claiming that he was only joking, replied, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor."[46][47] Instead, Edison offered a US$10 a week raise over Tesla's US$18 per week salary; Tesla refused the offer and immediately resigned.[44]

As a result of the "War of Currents," Edison and Westinghouse went nearly bankrupt. Edison had lost control of his company to J.P. Morgan, and Morgan was refusing to loan more money to Westinghouse due to the financial strain of the Tesla AC patents[82][83] (at that point Westinghouse had paid out an estimated $200,000 in licenses and royalties to Tesla, Brown, and Peck[84]).

So?
Morgan threatened to bog Tesla down in lawsuits.
Tesla ripped us his contracts, which he didn't HAVE to do and which Morgan and Edison, the Lawsuit Twins, would NEVER have done.

Morgan and Edison being scumbags isn't the issue.
THEY would have tossed their inventions in the trash if they couldn't make money.