2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clay_Allison said:
At some point people will accept a lower standard of care if the alternative is to get none at all or undergo complete financial ruin for any medical procedure. Also, why does it have to be us paying for all the world to have better access to drugs than us?
Click to expand...

That could be but under the current circumstance most are opting not to enroll in the current health care plan even though they are disobeying the law. What they want is either free health care or a priced plan that will actually cover nothing except become a subterfuge to forego being in non compliance. I just don't see the lawmakers allowing a socialized system being implemented so it's going to be more of the same which is pay or go without. Sorry but that is just the way it is.
 
Clay_Allison said:
Also, why does it have to be us paying for all the world to have better access to drugs than us?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be that way. Regardless it is something you have to consider when the life saving drug isn't discovered as a result and people die anyway. Or the person who could become an amazing doctor doesn't pay for medical school because there isn't the high salary to get once he graduates. What happens in other countries is they are able to negotiate some of those costs down because they'll just refuse to pay for them otherwise. People here would then of course find that outrageous when they can't get the life saving medication they need covered under the socialized system.

By the way, I don't think people in America are dying because they can't afford medications. Those things either get covered by the insurance company of the government. The real problem is the ballooning cost of all that. At some point we may have to sacrifice medical advancements in favor of controlling costs. There are also a ton of smaller way's to reduce the costs of the industry but that has more to do with ethics of doctors and the medications they prescribe for example.
 
Clay_Allison said:
The government is already elbow deep in the medical industry, we're spending more taxpayer money on health care than a lot of countries with socialized medicine and the only difference is we see no benefit whatsoever. People aren't going to put up with health care just flat out not being available except to rich people, which is where we're headed. If private industry wants to be part of the medical field going further, they had better step up and find a way to make medical care affordable or people will just vote for more Bernie Sanders types until we're on a single payer system like Canada. That jackass that bought the AIDS drug to try to make a big profit by jacking up the price probably bought Sanders a million votes.
Click to expand...

:towel
 
L.T. Fan said:
That could be but under the current circumstance most are opting not to enroll in the current health care plan even though they are disobeying the law. What they want is either free health care or a priced plan that will actually cover nothing except become a subterfuge to forego being in non compliance. I just don't see the lawmakers allowing a socialized system being implemented so it's going to be more of the same which is pay or go without. Sorry but that is just the way it is.
Click to expand...

They are not buying the Obamacare because it's retardedly expensive. Lawmakers will eventually end up passing a socialized system if they can't do something to make a private system cheaper. IMO, I think they should open up health insurance to compete freely across state lines instead of the market limiting system we have. That would be a capitalist solution to a pricing problem that exists partly due to insane levels of overregulation. Unfortunately, Republicans don't favor the free market, they favor whoever lobbies them for special favors and protections (same as the Democrats).

The government of this country has been working its ass off to destroy the middle class and make this country strictly 1% rich and 99% poor since the 1990s and IMO they'll succeed in driving a lot of the 99% toward socialism. Back when we had a middle class that could afford houses, new cars, medical care, and college for their kids they tended to be pretty conservative because they had a lot to lose. Now that they can't have any of these things, they aren't too afraid of change.
 
As someone who's seen how the VA is run, and decided to pay out of pocket rather than risk treatment in what might as well be a condemned building. I am extremely wary of gov't run healthcare. But we've pushed all of the leverage onto the side of the provider. This isn't the first instance of medical price gouging, price gouging is the state of the industry. I promise this isn't the first time someone has paid 7 grand for that exact pill because hospitals make up stupid bills on the fly all the time.

It's particularly obnoxious to see conservatives attack people fighting for some kind of sane medical system, as loonies who want everything for free. The status quo is both too broken and too morally indefensible to stand.

So the question isn't whether social healthcare is good, but what else is there? I'd frankly be more open to something that emphasized free market principals. But then that means patent laws should go out the window as well.
 
Pharmaceutical companies spend roughly $1 on R & D and $19 on Advertising with their enormous profits. Don't give me the whole lower costs will hurt research and development costs, because it wouldn't have to cut down on marketing. Better yet, do away with it altogether, we didn't allow Direct to Consumer advertising for Pharmaceuticals until the 90's, and we are only 1 of two countries that do allow it.
 
2233boys said:
Pharmaceutical companies spend roughly $1 on R & D and $19 on Advertising with their enormous profits. Don't give me the whole lower costs will hurt research and development costs, because it wouldn't have to cut down on marketing. Better yet, do away with it altogether, we didn't allow Direct to Consumer advertising for Pharmaceuticals until the 90's, and we are only 1 of two countries that do allow it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that that money just wouldn't plug back into schmoozing doctors with pharm reps/prostitutes.
 
Clay_Allison said:
They are not buying the Obamacare because it's retardedly expensive. Lawmakers will eventually end up passing a socialized system if they can't do something to make a private system cheaper. IMO, I think they should open up health insurance to compete freely across state lines instead of the market limiting system we have. That would be a capitalist solution to a pricing problem that exists partly due to insane levels of overregulation. Unfortunately, Republicans don't favor the free market, they favor whoever lobbies them for special favors and protections (same as the Democrats).

The government of this country has been working its ass off to destroy the middle class and make this country strictly 1% rich and 99% poor since the 1990s and IMO they'll succeed in driving a lot of the 99% toward socialism. Back when we had a middle class that could afford houses, new cars, medical care, and college for their kids they tended to be pretty conservative because they had a lot to lose. Now that they can't have any of these things, they aren't too afraid of change.
Click to expand...

If government is already knee deep in health care as you indicated earlier and has been a dismal failure, how are you going to trust them to take over the health system completely and make it cheaper and better? Or is the answer to increase taxes on the wealthy (or who is considered wealthy) to fund it? Even then they are totally incompetent to administer it.
 
townsend said:
That's my thought, I don't understand anyone stumping for less gov't regulation but then being okay with the use of government enforcement of IP to restrict free markets.
Click to expand...

Actually patients aren't monopolies. They protect certain things about the structure of the discovery or invention or item but it doesn't restrict anyone from creating a different version as long as it is not utilizing the same design structure as the patented item.
 
L.T. Fan said:
That could be but under the current circumstance most are opting not to enroll in the current health care plan even though they are disobeying the law. What they want is either free health care or a priced plan that will actually cover nothing except become a subterfuge to forego being in non compliance. I just don't see the lawmakers allowing a socialized system being implemented so it's going to be more of the same which is pay or go without. Sorry but that is just the way it is.
Click to expand...

This is not true.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/05/08/look-affordable-care-act-enrollment-numbers/

As has been widely reported, more than eight million people enrolled in health insurance plans through the marketplace during the enrollment period, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. That’s good news. It’s also good news that more than a quarter of the enrollees were in the all-important 18 to 34 age group.
Click to expand...

Subsequently, insurers submitted written testimony clarifying that they anticipate between 80 and 90 percent of enrollees will pay their first premium.
Click to expand...
 
L.T. Fan said:
Actually patients aren't monopolies. They protect certain things about the structure of the discovery or invention or item but it doesn't restrict anyone from creating a different version as long as it is not utilizing the same design structure as the patented item.
Click to expand...
so what you're saying is AT&T and Southwestern Bell weren't monopolies because there were still smoke signals and carrier pigeons?
 
Patent laws are ridiculous in this country and a perfect representation of an oppressive top tier to this economy. If I ever invent anything it is the property of my employer. That's typical of 99% of STEM jobs in this country. So the hard work and brilliance of the working class is redistributed to the investor class (which is mostly the 1%)
 
L.T. Fan said:
Have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...

Telecommunications monopoly AT&T was still a monopoly even though theoretically an alternative existed. They cornered phonelines and were rightly split. Just as hedge douche cornered a specific market and extorted it. The concept of alternatives in an industry is vague, particularly in medicine where we are not allowed to choose what medications we're prescribed.
 
townsend said:
Telecommunications monopoly AT&T was still a monopoly even though theoretically an alternative existed. They cornered phonelines and were rightly split. Just as hedge douche cornered a specific market and extorted it. The concept of alternatives in an industry is vague, particularly in medicine where we are not allowed to choose what medications we're prescribed.
Click to expand...

That monopoly however had nothing to do with patent issues. It had everything to do with business control because as you indicated they were other alternatives available. The medical issue being discussed apparently has no other alternatives.
 
townsend said:
Patent laws are ridiculous in this country and a perfect representation of an oppressive top tier to this economy. If I ever invent anything it is the property of my employer. That's typical of 99% of STEM jobs in this country. So the hard work and brilliance of the working class is redistributed to the investor class (which is mostly the 1%)
Click to expand...

Just be happy you have a job, you worthless POS.

If you do happen to invent something worthwhile and profitable, all benefits should go to the people, who in their infinite benevolence, saw fit to give a piss ant like you employment in the first place.
 
L.T. Fan said:
That monopoly however had nothing to do with patent issues. It had everything to do with business control because as you indicated they were other alternatives available. The medical issue being discussed apparently has no other alternatives.
Click to expand...

In this case the "alternatives" I was presenting were ludicrous ones like "smoke signals" the point being that a lousy alternative is no alternative at all.

You are correct about this doesn't involve patents. As this is somewhat unprecedented, I was drawing from a well known monopoly break up.

Just as you say, there are no alternatives, there might one day be an alternative to this medication, then it wouldn't be a monopoly, but until that point it should be regulated as one.
 
L.T. Fan said:
If government is already knee deep in health care as you indicated earlier and has been a dismal failure, how are you going to trust them to take over the health system completely and make it cheaper and better? Or is the answer to increase taxes on the wealthy (or who is considered wealthy) to fund it? Even then they are totally incompetent to administer it.
Click to expand...

I don't. I'll go to South American first world countries where the health care is cheap and can be paid for in cash, like it used to be in this country.

Other people however will trust the new government they elect because they will be ready to get rid of all the corrupt bastards your generation elected over the many years. They will be, in the words of Bane, admirable but mistaken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom