Conquer Club

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

thegreekdog wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Let's ask a very important question: do we want to havet he best healthcare system in the world? Or is freedom more important than quality of healthcare?

Right off the bat you missed the point that Rand Paul is trying to make. And I'm trying to make. You might be getting the points of PhatScotty and Night Strike correct (if that's who the post was directed to).

I missed that post actually, but I just read the pages before and directed it to everyone really.

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

I'm pretty sure "aught" is not a real word.

natty_dread wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

I'm pretty sure "aught" is not a real word.

Are you going to do this every time I use a word that supersedes your minute vernacular?

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

Economically, a universal healthcare system has proven to be a more efficient one.



So, my question is, does having a free market trump economic efficiency? Yeah, its nice and good that the world's leaders come here for their healthcare. I couldn't give two shits about the world's leaders' healthcare.

EDIT: Nothing to see here.

Dave said it best

Universal Healthcare = Slavery

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

Since when does universal health care mean more welfare? In fact, the irony here is that those on welfare actually get good coverage. Also, we, right now, pay far, far more than most other countries for our health care.

Think about it. We have to pay for-profit insurance companies.

By the way, a single payor government system is not the only type of universal health care. It is one option, a decent one, but not the only one.

natty_dread wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

I'm pretty sure "aught" is not a real word.

sourry natty, but it is... it is just spelled "ought."

GreecePwns wrote:
So, my question is, does having a free market trump economic efficiency? Yeah, its nice and good that the world's leaders come here for their healthcare. I couldn't give two shits about the world's leaders' healthcare.

Besides, as Mr Adams so conveniently ignored, much of the research that makes our system great is funded by the government.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

Since when does universal health care mean more welfare? In fact, the irony here is that those on welfare actually get good coverage. Also, we, right now, pay far, far more than most other countries for our health care.

Think about it. We have to pay for-profit insurance companies.

By the way, a single payor government system is not the only type of universal health care. It is one option, a decent one, but not the only one.

A public option is welfare. Whether you like it or not, when the government provides a cheaper alternative to the private market without the goal of making a profit, or at least being self funding, it IS welfare by definition.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

I'm pretty sure "aught" is not a real word.

sourry natty, but it is... it is just spelled "ought."

"aught" is a word, just not the one I meant to type. It is synonymous with naught, and has a similar etymology, though from a different region.

Mr_Adams wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

Since when does universal health care mean more welfare? In fact, the irony here is that those on welfare actually get good coverage. Also, we, right now, pay far, far more than most other countries for our health care.

Think about it. We have to pay for-profit insurance companies.

By the way, a single payor government system is not the only type of universal health care. It is one option, a decent one, but not the only one.

A public option is welfare. Whether you like it or not, when the government provides a cheaper alternative to the private market without the goal of making a profit, or at least being self funding, it IS welfare by definition.

No, its called service.

And some people would call the "profit' when it results in killing people (as it does in this case) to be exploitation.

I am fine with profit for most things, but health insurance is not one of those.

Also, a universal healthcare system does not eliminate profit from the healthcare industry, just the insurance portion... an important point. Yes, healthcare costs are going to be limited, but if you have talked to any doctors today, you know that insurance companies are already doing that, and in some of the most draconian ways possible.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:
So, my question is, does having a free market trump economic efficiency? Yeah, its nice and good that the world's leaders come here for their healthcare. I couldn't give two shits about the world's leaders' healthcare.

Besides, as Mr Adams so conveniently ignored, much of the research that makes our system great is funded by the government.

Ya, when the government is funding all the research that goes into the development of new medical technology, there isn't much private sector motivation. However, I would be willing to bet the private institutions make more advancments per dollar. You see, the name of the game with government is WASTE.

Mr_Adams wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:
So, my question is, does having a free market trump economic efficiency? Yeah, its nice and good that the world's leaders come here for their healthcare. I couldn't give two shits about the world's leaders' healthcare.

Besides, as Mr Adams so conveniently ignored, much of the research that makes our system great is funded by the government.

Ya, when the government is funding all the research that goes into the development of new medical technology, there isn't much private sector motivation. However, I would be willing to bet the private institutions make more advancments per dollar. You see, the name of the game with government is WASTE.

So, explain why every other country gets cheaper healthcare and provides for all its citizens, unlike the US.

Mr_Adams wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

natty_dread wrote:A bad system... that should be replaced by a good system, such as universal healthcare?

a bad system aught not be replaced by a worse system. This country has enough welfare about as is.

I'm pretty sure "aught" is not a real word.

sourry natty, but it is... it is just spelled "ought."

"aught" is a word, just not the one I meant to type. It is synonymous with naught, and has a similar etymology, though from a different region.

True. I am tired. It is, however a tad archaic. Not completely out of use, but almost. And.. ought is actually the more appropriate word above, but anyway...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
sourry natty, but it is... it is just spelled "ought."

"aught" is a word, just not the one I meant to type. It is synonymous with naught, and has a similar etymology, though from a different region.

True. I am tired. It is, however a tad archaic. Not completely out of use, but almost. And.. ought is actually the more appropriate word above, but anyway...

Sorry, meant to say similar to "naught". you were right that it is completely unrelated to ought.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:
So, my question is, does having a free market trump economic efficiency? Yeah, its nice and good that the world's leaders come here for their healthcare. I couldn't give two shits about the world's leaders' healthcare.

Besides, as Mr Adams so conveniently ignored, much of the research that makes our system great is funded by the government.

Ya, when the government is funding all the research that goes into the development of new medical technology, there isn't much private sector motivation. However, I would be willing to bet the private institutions make more advancments per dollar. You see, the name of the game with government is WASTE.

So, explain why every other country gets cheaper healthcare and provides for all its citizens, unlike the US.

We aren't talking about prices for the care, we are talking about the funding of the research. you seem to have trouble sticking to one point.

To be honest, Mr A., it kind of looks like you misread Player's argument. When Player argued that "much" medical research is funded by the government, you kind of went in a different direction. You said "all". Then I think you got a bit confused about how funding works. Private companies are the ones usually doing the research- that and universities. The government funding is an incentive. Without that funding a lot of these research projects would die.

The market isn't always the best way to control what should be researched. You'll end up with a lot of stuff researched for problems wealthy people suffer from, and very little directed towards, say, Malaria.

Symmetry wrote:To be honest, Mr A., it kind of looks like you misread Player's argument. When Player argued that "much" medical research is funded by the government, you kind of went in a different direction. You said "all". Then I think you got a bit confused about how funding works. Private companies are the ones usually doing the research- that and universities. The government funding is an incentive. Without that funding a lot of these research projects would die.

The market isn't always the best way to control what should be researched. You'll end up with a lot of stuff researched for problems wealthy people suffer from, and very little directed towards, say, Malaria.

Right, because the wealthy have no vested interest in a healthy working populace.
7 billion people on Earth, mere quantity wold be incentive to work out the common man's diseases.

The comment about "all the funding" was hyperbole.

I still don't get the principle of the whole issue. Where does the right to stick your hand in someone else's pocket come from?

Mr_Adams wrote:

Symmetry wrote:To be honest, Mr A., it kind of looks like you misread Player's argument. When Player argued that "much" medical research is funded by the government, you kind of went in a different direction. You said "all". Then I think you got a bit confused about how funding works. Private companies are the ones usually doing the research- that and universities. The government funding is an incentive. Without that funding a lot of these research projects would die.

The market isn't always the best way to control what should be researched. You'll end up with a lot of stuff researched for problems wealthy people suffer from, and very little directed towards, say, Malaria.

Right, because the wealthy have no vested interest in a healthy working populace.
7 billion people on Earth, mere quantity wold be incentive to work out the common man's diseases.

The comment about "all the funding" was hyperbole.

Ah- the eye rolly emoticon. My argument has been defeated.

But seriously- do you really believe this stuff? I mean, you've already said that some of this was hyperbole. Expensive anti-depressants and drugs to fight obesity are where the money is. Not much market for diseases that affect people living on a dollar a day.

personal reward is the best incentive

Symmetry wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

Symmetry wrote:To be honest, Mr A., it kind of looks like you misread Player's argument. When Player argued that "much" medical research is funded by the government, you kind of went in a different direction. You said "all". Then I think you got a bit confused about how funding works. Private companies are the ones usually doing the research- that and universities. The government funding is an incentive. Without that funding a lot of these research projects would die.

The market isn't always the best way to control what should be researched. You'll end up with a lot of stuff researched for problems wealthy people suffer from, and very little directed towards, say, Malaria.

Right, because the wealthy have no vested interest in a healthy working populace.
7 billion people on Earth, mere quantity wold be incentive to work out the common man's diseases.

The comment about "all the funding" was hyperbole.

Ah- the eye rolly emoticon. My argument has been defeated.

But seriously- do you really believe this stuff? I mean, you've already said that some of this was hyperbole. Expensive anti-depressants and drugs to fight obesity are where the money is. Not much market for diseases that affect people living on a dollar a day.

WHO has a large budget, much of which would be spent on any such products. It isn't my problem that ED gets the most airtime. Perhaps we are laboring under different assumptions. Do you believe that man is, in fact, his brother's keeper?

Phatscotty wrote:personal reward is the best incentive

True, but there are other forms of personal reward beyond private sector financing. Player pointed out government financing as another major source of incentive.

Beyond the purely financial, there are career rewards, or simply a type of fame within your field. Then there's simply personal satisfaction- just getting something done, or advancing your field.

And then, of course, there's the motivation of just helping other people.

Most people are motivated by a combination of the above. If Mr A is to be believed, then researchers are primarily motivated by whether their money comes from private sources. When it comes from the government, they just slack off and don't bother.