Conquer Club

Mr_Adams wrote:

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?

Seriously- you're quoting Cain on this one? And from an attempted alibi to avoid being accused of the murder of his brother? Have you even read the Bible? It's right at the start, but

Spoiler

God doesn't buy it.

you aren't God, and I didn't kill anybody.

Mr_Adams wrote:you aren't God, and I didn't kill anybody.

On point 1) How do you know?

On point 2) How do I know?

Symmetry wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:you aren't God, and I didn't kill anybody.

On point 1) How do you know?

On point 2) How do I know?

1) God would make better arguments than you. Promise. Omnipotence is quite useful in debates, I'd wager.

2) Even if I had, you are missing the point.

So no answer on the obvious economic advantages a universal healthcare system has. The money saved by consumers in switching to a public plan could be used to other things which the government collects sales tax on, therefore reducing the deficit and creating a more efficient economy at the same time.

So yes, I would go as far as saying freedom and economic efficiency are mutually exclusive when it comes to health insurance.

GreecePwns wrote:So no answer on the obvious economic advantages a universal healthcare system has. The money saved by consumers in switching to a public plan could be used to other things which the government collects sales tax on, therefore reducing the deficit and creating a more efficient economy at the same time..

except that it will only be achieved with higher taxes in general. There will be more waste fraud and abuse. We will end p in an even WORSE economic state than we are. we'll be like Greece. The government will spend $150 on the hammer I buy for $5 at Home Depot. They don't care, not their money. I MIGHT be open to giving the health care a decade to give it a shot if we had a true debt ceiling. but what is a "Ceiling" that you can raise ever couple months when you reach it? A scam. that's what.

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:So no answer on the obvious economic advantages a universal healthcare system has. The money saved by consumers in switching to a public plan could be used to other things which the government collects sales tax on, therefore reducing the deficit and creating a more efficient economy at the same time..

except that it will only be achieved with higher taxes in general. There will be more waste fraud and abuse. We will end p in an even WORSE economic state than we are. we'll be like Greece. The government will spend $150 on the hammer I buy for $5 at Home Depot. They don't care, not their money. I MIGHT be open to giving the health care a decade to give it a shot if we had a true debt ceiling. but what is a "Ceiling" that you can raise ever couple months when you reach it? A scam. that's what.

Yeah but the higher taxes replace your private health bill, and the tax rises would be lower because of the lack of a profit margin as high as 30 percent, saving you money.

You know nothing about what is going on in Greece if you are talking about excessive spending.

GreecePwns wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:So no answer on the obvious economic advantages a universal healthcare system has. The money saved by consumers in switching to a public plan could be used to other things which the government collects sales tax on, therefore reducing the deficit and creating a more efficient economy at the same time..

except that it will only be achieved with higher taxes in general. There will be more waste fraud and abuse. We will end p in an even WORSE economic state than we are. we'll be like Greece. The government will spend $150 on the hammer I buy for $5 at Home Depot. They don't care, not their money. I MIGHT be open to giving the health care a decade to give it a shot if we had a true debt ceiling. but what is a "Ceiling" that you can raise ever couple months when you reach it? A scam. that's what.

Yeah but the higher taxes replace your private health bill, and the tax rises would be lower because of the lack of a profit margin as high as 30 percent, saving you money.

You know nothing about what is going on in Greece if you are talking about excessive spending.

Sorry, what part of 150 dollars for 5 dollar hammer don't you get? We aren't talking the THREE percent profit margin that is registered with the IRS, we are talking a 3000% waste margin.

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:So no answer on the obvious economic advantages a universal healthcare system has. The money saved by consumers in switching to a public plan could be used to other things which the government collects sales tax on, therefore reducing the deficit and creating a more efficient economy at the same time..

except that it will only be achieved with higher taxes in general. There will be more waste fraud and abuse. We will end p in an even WORSE economic state than we are. we'll be like Greece. The government will spend $150 on the hammer I buy for $5 at Home Depot. They don't care, not their money. I MIGHT be open to giving the health care a decade to give it a shot if we had a true debt ceiling. but what is a "Ceiling" that you can raise ever couple months when you reach it? A scam. that's what.

Yeah but the higher taxes replace your private health bill, and the tax rises would be lower because of the lack of a profit margin as high as 30 percent, saving you money.
You know nothing about what is going on in Greece if you are talking about excessive spending.

Sorry, what part of 150 dollars for 5 dollar hammer don't you get? We aren't talking the THREE percent profit margin that is registered with the IRS, we are talking a 3000% waste margin.

3000 percent? Show your work.

GreecePwns wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:So no answer on the obvious economic advantages a universal healthcare system has. The money saved by consumers in switching to a public plan could be used to other things which the government collects sales tax on, therefore reducing the deficit and creating a more efficient economy at the same time..

except that it will only be achieved with higher taxes in general. There will be more waste fraud and abuse. We will end p in an even WORSE economic state than we are. we'll be like Greece. The government will spend $150 on the hammer I buy for $5 at Home Depot. They don't care, not their money. I MIGHT be open to giving the health care a decade to give it a shot if we had a true debt ceiling. but what is a "Ceiling" that you can raise ever couple months when you reach it? A scam. that's what.

Yeah but the higher taxes replace your private health bill, and the tax rises would be lower because of the lack of a profit margin as high as 30 percent, saving you money.
You know nothing about what is going on in Greece if you are talking about excessive spending.

Sorry, what part of 150 dollars for 5 dollar hammer don't you get? We aren't talking the THREE percent profit margin that is registered with the IRS, we are talking a 3000% waste margin.

3000 percent? Show your work.

150$/5$=30 times the price. 30*100%=3000%

GreecePwns wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:You know nothing about what is going on in Greece if you are talking about excessive spending.

Sorry, what part of 150 dollars for 5 dollar hammer don't you get? We aren't talking the THREE percent profit margin that is registered with the IRS, we are talking a 3000% waste margin.

3000 percent? Show your work.[/quote]

150 / 5 = 30

30 * 100% = 3000%


Analogous work:

20 / 50 = .4

.4 * 100% = 40%

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:except that it will only be achieved with higher taxes in general. There will be more waste fraud and abuse. We will end p in an even WORSE economic state than we are. we'll be like Greece. The government will spend $150 on the hammer I buy for $5 at Home Depot. They don't care, not their money. I MIGHT be open to giving the health care a decade to give it a shot if we had a true debt ceiling. but what is a "Ceiling" that you can raise ever couple months when you reach it? A scam. that's what.

Yeah but the higher taxes replace your private health bill, and the tax rises would be lower because of the lack of a profit margin as high as 30 percent, saving you money.
You know nothing about what is going on in Greece if you are talking about excessive spending.

Sorry, what part of 150 dollars for 5 dollar hammer don't you get? We aren't talking the THREE percent profit margin that is registered with the IRS, we are talking a 3000% waste margin.

3000 percent? Show your work.

150$/5$=30 times the price. 30*100%=3000%

And how are these numbers relevant? They're not. They're out of thin air.

Yes, they were out of thin air. it's called hyperbole.

Hyperbole is worthless in economics. How about actual numbers that apply to the situation at hand to back up your claim?

But it's so much easier to shout demagoguery heard from Fox News! Why bother with facts...

I can not for the life of me understand why you guys are so afraid of public health care. For as long as I can remember we have had a public health care system that everyone here in Australia contributes towards and benifits from. Its one of the great things about our nation that makes me proud to be an Australian. "Slavery", If anything its freedom from slavery.
I've heard Americans say that they have the best health care system in the world. Well maybe you do, but whats the point if one third of your people cant access it?

Mr_Adams wrote:

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.

Nice try, but no. This includes the entire subject of healthcare.

but... it is the government-supported research system that brought us to where we are. So, again, why is it that you think CONTINUING in that part, and adding a government insurance plan will be so terrible?

PARTICULARLY given that it has been nothing like terrible in other countries.. namely every civilized, industrialized country and even a few not-so industrialized.

And don't bring up Greece, because I will throw you all of Scandinavia, Germany, even Canada (though I like their system the least). You cannot simply choose those facts you like (and frankly, you have been pretty slim on facts.. more hyperbole you seem to have absorbed from .. somewhere).

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.[/quote]

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.

Yes, that IS what happened... and why we have so much government funded research. Malaria is a great example. It's been with us, killing people for centuries. Even so, it was not until Vietnahm, when the government realized more soldiers were dying from malaria than anything else that they put an incredibly intense research effort into it (and before you start claiming "government inefficiency, relize that before that it was Polio, etc... it was just not until Vietnahm that malaria reached an equal crisis point, got to be more important than the other research they had been doing). Oh, yeah.. a g lot of other research, including almost the entire modern field of emergency medicine, also arose from Vietnahm.

Truly groundbreaking research is rarely immediately profitable. That's not "waste", that's reality. GOOD research, true research, as opposed to what you see on TV means a lot of false starts, because people don't just start knowing everything. Getting the right track takes intelligence, dedication.. and a whole lot of luck. Any competent researcher knows this, admits it (well, when their egos don't get in the way )

Companies seem to show a "more efficient" rate of return BUT.. you miss the point. They do so because they can rely upon the basis of government funding, because they can pick out things nearing success and make the final tweaks that make it profitable. That is not true efficiency, because it only works with the government base.

Companies are great at putting the sugar coating on pills, but not inventing aspirin. Companies are great at finding things like Viagra.. but not the thousands of "orphan drugs" that they refuse to even produce unless they get forced to by the government. Nor do they do the basic, often unproductive but very necessary research that only through time leads to the truly groundbreaking developments. No, its often not the government that gets credit (partly because, as I noted earlier, they don't keep patents, and partially because, as I also noted earlier, once things begin to get close to a breakthrough or breakthroughs are made, companies launch in to develop the idea into 1000 patents for very profitable products).

The thing is, it might be the sugar coating that makes the companies millions, but without the aspirin research... there could be no pill for them to make those millions.

This is just part of why I say part of the REAL problem is that companies profiting from this research are not paying enough, buy that is another subject.

The subject at hand is why you seem to think adding in a type of universal health care coverage will suddenly destroy our country... except, of course that "nasty' word "socialism". (as if we did not have it already...)

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.

To be perfectly honest, they don't really seem to, no.

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:So no answer on the obvious economic advantages a universal healthcare system has. The money saved by consumers in switching to a public plan could be used to other things which the government collects sales tax on, therefore reducing the deficit and creating a more efficient economy at the same time..

except that it will only be achieved with higher taxes in general. There will be more waste fraud and abuse. We will end p in an even WORSE economic state than we are. we'll be like Greece. The government will spend $150 on the hammer I buy for $5 at Home Depot. They don't care, not their money. I MIGHT be open to giving the health care a decade to give it a shot if we had a true debt ceiling. but what is a "Ceiling" that you can raise ever couple months when you reach it? A scam. that's what.

I was under the impression that the problems in Greece lay more with corruption and graft than anything else.

Phatscotty wrote: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?

Apparently, from the desperate desire to stop drug use in welfare receivers.

Ignore for the moment that many of the commenters are highly liberal (that's irrelevant!), and please respond to the basic points being addressed in the initial post here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... l_to_sell/

How is this "the free market in action"?

Hey Woodruff, you post on reddit too? What's your screenname buddy? Do you call people fuckheads and idiots and jackasses there too? What do they think of your behavior there? Probably a dumb question, I'm sure you're just as popular and well loved there as you are here. After all, they probably didn't know they were fuckheads until you told them! Keep up the great work!

pimpdave wrote:Hey Woodruff, you post on reddit too? What's your screenname buddy? Do you call people fuckheads and idiots and jackasses there too? What do they think of your behavior there? Probably a dumb question, I'm sure you're just as popular and well loved there as you are here. After all, they probably didn't know they were fuckheads until you told them! Keep up the great work!

I don't actually post on Reddit at all. I just browse it from time to time. I suppose it would be too much effort for you to stop harassing me?

But it isn't harassment when you do it to me!!! You've done it for over a year...

You mean, you don't like this? That's odd. I was sure you'd appreciate this, considering you've done it for almost everyone else on the site, free of charge, for a long, long time! And haven't ever stopped, despite repeated requests that you do so!

Barramundi Dan wrote:I can not for the life of me understand why you guys are so afraid of public health care. For as long as I can remember we have had a public health care system that everyone here in Australia contributes towards and benifits from. Its one of the great things about our nation that makes me proud to be an Australian. "Slavery", If anything its freedom from slavery.
I've heard Americans say that they have the best health care system in the world. Well maybe you do, but whats the point if one third of your people cant access it?

the point is that if we change the best health care system in the world, and take away the focus from "being the best" to "being the fairest" well, then, we aren't going to have the best health care, and everyone can have equal mediocre healthcare and only the rich will get non-essential treatments.

I don't know about Australia, but here in America we have seen this play out many times before and it never works out the way it was supposed to and it wont help as many as it says it will and it will cost probably twice as much as they say it will cost etc...

We don't trust our gov't. Our Congress has about a 18% approval rating. We don't want them touching ANYTHING