The myths of high cost healthcare

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because Monsanto has been convicted of poisioning people.

It is 100% stupid to think that corporations will do the right thing, but that's Eddie for you.

dear, people are convicted of crimes all the time so why single out only corporations for your Marxist hatred?? Do you love corporations for the food, clothing and shelter they provide us everyday, or merely hate them when they commit a crime? Do you hate your children when they misbehave??

See why we say a liberal will be slow??

 

[dblack]

That's not a 'small problem', it's the whole enchilada. But the delusion is in assuming we must accept it. We won't get either of the major parties to change, or encourage a third to challenge them, until we quit supporting them. As long as they can count on our votes no matter what kind of manure they shovel our way, they'll continue along the same path.

I've advocated for the same many times in many places. But as things stand now, it just isn't going to happen.

It already is happening for many of us. The only vote any of us can control is our own, and I'm not about to waste mine on another status quo corporatist. As long as the Republicans and Democrats continue to squelch the pro-freedom, pro-justice voices in their ranks (Paul, Kucinich, etc...), they'll not get my vote.

You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.

I just don't see it ever happening. Under anyone. It's an anarchist pipe dream.

Nah... that's not what I'm saying at all. I specifically addressed bad regulation and bad tax policy. Regulations are just laws - specifically laws that dictate conformity. When such conformity has universal benefit, and costs very little, both in terms of money and lost freedom, when it enjoys near universal support of the public, it makes sense to codify it in law. Think stop signs and speed limits, for example.

But when laws benefit select classes of people or businesses, at the expense of others, when they represent a loss of fundamental freedoms, when they are passed with minimal support - and when they are loaded down with 'unintended' consequences (which, are often quite 'intended' by those pushing for the laws in question), they need to be reconsidered, and repealed if possible.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As long as the Republicans and Democrats continue to squelch the pro-freedom, pro-justice voices in their ranks (Paul, Kucinich, etc...), they'll not get my vote.

dear how can Kucinich be pro freedom when he is a libturd socialist???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.

I just don't see it ever happening. Under anyone. It's an anarchist pipe dream.

1) capitalism is not anarchy

2) prices fall in computers and health care if libturds keep far far away and allow capitalism!!

Why do you think China just switched to capitalism??????

See why we must be 100% certain a liberal will be slow!!!

 

[Political Junky]

You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.

I just don't see it ever happening. Under anyone. It's an anarchist pipe dream.

1) capitalism is not anarchy

2) prices fall in computers and health care if libturds keep far far away and allow capitalism!!

Why do you think China just switched to capitalism??????

See why we must be 100% certain a liberal will be slow!!!

Under capitalism the cost of health care in the US has gone very high ... to the highest in the world.

 

[Underhill]

That's not a 'small problem', it's the whole enchilada. But the delusion is in assuming we must accept it. We won't get either of the major parties to change, or encourage a third to challenge them, until we quit supporting them. As long as they can count on our votes no matter what kind of manure they shovel our way, they'll continue along the same path.

I've advocated for the same many times in many places. But as things stand now, it just isn't going to happen.

It already is happening for many of us. The only vote any of us can control is our own, and I'm not about to waste mine on another status quo corporatist. As long as the Republicans and Democrats continue to squelch the pro-freedom, pro-justice voices in their ranks (Paul, Kucinich, etc...), they'll not get my vote.

You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.

I just don't see it ever happening. Under anyone. It's an anarchist pipe dream.

Nah... that's not what I'm saying at all. I specifically addressed bad regulation and bad tax policy. Regulations are just laws - specifically laws that dictate conformity. When such conformity has universal benefit, and costs very little, both in terms of money and lost freedom, when it enjoys near universal support of the public, it makes sense to codify it in law. Think stop signs and speed limits, for example.

But when laws benefit select classes of people or businesses, at the expense of others, when they represent a loss of fundamental freedoms, when they are passed with minimal support - and when they are loaded down with 'unintended' consequences (which, are often quite 'intended' by those pushing for the laws in question), they need to be reconsidered, and repealed if possible.

It's hard to argue against such a vague position. But okay.

 

[Underhill]

You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.

I just don't see it ever happening. Under anyone. It's an anarchist pipe dream.

1) capitalism is not anarchy

2) prices fall in computers and health care if libturds keep far far away and allow capitalism!!

Why do you think China just switched to capitalism??????

See why we must be 100% certain a liberal will be slow!!!

Keep using China as an example if you want to be written off by everyone. It's absurd.

 

[dblack]

I've advocated for the same many times in many places. But as things stand now, it just isn't going to happen.

It already is happening for many of us. The only vote any of us can control is our own, and I'm not about to waste mine on another status quo corporatist. As long as the Republicans and Democrats continue to squelch the pro-freedom, pro-justice voices in their ranks (Paul, Kucinich, etc...), they'll not get my vote.

You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.

I just don't see it ever happening. Under anyone. It's an anarchist pipe dream.

Nah... that's not what I'm saying at all. I specifically addressed bad regulation and bad tax policy. Regulations are just laws - specifically laws that dictate conformity. When such conformity has universal benefit, and costs very little, both in terms of money and lost freedom, when it enjoys near universal support of the public, it makes sense to codify it in law. Think stop signs and speed limits, for example.

But when laws benefit select classes of people or businesses, at the expense of others, when they represent a loss of fundamental freedoms, when they are passed with minimal support - and when they are loaded down with 'unintended' consequences (which, are often quite 'intended' by those pushing for the laws in question), they need to be reconsidered, and repealed if possible.

It's hard to argue against such a vague position. But okay.

Is my position vague, or just not encapsulated in your dichotomy?

It's tiresome when reasonable calls for cutting back on overreaching government are met with screeching accusations of anarchy. Surely you can see how regulatory schemes are twisted to serve ulterior motives. The health care and health insurance industries are replete with this kind of corruption. There's nothing vague about it.

 

[Underhill]

It already is happening for many of us. The only vote any of us can control is our own, and I'm not about to waste mine on another status quo corporatist. As long as the Republicans and Democrats continue to squelch the pro-freedom, pro-justice voices in their ranks (Paul, Kucinich, etc...), they'll not get my vote.



Nah... that's not what I'm saying at all. I specifically addressed bad regulation and bad tax policy. Regulations are just laws - specifically laws that dictate conformity. When such conformity has universal benefit, and costs very little, both in terms of money and lost freedom, when it enjoys near universal support of the public, it makes sense to codify it in law. Think stop signs and speed limits, for example.

But when laws benefit select classes of people or businesses, at the expense of others, when they represent a loss of fundamental freedoms, when they are passed with minimal support - and when they are loaded down with 'unintended' consequences (which, are often quite 'intended' by those pushing for the laws in question), they need to be reconsidered, and repealed if possible.

It's hard to argue against such a vague position. But okay.

Is my position vague, or just not encapsulated in your dichotomy?

It's tiresome when reasonable calls for cutting back on overreaching government are met with screeching accusations of anarchy. Surely you can see how regulatory schemes are twisted to serve ulterior motives. The health care and health insurance industries are replete with this kind of corruption. There's nothing vague about it.

Of course you are being vague. Give me specifics. Which laws or regulations are you referring to?

Yes, I called it anarchy. Simply because you haven't made it clear exactly what you are against. All regulations? Specific regulations? Or are you just regurgitating talking points? I am no mind reader.

I have no doubt there is corruption. Never argued otherwise. But until we get into specifics it's hard to tell if it's a small localized problem with a couple regs. or a pandemic throughout the system.

 

[dblack]

It's hard to argue against such a vague position. But okay.

Is my position vague, or just not encapsulated in your dichotomy?

It's tiresome when reasonable calls for cutting back on overreaching government are met with screeching accusations of anarchy. Surely you can see how regulatory schemes are twisted to serve ulterior motives. The health care and health insurance industries are replete with this kind of corruption. There's nothing vague about it.

Of course you are being vague. Give me specifics. Which laws or regulations are you referring to?

Yes, I called it anarchy. Simply because you haven't made it clear exactly what you are against. All regulations? Specific regulations? Or are you just regurgitating talking points? I am no mind reader.

I have no doubt there is corruption. Never argued otherwise. But until we get into specifics it's hard to tell if it's a small localized problem with a couple regs. or a pandemic throughout the system.

Well, you're just being argumentative now. "Talking points"?

I'm trying to establish agreement on the idea that ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes are a large part of the problem. If we can't agree on that, going into specifics is a waste of time. Particular with people who see any and all deregulation efforts as 'anarchy'.

It's sort of like arguing with the war mongers who label anyone who dares to suggest our military shouldn't dominate every corner of the planet as an 'isolationist'.

 

[Underhill]

Is my position vague, or just not encapsulated in your dichotomy?

It's tiresome when reasonable calls for cutting back on overreaching government are met with screeching accusations of anarchy. Surely you can see how regulatory schemes are twisted to serve ulterior motives. The health care and health insurance industries are replete with this kind of corruption. There's nothing vague about it.

Of course you are being vague. Give me specifics. Which laws or regulations are you referring to?

Yes, I called it anarchy. Simply because you haven't made it clear exactly what you are against. All regulations? Specific regulations? Or are you just regurgitating talking points? I am no mind reader.

I have no doubt there is corruption. Never argued otherwise. But until we get into specifics it's hard to tell if it's a small localized problem with a couple regs. or a pandemic throughout the system.

Well, you're just being argumentative now. "Talking points"?

I'm trying to establish agreement on the idea that ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes are a large part of the problem. If we can't agree on that, going into specifics is a waste of time. Particular with people who see any and all deregulation efforts as 'anarchy'.

It's sort of like arguing with the war mongers who label anyone who dares to suggest our military shouldn't dominate every corner of the planet as an 'isolationist'.

Of course I would agree that if there are ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes, they could be the problem. Who wouldn't?

But if you are unwilling to get into specifics then I have to assume it's because you have none. You must have heard this stuff on some talk show or commentary and it sounded good. If I am wrong, then feel free to demonstrate your knowledge on the subject.

 

[Dragonlady]

Further upthread, Eddie asked why 80% of all drug and medical patents are filed in the US and the answer is very simple: All companies worldwide file medical patents in the US because the US patents laws offer the BEST protection of their intellectual property for the longest period of time, thereby enabling the company to make the maximum amount of money possible from their research. It's not because all of these discoveries are coming out of US medicine, as Eddie would have you believe.

 

[Antares]

Objection your honor, speculation.

Even though Ed is shall we say....a bit on the fringe.

Further upthread, Eddie asked why 80% of all drug and medical patents are filed in the US and the answer is very simple: All companies worldwide file medical patents in the US because the US patents laws offer the BEST protection of their intellectual property for the longest period of time, thereby enabling the company to make the maximum amount of money possible from their research. It's not because all of these discoveries are coming out of US medicine, as Eddie would have you believe.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm trying to establish agreement on the idea that ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes are a large part of the problem.

yes this is why the USSR and Red China failed for example. A liberal lacks the IQ to know that regulators need regulators and those regulators need regulators and those regulators need regulators and so on until you have capitalism wherein everyone is a regulator based on the shopping decisions millions of regulator shoppers make!!

Jefferson said it better than I can:

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings[regulators] to govern him? Let history answer this question". -Thomas Jefferson

 

[Underhill]

I'm trying to establish agreement on the idea that ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes are a large part of the problem.

yes this is why the USSR and Red China failed for example. A liberal lacks the IQ to know that regulators need regulators and those regulators need regulators and those regulators need regulators and so on until you have capitalism wherein everyone is a regulator based on the shopping decisions millions of regulator shoppers make!!

Jefferson said it better than I can:

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings[regulators] to govern him? Let history answer this question". -Thomas Jefferson

China and Russia were communist. Better to compare with Britain, Japan, Norway, Brazil, Sweden... you know, every other non-communist civilized nation on the planet.

As for Jefferson, I doubt you have any clue what the **** he was even talking about.

 

[Dragonlady]

Objection your honor, speculation.

This is a report by the issued by the US Patent Office on prolific inventors for the period 1988 to 1997. The country of residence of the inventor is shown. Also shown is the corporation which received an assignment of the patent. Lots and lots of German and Japanese companies are getting US patents and assigning those patents to large biotech corporations. In fact, more than half of these "prolific inventors" are resident somewhere outside the US.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/inv_prol.pdf

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Objection your honor, speculation.

This is a report by the issued by the US Patent Office on prolific inventors for the period 1988 to 1997. The country of residence of the inventor is shown. Also shown is the corporation which received an assignment of the patent. Lots and lots of German and Japanese companies are getting US patents and assigning those patents to large biotech corporations. In fact, more than half of these "prolific inventors" are resident somewhere outside the US.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/inv_prol.pdf

Dragonlady is a very typical America hating liberal too dumb to know that she's been brainwashed. Over half of all patents originate in America by her own numbers. Not bad for 4% of
the world population. More importantly 18 of the top 20 universities are in America so we probably trained 95% of the world patent holders!! In health the numbers are even more favorable to America!! Dragonlady and her family own their lives to American capitalism but lack the IQ to know it let alone to be appreciative and thankful!!

I recall speaking to woman who was doing medical research at Yale. I asked her how she was sure the same work was not being done abroad. She said I don't even bother to look since its all done here.

 

[Underhill]

I recall speaking to woman who was doing medical research at Yale. I asked her how she was sure the same work was not being done abroad. She said I don't even bother to look since its all done here.

I don't believe you. If she said that she is a ******* idiot.

Here are a few dozen in India.

ICMR Permanent Institutes

A few in China.

Welcome to China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences

One of dozens of research groups in Sweden...

Medicine and health - Vetenskapsrådet [NS4 version]

Here is a medical research council in South Africa.

SA Medical Research Council

I found these in a 2 minute internet search. There are thousands more. All around the globe.

Anyone who would say "its all done here" is a ******* idiot. And I doubt a researcher from Bumfuck Community College is that moronic, say nothing about Yale...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I recall speaking to woman who was doing medical research at Yale. I asked her how she was sure the same work was not being done abroad. She said I don't even bother to look since its all done here.

I don't believe you. If she said that she is a ******* idiot.

Here are a few dozen in India.

ICMR Permanent Institutes

A few in China.

Welcome to China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences

One of dozens of research groups in Sweden...

Medicine and health - Vetenskapsrådet [NS4 version]

Here is a medical research council in South Africa.

SA Medical Research Council

I found these in a 2 minute internet search. There are thousands more. All around the globe.

Anyone who would say "its all done here" is a ******* idiot. And I doubt a researcher from Bumfuck Community College is that moronic, say nothing about Yale...

dear, patents speak for themselves! We have 4% of world population and 70% of recent medical patents! Anyway you look at the USA creates the medical care on this planet, and we do a damn good job!!

Always remember USMB is where liberals come to die!
Do you have any liberal friends you can send to the slaughter??

 

[Bomboozle]

dear, patents speak for themselves! We have 4% of world population and 70% of recent medical patents! Anyway you look at the USA creates the medical care on this planet, and we do a damn good job!!

Always remember USMB is where liberals come to die!
Do you have any liberal friends you can send to the slaughter??[/QUOTE]

You might want to go back and do a little more homework on patents -- yes, the U.S. is a major hub, however that's not the end of the story by any stretch of the imagination. I highly doubt "we have" 70% of recent patents. Just because a patent issues in the United States, doesn't automatically give an invention protection elsewhere in the world. You might want to familiarize yourself with WIPO, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, EPO, ARIPO, SIPO, KIPO, just to name a few.