Universal health insurance

[vern_humphrey]

This is a completely different issue, of which I am far less passionate about. But my opinion is that deporting them all is unrealistic, but we can’t let unregulated immigration continue. So I would grant complete amnesty to all immigrants currently here that don’t have criminal records, then seal the border and make legal immigration much easier. This is a win-win in my eyes: the people here get paid minimum wage, immigration is now much easier but we still keep the criminals out.

We tried that before, in the '80s. Didn’t work.

 

[Oscarthecat]

In a purely market system, either you can afford insurance for yourself and any dependants, or you can’t. So the main argument for UHC is that in the free market you either get care, or you don’t.

No, the main argument for UHC is that you either support it or you must not care. This is what Vern referred to as liberal orthodoxy. It is the foundation of you claim to moral superiority. Without which, you have to defend your position on its own merits.

That bit’s just in your imagination. Noone said you hated the poor. It just seems as if you place priority on other things over healthcare, like liberty, freedom etc, some ideal of Christian Charity that needn’t involve government.

Looks like you understand my position.

Those things are *more important than some guarantee of healthcare for low income individuals. Not the same as hating.
*

There are no guarantees in life. Politicians’ “guarantees” are only good as long as they feel like it, or until the next election cycle.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Where will that progress occur? The Europeans and Canadians have already virtually killed their progress with their price laws. We are the only country remaining with a vigorous, privately-funded R&D program.

There aren’t any such countries – not with the technical and industrial base the pharaceuticals need.

china and the middle east are buying up American companies left and right. When socialized medicine finally infects this country, your pills will all have “made in china” on them.
I’m not supporting this happening, I’m just predicting it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Considering the state of morality in this country, would abortion be covered under universal healthcare? Would any woman seeking an abortion for any reason be able to have the government totally or even partially fund the procedure?

The answer to your question is, yes.

What about birth control? Would all pills, diaphrams, norplants, iud’s, vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc. fall under the umbrella of government healthcare?

Again, yes.

If catholics in this country want universal government healthcare, they better be ready to deal with what our Godless public officials throw at them.

Be careful what you wish for. Nothing in life is “free”.

Nor is it ‘free’ in a monetary sense – taxes will soar, while the quality and availability falls.

 

[Oscarthecat]

No, and nothing I have said indicated this. I envision a society where anybody can get health care from the government if they so choose.

So those who are poor don’t deserve to choose? They just have to take whatever the government gives them? What if they want care from a more expensive, private physician?

Are you saying that they should have to pay for that? What if they can’t? Many UHC proponents would argue that that hardly seems fair.

So? What’s your point? That doesn’t mean that D.C. is in charge of your health care. All that means is that D.C. makes sure you get it.
(…)
The federal government won’t be regulating health care so this point is moot.

Have you ever worked for an organization that receives federal grant dollars? Because I have worked for several. The federal government dictates very specifically how an organization is allowed to spend the money they dole out.

DC will be in charge of my healthcare because they will dictate that their money cannot be spent on certain meds, on certain procedures, on certain types of specialties, or that I have to completel specific steps before receiving a specific level or type of care.

I’m insane because I think two unrelated government programs don’t have to be run the same? Ah, OK. Gotcha.

Only if you believe what you read on bumper stickers

One: no, private education is more expensive than public. Probably because you have to pay for private education.

Do you think that we don’t have to pay for public education? Who do you think pays for it? Our tax dollars pay for it.

It costs more money on average to educate a student in the public school system in this country than it does in private school system

I don’t see what your point is, though. If education was exactly like health care, nobody would want UHC. The free-market is some mysterious force that makes everything cheaper and better, and all poor people would never have to care about their medicine again.

No, you’re missing the whole point. The reason public education is deteriorating (one of them, anyway) is because many parents have decided that their child’s education is the government’s responsibility. In the same way, as demonstrated in an article I posted several days ago, there is evidence that canadians under UHC don’t take as much personal responsibility for their own health, as measured by preventative care utilization.

People want UHC because they don’t think they should have to worry about how they are going to get healthcare. People want public education, even though it is getting bad, because they don’t want to have to worry about educating their child.

People have become dependant on the government, and have come to believe that it is the solution to society’s problems.

I quoted this before, but it bears repeating-
“Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.” -R. Reagan

And health care in other countries would be horrid compared to ours, which isn’t the case.

-according to the WHO, that is. But you would rather take the word of a bunch of socialists over a bunch of libertarians.

I certainly don’t think that.

I know you don’t think that. That wasn’t the point.

Just like you’re being forced to pay for national defense, yes.

Two wrongs make a right?

Not like it’s fair right now, either. Some people don’t get ANY health care whereas the rich can smoke a pack of cigars a day but not worry about the bills.

How do you define fair? The cigar manufacturer got a fair price for those cigars. He used that money to pay his workers, feed his family, and probably buy healthcare. That seems fair.

You want to take money away from one person against their will just because you believe it is the right way to do things, and because you don’t believe that other people are able to make good choices. Is that fair?

You want to use the government to inflict force on me if I don’t pay for this program, even though I find it morally objectionable. Is that fair?

I don’t see how your plan will allow for such a thing either. There is no flawless solution in the matter: but UHC is just the cheapest and most fair.

Cheapest? No-that’s already been refuted.
Most fair? Uh huh. As long as you have the guns and we have the money.

So what you want me to do is spend up to maybe 30 minutes digging through old posts in order to read something that I am honestly not interested in, simply because you don’t want to repeat the same argument?

Um…YES?
If you are going to argue with someone, you should probably find out what they are saying.

 

[Oscarthecat]

You would rather people not be treated than be *FORCED *to help them via government.

Maybe you should watch this- it helps to explain my position a little better:

youtube.com/watch?v=fzBNNgHp-sQ

 

[vern_humphrey]

china and the middle east are buying up American companies left and right. When socialized medicine finally infects this country, your pills will all have “made in china” on them.
I’m not supporting this happening, I’m just predicting it.

They will indeed manufacture pills. But will they have an R&D program? And if they do, they will have to dump the costs on those countries which do not have price controls – and not sell to those which do.

 

[Oscarthecat]

They will indeed manufacture pills. But will they have an R&D program? And if they do, they will have to dump the costs on those countries which do not have price controls – and not sell to those which do.

Oh well, I guess that we’ll just have to raise taxes once that happens so we can afford to import prescription meds.

That’s OK, though- there are rich people out there right now smoking cigars who deserve to pay more taxes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh well, I guess that we’ll just have to raise taxes once that happens so we can afford to import prescription meds.

That’s OK, though- there are rich people out there right now smoking cigars who deserve to pay more taxes.

And we’ll tax both of them!!:whacky:

 

[stinkcat_14]

They will indeed manufacture pills. But will they have an R&D program? And if they do, they will have to dump the costs on those countries which do not have price controls – and not sell to those which do.

They will have an R & D program if it is profitable. I imagine that the firms will try and get as much as they can in whatever market they choose to sell in. After all, that is what our drug companies do. They sell drugs for less in Canada because it is profitable for them to do so. Why would a Chinese drug company be any different?

 

[vern_humphrey]

They will have an R & D program if it is profitable. I imagine that the firms will try and get as much as they can in whatever market they choose to sell in. After all, that is what our drug companies do. They sell drugs for less in Canada because it is profitable for them to do so. Why would a Chinese drug company be any different?

No, they sell in Canada because if they do not, the Canadians (and Europeans) can legally manufacture the drugs themselves (needed to protect life, you know.) So our drug manufacturers are faced with allowing a competitor to produce their drugs.

The Canadians and Europeans simply killed their R&D programs with price controls. We are the only nation that still has an ambitious R&D program. If the Chinese begin manufacturing our drugs, and we also have price controls, they will have no incentive to develop new drugs.

In 1990, before introducing cost controls, Europe as a whole outspent the US by 60% in R&D. By 2000, though, they had thrown away their lead and were spending 40% less than the us.

Cost controls in Canada killed competition in their drug industry. As a result, generic drugs are more expensive in Canada than in the US. Twenty-one of the top 27 best selling generic drugs cost more in Canada than in the US. And the combined price for all 27 was 37% higher in Canada than in the US!

 

[Oscarthecat]

They will have an R & D program if it is profitable. I imagine that the firms will try and get as much as they can in whatever market they choose to sell in. After all, that is what our drug companies do. They sell drugs for less in Canada because it is profitable for them to do so. Why would a Chinese drug company be any different?

Maybe there is a way to retain R&D in this country after universal healthcare is inflicted on us.

If one of the drug company execs were to “help” get one of his buddies elected to political office, then maybe that politician will “help” make things a little more “profitable” for that drug company.

Government is all about making sure the right people get the “help” they need.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, they sell in Canada because if they do not, the Canadians (and Europeans) can legally manufacture the drugs themselves (needed to protect life, you know.) So our drug manufacturers are faced with allowing a competitor to produce their drugs.

Still, nobody is forcing the drug companies to sell Canada their drugs. If the drug companies want to sell in Canada, they have to play by Canada’s rules. They are no poorer by selling Canada the drugs, because if they would be, they wouldn’t be prudent companies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Still, nobody is forcing the drug companies to sell Canada their drugs.

The Canadians are forcing them – by threatenoing to confiscate the patent (in Canada) and assigning the drug to a Canadian company and making it themselves.

If the drug companies want to sell in Canada, they have to play by Canada’s rules. They are no poorer by selling Canada the drugs, because if they would be, they wouldn’t be prudent companies.

Aren’t you a teacher of economics?

You do understand that the costs of R&D is passed on to the consumer? And that the only consumers who pay the R&D cost are the American consumers?

And because Canadian consumers do not pay their share, the American consumer pay more?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Still, nobody is forcing the drug companies to sell Canada their drugs. If the drug companies want to sell in Canada, they have to play by Canada’s rules. They are no poorer by selling Canada the drugs, because if they would be, they wouldn’t be prudent companies.

I may have missed it, but have any UHC proponents said that the government should just take over R&D completely?

After all, if the government is going to take over the treatment providers, why not nationalize the research and development programs of pharmaceutical companies, too?

I’m sure that’s the next step.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I may have missed it, but have any UHC proponents said that the government should just take over R&D completely?

After all, if the government is going to take over the treatment providers, why not nationalize the research and development programs of pharmaceutical companies, too?

I’m sure that’s the next step.

Take a look at government-funded research and development. It uses political clout as a standard for choosing areas of research. For example, there are many diseases that kill more people than AIDS, but AIDS gets the lion’s share of government R&D dollars.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Take a look at government-funded research and development. It uses political clout as a standard for choosing areas of research. For example, there are many diseases that kill more people than AIDS, but AIDS gets the lion’s share of government R&D dollars.

And if you translate that to Universal Health Systems, politicians would be opening up more AIDS hospitals than there are people to fill them, while less politically attractive diseases are neglected because they don’t pull the same amount of votes.

And no, for those of you who are about to say “you mean conservatives don’t care about people with AIDS,” I was just using it as an example. If “hang nails” became the popular hollywood cause, then all of the sudden politicians would be opening state of the art “hang nail” clinics all over the country.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Take a look at government-funded research and development. It uses political clout as a standard for choosing areas of research. For example, there are many diseases that kill more people than AIDS, but AIDS gets the lion’s share of government R&D dollars.

Don’t get in between people and their drugs and free love.

You know, for the vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases would be prevented if people kept the needle out of their arm and their pants zipped. God forbid anyone try to have some self control.

 

[BamaRider]

I enjoy watching Oscar and Vern fillet UHC and giveaway drugs programs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And if you translate that to Universal Health Systems, politicians would be opening up more AIDS hospitals than there are people to fill them, while less politically attractive diseases are neglected because they don’t pull the same amount of votes.

And no, for those of you who are about to say “you mean conservatives don’t care about people with AIDS,” I was just using it as an example. If “hang nails” became the popular hollywood cause, then all of the sudden politicians would be opening state of the art “hang nail” clinics all over the country.

Ah, but you will be attacked on just those grounds.

On the other hand, if you were to point out that heart disease kills more people than prostate cancer, and suggest we ought to spend more on heart disease, no one would say boo to you.