T1B

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:59 pm**

BSmack wrote: Tell me this. If "socialized medicine" is destined to lead us to ruin, how do you explain every other industrialized nation IN THE WORLD? When are they going to collapse?

A nation may eventually collapse when its citizens flee to countries that are free-market oriented. Humans will always gravitate towards a free environment; the socialist paradise will always lose. It is not a myth that people from other countries come here en masse to seek simple medical treatments (like an x-ray) that they were waitlisted for 8 months for in their homeland (the most convenient example is our neighbor to the north). My cousin lives in London; people are leaving the country by the thousands because of the lack of medical care, not to mention the high taxes that gets them that lack of care. That's the point that is overlooked by simpletons listening to Hillary - the government takes its wealth from its taxpayers, not from thin air. The more productive and successful you are, the more you pay for those who produce less (or nothing) to have access to America's luxuries and amenities. We have such medicinal progress because of the profit incentive for doctors to do well. A government bureaucrat has no such incentive. They should not make our decisions for us.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 pm**

MickBastard wrote:
BSmack wrote: Tell me this. If "socialized medicine" is destined to lead us to ruin, how do you explain every other industrialized nation IN THE WORLD? When are they going to collapse?
A nation may eventually collapse when its citizens flee to countries that are free-market oriented. Humans will always gravitate towards a free environment; the socialist paradise will always lose. It is not a myth that people from other countries come here en masse to seek simple medical treatments (like an x-ray) that they were waitlisted for 8 months for in their homeland (the most convenient example is our neighbor to the north). My cousin lives in London; people are leaving the country by the thousands because of the lack of medical care, not to mention the high taxes that gets them that lack of care. That's the point that is overlooked by simpletons listening to Hillary - the government takes its wealth from its taxpayers, not from thin air. The more productive and successful you are, the more you pay for those who produce less (or nothing) to have access to America's luxuries and amenities. We have such medicinal progress because of the profit incentive for doctors to do well. A government bureaucrat has no such incentive. They should not make our decisions for us.

No, we have such shoddy insurance coverage because the only incentive HMO's operate under is the profit incentive. And the easiest way to pad the bottom line is to deny coverage. We pay 15% of our GDP towards health care and can't even insure everybody. A socialist paradise sounds like heaven compared to what we have now.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:12 pm**

The life expectancy for Americans is NOT so far below that of other nations that we should be handing health care decisions and control to a bureaucracy that was flummoxed by the increase in passport applications, thinks that ethanol from corn is a great idea, made education worse despite dumping $$$ into the system and trying to micromanage it, etc.

And if anyone thinks for one second that handing over the healthcare reigns to our easily-influenced legislators will make the system more fair, more efficient, and remove the profit motive or lobbying, they are idiots.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:50 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The life expectancy for Americans is NOT so far below that of other nations that we should be handing health care decisions and control to a bureaucracy that was flummoxed by the increase in passport applications, thinks that ethanol from corn is a great idea, made education worse despite dumping $$$ into the system and trying to micromanage it, etc.

And if anyone thinks for one second that handing over the healthcare reigns to our easily-influenced legislators will make the system more fair, more efficient, and remove the profit motive or lobbying, they are idiots.

It is true that fixing only one aspect of a system that is in dire need of overhaul will not solve all of the our nation's ills. What is certain is that every other industrialized nation in the world is doing it better than we are. Period.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:01 pm**

Not to mention the fact that WE have all the cutting-edge medical technology, diagnostic testing (mechanical and molecular), etc. Medicine is no different than any other business in that the profit motive definitely pushed progress faster.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:35 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Not to mention the fact that WE have all the cutting-edge medical technology, diagnostic testing (mechanical and molecular), etc. Medicine is no different than any other business in that the profit motive definitely pushed progress faster.

What's this "we" business?

Private, corporate interests are now "we"? You're delusional.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:48 pm**

Martyred wrote:What's this "we" business?

Private, corporate interests are now "we"? You're delusional.

Just showing solidarity with my capitalist buds.

Hell, when I worked for the University of Rochester, our NIH-funded lab happily helped PE-Applied Biosystems to perfect their HIV Genotyping Kit. They sent their "beta version" kits, and we (myself especially) tweaked the protocols and chemistry. We used plama samples from folks who volunteered for the AIDS Clinical Trials Group to get the thermal cycler and sequencing chemistry down pat. Their company made a buttload of money, the world got a new diagnostic/research tool, and I got some snazzy duds embroidered with "Virus Inspector" logos.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:49 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Not to mention the fact that WE have all the cutting-edge medical technology, diagnostic testing (mechanical and molecular), etc. Medicine is no different than any other business in that the profit motive definitely pushed progress faster.

We have all the cutting edge medical technology?

I'm sure that's news to the 15% who are completely uninsured. Never mind the many millions more who will never enjoy the fruits of cutting edge technology because their insurance carriers will never in a million years authorize their use.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:01 pm**

BSmack wrote:I'm sure that's news to the 15% who are completely uninsured.

And you honestly believe that those folks would be granted access to that technology under a government-run bureaucracy? Especially when one reads about how long the waits for medical services are in countries WITH socialized medicine? Sure...a federally-run health care system would hop right on an approval for a CAT scan or MRI.

BSmack wrote:Never mind the many millions more who will never enjoy the fruits of cutting edge technology because their insurance carriers will never in a million years authorize their use.

Just because a patient or their family (or their doctor) really, really, REALLY wants an expensive test or procedure doesn't necessarily mean that they should get it. Shit, if patients had their way, they'd get a frigging CAT scan and MRI every time they had a headache. For example, why the hell SHOULD an insurance carrier pay for shit like fertility treatments? They shouldn't - but constituents whined for it. Hell, I've had conversations with folks who want laser eye surgery to be covered. When I ask why, their answer is invariably ''Cuz I want it." If the government winds up running health care, they'll wind up pandering to the whining of the scientifically-illiterate, self-indulgent slobs who won't lift a frigging finger to exercise or eat right but demand state-of-the-art, expensive treatments "jus 'cuz." It'll go the same route as Social Security (which got expanded to pay folks who should NEVER have been recipients under the original plan) and the current government child healthcare boondoggle. It'll just get bigger and bigger as the feds kiss the asses of the electorate who demand more expensive stuff to be covered.

Do you honestly expect a nation of fatass slobs who elect corrupt fatass slobs to make sensible choices with regard to health care, especially when it's on the "government's" tab?

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:02 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:And you honestly believe that those folks would be granted access to that technology under a government-run bureaucracy? Especially when one reads about how long the waits for medical services are in countries WITH socialized medicine? Sure...a federally-run health care system would hop right on an approval for a CAT scan or MRI.

Would you rather wait 3 months for a CAT scan or be told that you can't have one because you're uninsured and your condition is not dire enough?

BSmack wrote:Just because a patient or their family (or their doctor) really, really, REALLY wants an expensive test or procedure doesn't necessarily mean that they should get it. Shit, if patients had their way, they'd get a frigging CAT scan and MRI every time they had a headache. For example, why the hell SHOULD an insurance carrier pay for shit like fertility treatments? They shouldn't - but constituents whined for it. Hell, I've had conversations with folks who want laser eye surgery to be covered. When I ask why, their answer is invariably ''Cuz I want it." If the government winds up running health care, they'll wind up pandering to the whining of the scientifically-illiterate, self-indulgent slobs who won't lift a frigging finger to exercise or eat right but demand state-of-the-art, expensive treatments "jus 'cuz." It'll go the same route as Social Security (which got expanded to pay folks who should NEVER have been recipients under the original plan) and the current government child healthcare boondoggle. It'll just get bigger and bigger as the feds kiss the asses of the electorate who demand more expensive stuff to be covered.

Do you honestly expect a nation of fatass slobs who elect corrupt fatass slobs to make sensible choices with regard to health care, especially when it's on the "government's" tab?

You keep ignoring the simple reality that national health care is producing better results than the US HMO model in every industrialized nation on earth. They spend less per capita and live longer. Is there something peculiar to the American condition that you feel makes us incapable of reaping the same kind of results?

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:19 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Would you rather wait 3 months for a CAT scan or be told that you can't have one because you're uninsured and your condition is not dire enough?
Why are you acting like treatments aren't ever denied under socialized systems?

You might want to get together with Mike before you go and destroy the entire logical underpinnings of his argument that under a national health care system the proletariat would be awash in unnecessary and wasteful health care. Please, don't destroy his dream that government health care administrators would be incapable of saying NO to anything.

Damn, I was looking forward to my free medical marijuana. :x

You keep ignoring the simple reality that national health care is producing better results than the US HMO model in every industrialized nation on earth.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Go tell that to the WHO.

USA= #37 in health care performance.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:47 pm**

Trying to lay the entire longevity disparity on access to healthcare is complete and utter bullshit - a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.

I'd love to know how confounding variables like, say, oh....diet or genetics, play a role in longevity.

Have you noticed that a hell of a lot of the diseases whacking Americans (and thus lowering their longevity) are related to our high-fat diets? How about genetics? The longet lived people in the world are Asians...who also happen to be the longest lived AMERICANS.

And as far as having a lower longevity, it's not like Americans are dropping dead at age 50 while everyone else is hitting 100. The differences I've seen between the longest-living nations and us is 10 years or less. I'll take that if it means keeping an inefficient, meddling bureaucracy from interfering with my healthcare the way they meddled in education.

Mvscal and I each are making valid points, despite bri's attempt to claim otherwise. In countries like Great Britain, folks ARE having a hard time getting access to care. MY point is that in a pork-laden bureacracy like America's, legislators cave in to their constituents' stupid demands. Look at how Social Security got expanded because of fucking whiners. The tendency is for government entitlements to get more bloated, not less. I have no trouble picturing this as taxpayers view teary-eyed folks talking about how little Timmy should be given access to some wildly expensive medication or treatment, even if it only has a 1% chance of extending his life. We've already seen the idiocy of government intervention in healthcare with several states FORCING insurance companies to cover wholly elective stuff like IVF. That is fucking inexcusable.

(memo to Bri: GNIFDTAS is the 26th @ 1 pm)

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:11 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Trying to lay the entire longevity disparity on access to healthcare is complete and utter bullshit - a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.

I'd love to know how confounding variables like, say, oh....diet or genetics, play a role in longevity.

Or lack of preventative services?

Or perhaps the latest fad of "patient dumping"?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6376588

Have you noticed that a hell of a lot of the diseases whacking Americans (and thus lowering their longevity) are related to our high-fat diets? How about genetics? The longet lived people in the world are Asians...who also happen to be the longest lived AMERICANS.

No, the longest lived people in the world are Japanese. Followed by people in other industrialized nations with nationalized systems of health care. Look at the map if you don't believe me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ld_map.PNG

The rest of Asia lags far behind the industrialized world. Though they (and everybody else) have some serious bode on Africa.

And as far as having a lower longevity, it's not like Americans are dropping dead at age 50 while everyone else is hitting 100. The differences I've seen between the longest-living nations and us is 10 years or less. I'll take that if it means keeping an inefficient, meddling bureaucracy from interfering with my healthcare the way they meddled in education.

Fair enough. We are only 6 years behind a country we bombed into the stone age a mere 60 years ago. Bode US I guess.

Mvscal and I each are making valid points, despite bri's attempt to claim otherwise. In countries like Great Britain, folks ARE having a hard time getting access to care. MY point is that in a pork-laden bureacracy like America's, legislators cave in to their constituents' stupid demands. Look at how Social Security got expanded because of fucking whiners. The tendency is for government entitlements to get more bloated, not less. I have no trouble picturing this as taxpayers view teary-eyed folks talking about how little Timmy should be given access to some wildly expensive medication or treatment, even if it only has a 1% chance of extending his life. We've already seen the idiocy of government intervention in healthcare with several states FORCING insurance companies to cover wholly elective stuff like IVF. That is fucking inexcusable.

I guess my point is that if a pork laden bureaucracy is a problem, fix the pork laden bureaucracy. We are the richest country on the planet. We should, at the very least, be able to provide health care and preventative services for all citizens.

BTW: Since when has the health care industry been any more efficient than governmental bureaucracy?

(memo to Bri: GNIFDTAS is the 26th @ 1 pm)

Not going to be able to make it. Idle Hour on the 25th?

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:58 pm**

It seems that at least one of you guys are stuck on the idea that America is far down the list of a great country to live in if you need medical attention. Needless to say, the system here is not perfect, but I simplify this debate by asking how many people have we heard of fleeing the United States to seek superior health care anywhere else? It is well documented fact that patients AND doctors come to America to be a part of our superior medical system. Some risk their lives doing so, like the Cuban doctors I read about that Castro traded to Venezuela in exchange for oil. They must clandestinely make it to the States in order to earn money that will not end up in the Castro regime's hands (I believe they take 80% or some other ridiculous number). If they are captured, I don't think I need to explain what awaits them back in Cuba. Next time you get sick or injured, go to Canada, England, France, or another central planning beauty to be better taken care of. Something tells me you won't.

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:21 pm**

MickBastard wrote:It seems that at least one of you guys are stuck on the idea that America is far down the list of a great country to live in if you need medical attention. Needless to say, the system here is not perfect, but I simplify this debate by asking how many people have we heard of fleeing the United States to seek superior health care anywhere else? It is well documented fact that patients AND doctors come to America to be a part of our superior medical system. Some risk their lives doing so, like the Cuban doctors I read about that Castro traded to Venezuela in exchange for oil. They must clandestinely make it to the States in order to earn money that will not end up in the Castro regime's hands (I believe they take 80% or some other ridiculous number). If they are captured, I don't think I need to explain what awaits them back in Cuba. Next time you get sick or injured, go to Canada, England, France, or another central planning beauty to be better taken care of. Something tells me you won't.

What a beautiful collection of John Birch Society buzzwords. It is as if a retard from the 1950's has been beamed to this bbs just for our amusement.

Tell you what, the next time I am sick or injured and don't have good health insurance, I'll check into just how affordable international travel is on what would be my necessarily very limited budget. You see, I am one of the lucky 70% or so in this country who have a good job with solid health insurance benefits. But were I this girl's father, I would be looking into a move to Cuba before I watched my daughter die for lack of health care.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... care_N.htm

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:37 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Just showing solidarity with my capitalist buds.

Do you think socilazation of police fire education and roads is a good idea? How about Social Security? National defense?
Or is it just health care that should not be socialized?

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:07 pm**

mvscal wrote: Try reading the Constitution someday, idiot.

I was asking him for his opinion not for a breakdown of Article 1.

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:04 pm**

Kierland wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Just showing solidarity with my capitalist buds.
Do you think socilazation of police fire education and roads is a good idea? How about Social Security? National defense?
Or is it just health care that should not be socialized?

There is no reason that police, fire, or education should be a federal government issue. I'm for the complete abolition of the (in my opinion, Constitutionally dubious) Department of Education and repeal of NCLB. The highest level of government oversight on all the aformentioned areas should be the STATE level. As for roads, they are and should be predominantly a state and municipal issue, only involving the feds when interstate stuff is at stake.

Social Security is a fucking mess. It was a bad idea from the get-go. The whole concept that it's the government's job to save people from their own stupidity/bad luck is wrong-headed. I'm all for privatization, but I don't know how the hell they could switch horses in midstream.

As far as national defense, of course that should be a federal job - even the most hard-core libertarians will grant THAT.

Gee whiz, what else are you going to ask me - if I think that treaties with foreign nations should be "socialized?" Or the ability to declare war?

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:25 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The highest level of government oversight on all the aformentioned areas should be the STATE level.

So the State telling you when and how to educate your kids (if you have kids) is ok with you, but having the State pay someone to set your broken arm (if you have one) is not? Shouldn't you be for both or against both?

Gee whiz, what else are you going to ask me - if I think that treaties with foreign nations should be "socialized?" Or the ability to declare war?

You seem to think that the "corrupt fatass slobs" that are elected don't make sensible choices, I was just asking how far you would take it.

Thanks for not being a jerk about it un-like that mvscal guy.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:36 pm**

Kierland wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The highest level of government oversight on all the aformentioned areas should be the STATE level.
So the State telling you when and how to educate your kids (if you have kids) is ok with you, but having the State pay someone to set your broken arm (if you have one) is not? Shouldn't you be for both or against both?

I am opposed to the federal government being involved in either education or healthcare. Period.

I have less of a problem with states (small "s" please...) having a hand in education, and even then I am only supportive of their setting up cohesive standards for academic areas (something that is beyond the scope/experience of most local school districts). Even the "big daddy" of libertarianism, Thomas Jefferson, thought it was fine and dandy for states to fund and oversee education, seeing as how he believed an educated citizenry fundamental to guarding their own liberty.

I don't like states meddling in healthcare, as many of them are forcing insurance companies to cover wholly elective and costly stuff like IVF and other fertility issues. That's complete and utter bullshit. When you see some of the nonessential crap that states are forcing companies to cover, you get a pretty good idea of what we could see at the national level, when the porkmeisters in Congress lay their hands on healthcare. Like PJ O'Rourke has said, 'If you think healthcare is expensive now, what until it's free."

You know what'll inevitably happen as the government sticks its craw further into healthcare? Legislators and "experts" will point out that since taxpayers are footing the bill for healthcare, it will be their duty to keep costs down by micromanaging our lifestyle decisions...tracking student BMI in schools (already being done in some states), outlawing or heavily regulating certain ingredients (like...oh...trans fats), etc. The "nanny state" mentality will just expand further because people are too frigging lazy.

If I wanted to take a "mvscal" tack, I could point out that a healthy but uneducated citizenry will make stupid choices and hurt the Republic, while the minority of poor or unemployed sick people will be weeded out. People have to get over the idea that it's the government's job to take care of them regardless of their poor choices and poor fortunes.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:26 pm**

So, L-rat, what do you think of pharmaceutical companies effectively buying off congress to prevent the government from being able to negotiate lower prices for drugs? Gee, it would surely have saved a lot of money for the average citizen. But those big corps really wanted to maintain their gigantic profit margins. Hmmm...

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:52 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So, L-rat, what do you think of pharmaceutical companies effectively buying off congress to prevent the government from being able to negotiate lower prices for drugs? Gee, it would surely have saved a lot of money for the average citizen. But those big corps really wanted to maintain their gigantic profit margins. Hmmm...

I'm all FOR pharmaceutical companies making huge profits. It gives them an incentive to continue making products. Anyone who thinks that chemists, biochemists, etc. got into the field solely to "help mankind" is a fucking dunce. Every PhD, MD, technologist and technician wants to be paid -and handsomely- for their years of work. They frigging deserve it. If you take the profit motive out of pharmeceuticals, good luck getting new meds. Shit, dumbfucks insisiting on low prices helped push companies out of vaccines.

BTW, part of the reason that Americans pay higher prices for pharmeceuticals is that WE'RE helping to offset the profit lost when the companies got strongarmed into lowering prices for places like Canada. In effect, we're helping to subsidize the cheaper Canadian meds.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:43 am**

Okay, your Ayn Randian line is clear, and your respect and affection for the pharmaceutical businessmen. But the real question is: why shouldn't the government be able to step up, as it were, for the citizenry, on their--our--behalf, and so be able to negotiate to save us money? Why should the government allow itself to be bribed by massive lobbying? Why should the bribers--in this case the pharmaceutical giants--be spared anything less than harsh censure?

As for the drug companies' right to unlimited profits, this is as dangerous and fundamentally wrong as allowing oil companies to simply make as much as they might. The basic flaw in such vigorous "free-market" arguments is the quick and steady use of abstract concepts and images, when the actual "products" are in fact every bit as immediate and essential in our lives as air and water. That is, such basic social entities as energy and medicine, natural resources and basic environmental health ARE the proper province of a large government--itself the proper administration of a large modern nation such as ours.
The government, however hobbled, has a basic charter or mission statement to serve the people. Like negotiating drug prices, and protecting the basic land and infrastructure. The oil and drug companies have only the mission to make profit. If they're selling Barbie dolls, fine. But if their "product" is our very livelihoods--the basic energy of our society--well then NO, of course they can't enjoy free reign. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the government.

Meanwhile, the ability of government sponsored research to develop all manner of advances in virtually every area of science is well documented.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:03 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for the drug companies' right to unlimited profits, this is as dangerous and fundamentally wrong as allowing oil companies to simply make as much as they might.

Horse manure.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:such basic social entities as energy and medicine, natural resources and basic environmental health ARE the proper province of a large government--itself the proper administration of a large modern nation such as ours.

Now THAT is a dangerous idea.

Medicine is a business. Pharmaceuticals are a business. People in that business invested a hell of a lot of time, blood, sweat, and tears to get their "product" perfected and have an absolute right to command fair market value to more than earn back what they invested. It takes YEARS to get drugs to the market - sending researchers around the globe to find new molecular solutions, research in basic chemistry/biochemistry/molecular modeling to synthesize the active components, in vitro testing, testing in animal models, getting the drugs approved for clinical trials, etc. The vast majority of drugs never make it to the end, but the hard-working scientists and techs who put in the hours along the way expect to get paid through each step, and reagents and equipment must be bought, taxes must be paid, etc. The price of a new drug MUST factor in the debts accrued up to that time as well as profits.

Like it or not, the profit motive for drug design and manufacturing is GOOD, as it gives a damned good incentive to hire and then pay the best and brightest researchers and techs very well. I have friends who work in biotech, and they bust their asses and work long hours - not because of some simpering "betterment of mankind" horseshit, but because it pays damned well.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The oil and drug companies have only the mission to make profit. If they're selling Barbie dolls, fine. But if their "product" is our very livelihoods--the basic energy of our society--well then NO, of course they can't enjoy free reign. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the government.

Oh please. The fucking FARMERS in this country have a bigger stranglehold on Congress than "Big Pharma" does, and I don't see you bitching about how they're using their influence (the moronic corn to alcohol scam anyone? farm subsidies? milk price supports? trying kill toughened immigration laws so that they can continue to hire cheap, illegal labor?). Save your outrage for THOSE scammers.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:28 am**

Well I certainly reserve outrage for the various scams you mention, especially the ethanol nightmare. But don't think that the "farmers" are getting over. They've already been swallowed by the agri-giants who are basically in cahoots with the oil, or "energy" companies.

But your whole argument is just Free-Market, period. And there are all sorts of basic and connected reasons why unfettered profiteering, especially on a mass scale such as energy and medicine, is disastrous. I assume you saw Who Killed The Electric Car? And as for pharmaceutical companies, again there is no reason the government can't or shouldn't take on such research itself--for the purpose of serving the people. I know Ayn Rand and Marquis De Sade would disagree, but it is a mark of our greatness to work together, not for an unprecedented feeding ground for capitalist pigs. Or what?

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well I certainly reserve outrage for the various scams you mention, especially the ethanol nightmare. But don't think that the "farmers" are getting over. They've already been swallowed by the agri-giants who are basically in cahoots with the oil, or "energy" companies.

Ooooh-oooh, throw in the Bavarian Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, and the Trilateral Dudes!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:But your whole argument is just Free-Market, period.

For certain things, including pharmaceuticals, abso-fucking-lutely. The government's ONLY job should be to make sure that the companies don't kill folks with their products.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And as for pharmaceutical companies, again there is no reason the government can't or shouldn't take on such research itself--for the purpose of serving the people.

They do. The NIH funds basic and applied research in areas like AIDS, cancer, etc. They paid my salary for 11 years when I worked at the U of R...but the drugs and vaccines themselves came from the private sector.

The stupidity of the populace and legislators and avarice of lawyers has made vaccine research unprofitable in the U.S., so most biotech companies got out of that business. THAT is where your attitude got us. If you want the government to deal with it...good luck. Unless they pay competitive salaries and offer competitive benefits, not a lot of researchers are going to want to leave biotech to deal with federal bureacracy.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:it is a mark of our greatness to work together, not for an unprecedented feeding ground for capitalist pigs.

To claim it must be either/or across the board is a false choice.

If you kill the profit motive for pharmaceuticals and medicine in general, you will drive people away from those fields. Guaranteed.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:05 am**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Just because a patient or their family (or their doctor) really, really, REALLY wants an expensive test or procedure doesn't necessarily mean that they should get it. Shit, if patients had their way, they'd get a frigging CAT scan and MRI every time they had a headache.

Hold on, I thought socialised insurance schemes had everyone waiting in queues without service? Then everyone is getting CAT scans and MRIs on demand? Mike, I am convinced that you are becoming insane. Someone should reacquaint you with the nature of the doctor/patient relationship.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:26 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Just because a patient or their family (or their doctor) really, really, REALLY wants an expensive test or procedure doesn't necessarily mean that they should get it. Shit, if patients had their way, they'd get a frigging CAT scan and MRI every time they had a headache.
Hold on, I thought socialised insurance schemes had everyone waiting in queues without service? Then everyone is getting CAT scans and MRIs on demand? Mike, I am convinced that you are becoming insane. Someone should reacquaint you with the nature of the doctor/patient relationship.

What part of:

if patients had their way, they'd get a frigging CAT scan and MRI every time they had a headache.

did you not understand? I didn't say that people WOULD get them.

Once again, you mischaracterize what I say. It's sort of a habit with you.

BTW, one of my best friends is a GP who agrees with my statement - she deals with chronic complainers who demand CAT scans and MRIs every time they have a bad headache, twisted ankle, etc. Morons get symptoms (or see something on TLC that makes them think they do), fly to WebMD (or, God help us, wikipedia), diagnose themselves as having some rare, potentially deadly disease and insist on expensive labwork. Happens all the fucking time. My friend bitches about it, my own doctor bitches about it, and even the school nurse with whom I work bitches about it.

If people are demanding these unnecessary and expenbsive tests when they have co-pays, what the hell do you think will happen when they're FREE?!?

You have a mixture of a scientifically-illiterate populace demanding expanded coverage (for FREE!) and pork-giving representatives who desperately want the votes of the aforementioned Risas. That's a recipe for disaster.

If you don't think that it is the tendency for the government to expand coverage in "entitlements," just take a look at Social Security or the current child healthcare bill proposal (NY expanded its own under that idiot Pataki). All started small and then included more folks because of the mewling of constituents who wanted some of the pie. Legislators LOVE bringing home the pork and neglecting to mention the bill to be paid by the rest of us.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:52 am**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
What part of:
if patients had their way, they'd get a frigging CAT scan and MRI every time they had a headache.
did you not understand? I didn't say that people WOULD get them.

Fair enough.

BTW, one of my best friends is a GP who agrees with my statement - she deals with chronic complainers who demand CAT scans and MRIs every time they have a bad headache, twisted ankle, etc. Morons get symptoms (or see something on TLC that makes them think they do), fly to WebMD (or, God help us, wikipedia), diagnose themselves as having some rare, potentially deadly disease and insist on expensive labwork. Happens all the fucking time. My friend bitches about it, my own doctor bitches about it, and even the school nurse with whom I work bitches about it.

Yes, I know, there are are entire wards dedicated to Chronic Care.

If people are demanding these unnecessary and expenbsive tests when they have co-pays, what the hell do you think will happen when they're FREE?!?

You have a mixture of a scientifically-illiterate populace demanding expanded coverage (for FREE!) and pork-giving representatives who desperately want the votes of the aforementioned goobers. That's a recipe for disaster.

Well it's not really free, is it? It's paid for with taxes.

At the heart of your arguement, you have an asymmetry of knowledge = Doctor and patient have different levels of knowledge about the "product." The patient goes to see the doctor for advice. The patient does not know what is wrong with him, so it is the doctors job to provide the diagnosis. As such, the patient must take the doctor at his word.

>>>The patient will NEVER be in a position to demand anything.<<<

2) (Probably more important) Need-Based Demand = If you go to the store to buy oranges, you look at the price. You see the price has fallen since you last bought oranges and so you pick up a few. Dissimilarly, you do not get a hip or knee replacement because the price of hip and knee replacements has fallen, you get a hip or knee replacement if and only if you need one. This places medical treatments in a different basket than ordinary goods.

Those with best information, in the realm of health, are the physicians and other health professionals. In order to stem the asymmetry of knowledge and fill the information gap, all consumers would be forced to learn more about what they are purchasing. This is a definitely good, and it will definitely narrow the information gap, but never fully. If everyone knew as much about health care as physicians do, Medicine as a profession would not exist.

If you don't think that it is the tendency for the government to expand coverage in "entitlements," just take a look at Social Security or the current child healthcare bill proposal (NY expanded its own under that idiot Pataki). All started small and then included more folks because of the mewling of constituents who wanted some of the pie. Legislators LOVE bringing home the pork and neglecting to mention the bill to be paid by the rest of us.

I'm not qualified to comment on this, I don't know anything about it.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:26 pm**

Dr_Phibes wrote:Well it's not really free, is it? It's paid for with taxes.

Exactly.

A big part of the problem is that Average Citizen doesn't truly GRASP that simple truth.

All that Joe and Jane Six-Pack "know" is that "the government" says it'll pay for something (and so, they assume that the Six-Pack family won't have to...). It doesn't occur to them that the goverment gets "its" money out of THEIR paychecks. By the time they realize that the ever-expanding chunk of money removed from their pay is helping to pay for services for folks who don't/won't contribute to footing the bill, their outrage will be too late.

And I know I bring this up a lot, but it's because it is a perfect example of how the government caves in to its constituents in expanding care - in vitro fertilization. There is NO necessary medical reason for a patient to get this other than the woman WANTS a baby. It is expensive, time-consuming, and has a high level of failure (and therefore must usually be done more than once). It is also medically UNNECESSARY. However, thanks to the power of women lobbying their state legislators, many states (including MA & NJ) have FORCED insurance companies to cover this procedure (and many like it that are even MORE expensive).

If a woman wants fertility treatments, she (and/or her partner) should have to pay for every frigging cent of it out of their own pocket. Period. There is NO reason why and insurance company or taxpayer should have to help pay for it. None. But...whiney voter + public sympathy + need to get re-elected = expansion of insurance coverage for wholly unnecessary bullshit. If this has already occurred at the STATE level, picture what WILL happen if this crap moves to the federal level...

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:11 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:You have a mixture of a scientifically-illiterate populace demanding expanded coverage (for FREE!) and pork-giving representatives who desperately want the votes of the aforementioned goobers.

That was uncalled for.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:26 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:You have a mixture of a scientifically-illiterate populace demanding expanded coverage (for FREE!) and pork-giving representatives who desperately want the votes of the aforementioned goobers.
That was uncalled for.

Sorry 'bout that...

I'll edit the post to remove the purely unintentional insult and replace it with a word that better represents scientifically-ignorant morons. :wink:

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:13 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I have less of a problem with states (small "s" please...) having a hand in education, and even then I am only supportive of their setting up cohesive standards for academic areas (something that is beyond the scope/experience of most local school districts).

I still don't get it. If you think Government fucks shit up so badly how in world can you be behind the Government educating kids? What is more important than education? What incentive does the government have in providing a well-rounded education instead of creating a group of marginally educated drones that don't rock the boat? Any doc can fix your broken leg.

Even the "big daddy" of libertarianism, Thomas Jefferson, thought it was fine and dandy for states to fund and oversee education, seeing as how he believed an educated citizenry fundamental to guarding their own liberty.

His stance was 3 years for boy and girls with some boys moving on to higher learning and only 1 boy from each district every two years moving on to W&M. Right? K thru 2 are the only mandatory years? I can live with that.

I don't like states meddling in healthcare, as many of them are forcing insurance companies to cover wholly elective and costly stuff like IVF and other fertility issues.

That is not how single payer works. There are no insurance companies in a single payer system.

Legislators and "experts" will point out that since taxpayers are …. people are too frigging lazy.

Like they do in education today.

People have to get over the idea that it's the government's job to take care of them regardless of their poor choices and poor fortunes.

I am not so much advocating universal healthcare as I am pointing out that if you are going to have single payer education or single payer healthcare (like we do now) you are better off leaving education to the people and then having the Government pay to fix their broken leg or remove their cancer.

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:00 pm**

Kierland wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I have less of a problem with states (small "s" please...) having a hand in education, and even then I am only supportive of their setting up cohesive standards for academic areas (something that is beyond the scope/experience of most local school districts).
I still don't get it. If you think Government fucks shit up so badly how in world can you be behind the Government educating kids? What is more important than education? What incentive does the government have in providing a well-rounded education instead of creating a group of marginally educated drones that don't rock the boat? Any doc can fix your broken leg.

My problem is with the FEDERAL government. The FEDERAL government has no legitimate place in educational policy. None. Nada. Zilch. The Department of Education should be abolished and NCLB should be killed. Period.

I don't have a problem with states setting up exemplars in curriculum/standards. When doing so, places that have good standards (like NY) consult experts in the specific disciplines. The only reason I don't see municipalities as being able to perform this function is the lack of expertise at the local level and the expense in hiring experts to help them. Hell, the only reason NY made district compliance with their standards and requirements for Regents exams stricter was because of NCLB. The district in which we live used to be given permission to use local final exams for many courses because they were more difficult than the state exam. NY's desire to comply with NCLB changed all that, and now the district HAS to use the state exams. If NCLB were shitcanned (as it should be), then I'd advocate NY going back to the old system.

And the government's interest in putting out better educated students has a lot to do with out ability to compete with other nations in science and business (especially the latter, what with business folks trying to influence what gets taught and how in order to get "better" employees).

I'll state my positions again:

The federal government has NO legit place in education. None.

The federal government has NO legit place in healthcare. None.

See? No confusion or contradiction between the two statements.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Even the "big daddy" of libertarianism, Thomas Jefferson, thought it was fine and dandy for states to fund and oversee education, seeing as how he believed an educated citizenry fundamental to guarding their own liberty.

Kierland wrote:His stance was 3 years for boy and girls with some boys moving on to higher learning and only 1 boy from each district every two years moving on to W&M. Right? K thru 2 are the only mandatory years? I can live with that.

His stance was a bit more complicated than that, especially after he had penned "Notes..." His advocacy was for publicly-funded (i.e., "free" education), and his suggested curriculum at the lower levels included Greek and Latin. Toss in his being the father of the University of Virginia - which he fought tooth and nail for having the commonwealth fund, and it's easy to see that he definitely supported state funding of education (as well as local funding).

Healthcare should NEVER be overseen by the federal government. It grants a corrupt bureaucracy too much control and tosses even greater inefficiency and privacy concerns into the mix. The feds can't streamline frigging anything and would be too prone to expanding coverage (as I've discussed in other posts).

For those who honestly buy Michael Moore's one-sided depiction, feel free to check out this website and roam around. It doesn't pretend to be completely unbiased, but it does confront some of the horseshit that Moore and his followers peddle.

Posted: **Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:30 pm**

I still don't get why you would be so scared of the government that you do not want to let them set your broken arm but you think it is ok to let the government educate your kids. Why? Because Tommy said it was a good idea in 1700's? I just don't get it. Oh well.

Posted: **Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:38 pm**

Kierland wrote:I still don't get why you would be so scared of the government that you do not want to let them set your broken arm but you think it is ok to let the government educate your kids. Why? Because Tommy said it was a good idea in 1700's? I just don't get it. Oh well.

[sigh....]

Let me explain this again. Slowly.

When I state my opposition to the government running healthcare OR education, we are referring to the FEDERAL government. You know, the one in Washington, D.C.?

I am opposed to the FEDERAL government running HEALTHCARE.
I am opposed to the FEDERAL government running EDUCATION

I have stated repeatedly that I believe strongly that the U.S. Department of Education should be abolished.
I have stated repeatedly that NCLB should be repealed.

I do NOT think that it is OK for the FEDERAL government to have ANY say in education.

I only mentioned Jefferson because even as a strong libertarian, he felt that it was OK for states to help oversee SOME aspects of their citizens' free education. I have stated that I feel that state standards and suggested curricula are not evil but that if local districts could show that their standards are stricter/higher, that the district should have the option of using theirs and not the state's (as used to be the case in NY prior to the federal law NCLB). As far as state oversight of teacher certification, that should also be abolished - it is nothing but a revenue-generator for the state (in NY, state colleges started as teachers' colleges -and pretty much still are, and the number of hoops through which prospective teachers must jump and the fees for them have increased, without any demonstrable increase in teacher quality).

So...once again...I am OPPOSED to any FEDERAL oversight of education and am only marginally for state oversight in certain areas.

I am totally, utterly opposed to FEDERAL oversight of healthcare. In fact, I'm not even thrilled with the state interference, since states' regulations are part of the reason for the mess we're in right now.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:51 am**

Kierland wrote:I still don't get why.... I just don't get it. Oh well.

No Shit.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:38 am**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: If a woman wants fertility treatments, she (and/or her partner) should have to pay for every frigging cent of it out of their own pocket. Period. There is NO reason why and insurance company or taxpayer should have to help pay for it. None. But...whiney voter + public sympathy + need to get re-elected = expansion of insurance coverage for wholly unnecessary bullshit. If this has already occurred at the STATE level, picture what WILL happen if this crap moves to the federal level...

And blah...blah...blah...

You know what, Mikey L-Rat? I've given you a bunch of line...and you're nuts. And an asshole. Your arguments are just childish selfish twaddle. You're a phony. Sorry. :(

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:49 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You know what, Mikey L-Rat? I've given you a bunch of line...and you're nuts. And an asshole. Your arguments are just childish selfish twaddle. You're a phony. Sorry. :(

Why am I an "asshole?" Or a "phony?"

Just because I believe that there is no reason for insurance companies or taxpayers should have to pay dime one for COMPLETELY elective, incredibly expensive treatments?

Sorry, "Wacky Whack," but there is no moral or legal obligation on the part of any society to expend resources on getting barren women or infertile men to reproduce, nor is their any "right" in existence for said barren woman/blank shooter to HAVE her womb (or his swimmers) jury-rigged to pound out kids. If a barren woman or infertile partner want offspring, then they should have to foot the entire damned bill THEMSELVES. Period. End of fucking story.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:39 pm**

Sigh...The federal government should be serving us by protecting us as a country (hence national security, not rival state militias), which includes adequately securing our borders (which of course is not happening right now) and taking military action against our enemies when needed (including pre-emptive action). If the govt provides this protection, then we are free to exercise the superior FREE market system that is so proudly and genuinely American (I say this because we practice it the best out of any country in the world and thus far have not succumbed to socialism or any of the other failures of controlled economics).

BSMACK- you referred to me as spouting "John Birch Society" buzzwords. I don't know which words those were, but you said that like it was an insult, and that shows what kind of thinker I'm dealing with here....The John Birch Society's mission is to protect the founding principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and identify those who try to undermine or destroy those principles. Smaller government and more individual freedom, with which comes more individual responsibility!! Point out for me the negative idea in there, would you? How can a man want a government bureaucrat holding his hand leading him though life, tossing him a cookie when he cries that he can't get one for himself??

By the way, you might be one of the "lucky" 70% with a good job that provides benefits, but I'm one man who worked hard and found that good job that I DESERVE and will hold on to due to nothing else but my merit. ; ) much love

T1B

George W. Bush truly is a jackass