ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

But privately-provided insurance is still useful... Sure, it should be profitable, and yes it does encourage them to cut benefits, but is that really a question that can be solved through legal means or should the US provide even more healthcare by directly competing with the private sector?

You make these assumptions, but never bother to even look at the systems in other countries. The bottom line is that insurance profit has not moved to lower overall health costs at all. One of the big reasons is that the people who purchase insurance are not the ones who use it. There are other reasons, too.

The reason why some European countries' welfare policies and high taxes have been "successful" (at a tremendous cost) is because they freeride from the R&D on medicine done in the US, where it's cheaper and easier to run such companies.

Inadvertently, the nationalization (or government-caused lack of competition) of those countries' pharmaceutical industries and healthcare providers stagnates innovation.

The current government plan of expanding healthcare into the private sector is not good at all. There are better alternatives.

LOL

Better alternatives, yes. I already said that. In fact, I said it back in the very beginning of this thread, repeatedly, long before the bill was even brought up as anything solid. However, nothing being discussed by Republicans, the healthcare insurance industry and nothing you have said is going to improve the situation at all. At least this does take some steps in the correct direction. Not nearly enough, but then, the public option was taken out to appease the insurance industry by folks who still try to keep the illusion that we actually have real health insurance in this country instead of a bunch of fraudulant companies that take profits from healthy people and then dump sick ones.

...

And where are we? You take so many twists and turns, that you fail to stop and ask for explanation or cede any points or make any progress.

My opinion still stands that :

Now I'm speculating (regarding the above with insurers cutting coverage to childs), but the main intention of a few in the government is that by forcing insurers to take these drastic cuts, they further annoy the American public, who in turn look towards a government-provided healthcare service. Why did that happen? Because certain members of the government were pushing laws to restrict their future competition and turn the public against them. (That's what I'd do if I wanted the government more in control of health care services to guarantee future votes).

No, I understand complete. You want to pretend otherwise. Listening to right wing sources (even those that masquerade as "middle of the road") will do that to you.

What right wing sources do I listen to?

Haven't your own directly personal experiences with insurance companies and with your family's/kid's inherent health problems prevent you from seeing with an unbiased (or less biased) perspective?

LOL the facts speak for themselves.

You look at any real figures on who is covered and who is not. Insurers don't truly provide healthcare. They take profits and in return cover a few people well, most people barely and many people not at all. If any other insurer acted as they do, they would not be allowed to stay in business.


The point is that insurance is not and never really has been about helping sick people pay for care. It is about taking profits from healthy people and then providing a minimum amount of care to others with what is left over after they take their profit.

Again, you go with a Poison the Well, which I counter, but then you dodge with a "HAH, YOU DON"T KNOW THE FACTS, JACK!" and what's even funnier is that you don't provide any sources!

SAUCE PLEASE! SHOW ME THE SAUCE!

[Phatscotty]

The U.S. House of Representatives is likely to vote to block funding for President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul when it takes up a budget plan next week, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... I120110208

[Snorri1234]

But privately-provided insurance is still useful... Sure, it should be profitable, and yes it does encourage them to cut benefits, but is that really a question that can be solved through legal means or should the US provide even more healthcare by directly competing with the private sector?

You make these assumptions, but never bother to even look at the systems in other countries. The bottom line is that insurance profit has not moved to lower overall health costs at all. One of the big reasons is that the people who purchase insurance are not the ones who use it. There are other reasons, too.

The reason why some European countries' welfare policies and high taxes have been "successful" (at a tremendous cost) is because they freeride from the R&D on medicine done in the US, where it's cheaper and easier to run such companies.

Inadvertently, the nationalization (or government-caused lack of competition) of those countries' pharmaceutical industries and healthcare providers stagnates innovation.

Except that the most stagnated research is where the fucking money is at.
True innovation is in the best interest of the government, big fat bags of cash await you when you change a small fucking thing about your drug and re-patent it.



Look, the reason that all the fucking big pharmaceutical research is in the US is the same fucking reason that the biggest supermarkets are in or near the city instead of a small town. It has nothing to do with socialism or whatever.

[Phatscotty]

But privately-provided insurance is still useful... Sure, it should be profitable, and yes it does encourage them to cut benefits, but is that really a question that can be solved through legal means or should the US provide even more healthcare by directly competing with the private sector?

You make these assumptions, but never bother to even look at the systems in other countries. The bottom line is that insurance profit has not moved to lower overall health costs at all. One of the big reasons is that the people who purchase insurance are not the ones who use it. There are other reasons, too.

The reason why some European countries' welfare policies and high taxes have been "successful" (at a tremendous cost) is because they freeride from the R&D on medicine done in the US, where it's cheaper and easier to run such companies.

Inadvertently, the nationalization (or government-caused lack of competition) of those countries' pharmaceutical industries and healthcare providers stagnates innovation.

Except that the most stagnated research is where the fucking money is at.
True innovation is in the best interest of the government, big fat bags of cash await you when you change a small fucking thing about your drug and re-patent it.



Look, the reason that all the fucking big pharmaceutical research is in the US is the same fucking reason that the biggest supermarkets are in or near the city instead of a small town.

convenient locations based on population?

[BigBallinStalin]

But privately-provided insurance is still useful... Sure, it should be profitable, and yes it does encourage them to cut benefits, but is that really a question that can be solved through legal means or should the US provide even more healthcare by directly competing with the private sector?

You make these assumptions, but never bother to even look at the systems in other countries. The bottom line is that insurance profit has not moved to lower overall health costs at all. One of the big reasons is that the people who purchase insurance are not the ones who use it. There are other reasons, too.

The reason why some European countries' welfare policies and high taxes have been "successful" (at a tremendous cost) is because they freeride from the R&D on medicine done in the US, where it's cheaper and easier to run such companies.

Inadvertently, the nationalization (or government-caused lack of competition) of those countries' pharmaceutical industries and healthcare providers stagnates innovation.

Except that the most stagnated research is where the fucking money is at.
True innovation is in the best interest of the government, big fat bags of cash await you when you change a small fucking thing about your drug and re-patent it.



Look, the reason that all the fucking big pharmaceutical research is in the US is the same fucking reason that the biggest supermarkets are in or near the city instead of a small town. It has nothing to do with socialism or whatever.

This isn't related to biggest supermarkets in cities or small towns (you know, big ass Wal-Marts are built around a collection of towns--probably within 30 minutes from each one).

Where there's money to be made then markets will show the way, but if a country's taxes are too high or its regulations are too restrictive (like many Europeans countries' are compared to the US's), then pharmaceutical companies will open shop somewhere else.

Anyway, the point I was making earlier is that European countries freeride on US pharmaceutical R&D, which is why they can afford such social welfare programs--because they don't prop up the direct costs.

Hell, if the EU had to provide its own military forces if the US packed up and left, then many members of the EU would have to take drastic cuts to its budgets. Those countries are freeriding, and that's why their social welfare programs are perceived to be so "successful."

[GreecePwns]

The U.S. House of Representatives is likely to vote to block funding for President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul when it takes up a budget plan next week, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... I120110208

So when do they start fixing the problems our nation is facing?

And please explain how this is socialism.

[PLAYER57832]

Again, you go with a Poison the Well, which I counter, but then you dodge with a "HAH, YOU DON"T KNOW THE FACTS, JACK!" and what's even funnier is that you don't provide any sources!

SAUCE PLEASE! SHOW ME THE SAUCE!

I don't often cite sources because you can find things that seem to support any opinion on the internet and I find that most people here are not willing to do the research necessary to find out if the sources they post are I post are valid.

From the outset, if insurers were actually covering people, then they would not be objecting so strongly to the new requirements, would not be dropping policies, etc. Beyond that I told you to read your own insurance policy and think seriously about all the exclusions. If that is not enough, I and many others have posted multiple links within this thread to testimonies, verified data, etc (i.e. real proof) that show insurers drop people, etc. I have also talked extensively about what is happening in my town.

I don't mind real debates, but when you want to go off with opinions that make it clear you know NOTHING about the issues... note, I disagree with Phattscotty, but he at least does look into the situations, just from only one side of the situation. You have not even done that.

[Phatscotty]

The U.S. House of Representatives is likely to vote to block funding for President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul when it takes up a budget plan next week, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... I120110208

So when do they start fixing the problems our nation is facing?

And please explain how this is socialism.

I didn't say it was socialism, and any explanation about the article can be found in the article.

This is the start. Right now

[Snorri1234]

This isn't related to biggest supermarkets in cities or small towns (you know, big ass Wal-Marts are built around a collection of towns--probably within 30 minutes from each one).

Where there's money to be made then markets will show the way, but if a country's taxes are too high or its regulations are too restrictive (like many Europeans countries' are compared to the US's), then pharmaceutical companies will open shop somewhere else.

Except, and this is going to make you shit your pants, the European countries aren't actually all that restrictive. Corporate taxes (i.e. the taxes that matter) aren't that much higher in Europe. And the regulations are relatively equal to those in the US (though better checked).

Developing drugs in the US and developing drugs in Europe isn't all that different aside from the US being a far bigger market. (distributional costs are lower, not developing costs)

Anyway, the point I was making earlier is that European countries freeride on US pharmaceutical R&D, which is why they can afford such social welfare programs--because they don't prop up the direct costs.

No.

The reason they "freeride" is because they have better negotiating power. A company which wants to sell their drug to the millions in a country has to deal with an entity which decides whether they can or can't.


Seriously, it's pretty bizarre that bargaining isn't considered part of the glorious capitalist society when it's macro.

Hell, if the EU had to provide its own military forces if the US packed up and left, then many members of the EU would have to take drastic cuts to its budgets. Those countries are freeriding, and that's why their social welfare programs are perceived to be so "successful."

If the US forces packed up and left the EU forces would do the same. Because those silly wars aren't theirs.

Honest to Atheismo, your post reads like that of someone who doesn't know anything about world politics or economics.

[Snorri1234]

convenient locations based on population?

Well yeah.

Or more accurately: specialization is related to a location's economic power.


Bigger economies attract bigger companies, in fact they create them. The EU is still not as economically related as the US. (though due to liberal policies it is almost there)

[Phatscotty]

convenient locations based on population?

Well yeah.

Or more accurately: specialization is related to a location's economic power.


Bigger economies attract bigger companies, in fact they create them. The EU is still not as economically related as the US. (though due to liberal policies it is almost there)

bigger markets attract bigger companies, economic freedom and liberty create bigger markets. Then, the economy gets bigger.

[Snorri1234]

convenient locations based on population?

Well yeah.

Or more accurately: specialization is related to a location's economic power.


Bigger economies attract bigger companies, in fact they create them. The EU is still not as economically related as the US. (though due to liberal policies it is almost there)

bigger markets attract bigger companies, economic freedom and liberty create bigger markets. Then, the economy gets bigger.

Well bigger economies is the same thing as bigger markets.

Basically it's mo money, mo money. Wealth creates wealth and all that. Which every single economist will agree is true. Economic growth happens because we concentrate in markets.

[Neoteny]

*waves hands around*
I foresee... a disagreement on "economic growth..."

*waves hands around*
My expected response is... "f*ck that shit."

[mpjh]

Neoteny is seen on the street waving his hand in the air -- then poof, he disappears in a burst of pink smoke.

[Phatscotty]

convenient locations based on population?

Well yeah.

Or more accurately: specialization is related to a location's economic power.


Bigger economies attract bigger companies, in fact they create them. The EU is still not as economically related as the US. (though due to liberal policies it is almost there)

bigger markets attract bigger companies, economic freedom and liberty create bigger markets. Then, the economy gets bigger.

Well bigger economies is the same thing as bigger markets.

Basically it's mo money, mo money. Wealth creates wealth and all that. Which every single economist will agree is true. Economic growth happens because we concentrate in markets.

an Economy is made up of millions of separate markets. They are not the same thing.

[PLAYER57832]

convenient locations based on population?

Well yeah.

Or more accurately: specialization is related to a location's economic power.


Bigger economies attract bigger companies, in fact they create them. The EU is still not as economically related as the US. (though due to liberal policies it is almost there)

bigger markets attract bigger companies, economic freedom and liberty create bigger markets. Then, the economy gets bigger.

Well bigger economies is the same thing as bigger markets.

Basically it's mo money, mo money. Wealth creates wealth and all that. Which every single economist will agree is true. Economic growth happens because we concentrate in markets.

an Economy is made up of millions of separate markets. They are not the same thing.

lol

[john9blue]

Shortest Player post of all time?

[PLAYER57832]

no



well.. maybe: "Your message contains 2 characters. The minimum number of characters you need to enter is 4.

[Phatscotty]

Shortest Player post of all time?

as well as the least explained

[Neoteny]

Republicans are silly.

[BigBallinStalin]

Again, you go with a Poison the Well, which I counter, but then you dodge with a "HAH, YOU DON"T KNOW THE FACTS, JACK!" and what's even funnier is that you don't provide any sources!

SAUCE PLEASE! SHOW ME THE SAUCE!

I don't often cite sources because you can find things that seem to support any opinion on the internet and I find that most people here are not willing to do the research necessary to find out if the sources they post are I post are valid.

From the outset, if insurers were actually covering people, then they would not be objecting so strongly to the new requirements, would not be dropping policies, etc. Beyond that I told you to read your own insurance policy and think seriously about all the exclusions. If that is not enough, I and many others have posted multiple links within this thread to testimonies, verified data, etc (i.e. real proof) that show insurers drop people, etc. I have also talked extensively about what is happening in my town.

I don't mind real debates, but when you want to go off with opinions that make it clear you know NOTHING about the issues... note, I disagree with Phattscotty, but he at least does look into the situations, just from only one side of the situation. You have not even done that.

That reminds me of saxitoxin's quote of you sourcing those professors you had from years ago!

[BigBallinStalin]

This isn't related to biggest supermarkets in cities or small towns (you know, big ass Wal-Marts are built around a collection of towns--probably within 30 minutes from each one).

Where there's money to be made then markets will show the way, but if a country's taxes are too high or its regulations are too restrictive (like many Europeans countries' are compared to the US's), then pharmaceutical companies will open shop somewhere else.

Except, and this is going to make you shit your pants, the European countries aren't actually all that restrictive. Corporate taxes (i.e. the taxes that matter) aren't that much higher in Europe. And the regulations are relatively equal to those in the US (though better checked).

Developing drugs in the US and developing drugs in Europe isn't all that different aside from the US being a far bigger market. (distributional costs are lower, not developing costs)

Well, I say differently, and we're at an impasse because I don't care to spend 10-50 minutes pulling up World Economic Forum studies on countries' competiveness, taxes, etc to show where you're wrong.

Just go google it.

Anyway, the point I was making earlier is that European countries freeride on US pharmaceutical R&D, which is why they can afford such social welfare programs--because they don't prop up the direct costs.

No.

The reason they "freeride" is because they have better negotiating power. A company which wants to sell their drug to the millions in a country has to deal with an entity which decides whether they can or can't.


Seriously, it's pretty bizarre that bargaining isn't considered part of the glorious capitalist society when it's macro.[/quote]

Your country still isn't paying the direct cost, and countries like yours don't have as much R&D in pharmaceuticals as the US does.

From bargaining, you guys still pay for it through some other cost incurred upon you by the government. Regardless of "capitalism," you're still paying; the cost is just hidden, so you think you're getting a great deal.

Hell, if the EU had to provide its own military forces if the US packed up and left, then many members of the EU would have to take drastic cuts to its budgets. Those countries are freeriding, and that's why their social welfare programs are perceived to be so "successful."

If the US forces packed up and left the EU forces would do the same. Because those silly wars aren't theirs.

Honest to Atheismo, your post reads like that of someone who doesn't know anything about world politics or economics.[/quote]

I'm not suggesting just Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm referring to East Asia and Europe as well; therefore, you guys would be in charge of funding your own national security. No more freeriding, no more hidden benefits.

[BigBallinStalin]

convenient locations based on population?

Well yeah.

Or more accurately: specialization is related to a location's economic power.


Bigger economies attract bigger companies, in fact they create them. The EU is still not as economically related as the US. (though due to liberal policies it is almost there)

bigger markets attract bigger companies, economic freedom and liberty create bigger markets. Then, the economy gets bigger.

Well bigger economies is the same thing as bigger markets.

Basically it's mo money, mo money. Wealth creates wealth and all that. Which every single economist will agree is true. Economic growth happens because we concentrate in markets.

Man, that's a dumb view on macroeconomics. If it was true, none of our countries would've developed to the levels that they're at today. If it was true, then the World Bank and IMF's plans to throw more capital into Africa would succeed (it failed).

At one point, all "countries" were of low GDP, low standard of living.

What sustained the long-term growth?

[Technology, innovation, "new ideas," efficiency] which is incorporated into one function.

[BigBallinStalin]

no



well.. maybe: "Your message contains 2 characters. The minimum number of characters you need to enter is 4.

haha, I laughed too, player

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, the point I was making earlier is that European countries freeride on US pharmaceutical R&D, which is why they can afford such social welfare programs--because they don't prop up the direct costs.

No.

The reason they "freeride" is because they have better negotiating power. A company which wants to sell their drug to the millions in a country has to deal with an entity which decides whether they can or can't.


Seriously, it's pretty bizarre that bargaining isn't considered part of the glorious capitalist society when it's macro.

Your country still isn't paying the direct cost, and countries like yours don't have as much R&D in pharmaceuticals as the US does. s.

You forget one fact... most of that R & D... the root development is paid for by TAXPAYERS, not private companies, though the companies are given the patents at no cost). Companies then tweak the basic research, when it suits them. Even after being given the patents, they won't necessarily produce needed drugs if there are not enough sick people to warrent production (ergo the "orphan drug" bill) They also do a wonderful job of researching such highly marketable and profitable items as Viagra.


Here is a link:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays

Excerpt:

Today, we all do. Most scientific research is funded by government grants (e.g., from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc.), companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations (e.g., the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, etc.). As a society, we reap the rewards from this science in the form of technological innovations and advanced knowledge, but we also help pay for it. You indirectly support science everyday through taxes you pay, products and services you purchase from companies, and donations you make to charities. Something as simple as buying a bottle of aspirin may help foot the bill for multiple sclerosis research.

furthermore, this is NOT necessarily what is best for us all, as the following statement explains:

Drug research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is more likely to end up favoring the drug under consideration than studies sponsored by government grants or charitable organizations.4 Similarly, nutrition research sponsored by the food industry is more likely to end up favoring the food under consideration than independently funded research.5

Note, the article goes on to explain that private research is important. This is not about saying NO research should be private. However, government oversight, control over the basics is not just advantageous, it is critical.