|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 15 2015 04:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pharmaceutical spending is ~10% of healthcare spending. Even if we were subsidizing the rest of the world, you're talking small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. General medical equipment suffers from the same problems. Why does an X-ray cost hundreds? It takes seconds, and doesn't use anything up.The answer is the company that builds X-ray machines price gouges, and hospitals are forced to pass that cost on to the customer.
The fact that you've said this, says a lot about your lack of understanding as to how hospitals work, especially in regards to xrays.
|
On April 15 2015 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pharmaceutical spending is ~10% of healthcare spending. Even if we were subsidizing the rest of the world, you're talking small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. General medical equipment suffers from the same problems. Why does an X-ray cost hundreds? It takes seconds, and doesn't use anything up. The answer is the company that builds X-ray machines price gouges, and hospitals are forced to pass that cost on to the customer. As someone said before, this price gouging has no relevance to European health care. It's not like Big Pharma/medical device companies keep prices in Europe low just because they get a profit in the U.S. They don't just say, "Oh, we're making enough money, let's be nice to Europe". They don't make nearly as much in Europe because the system doesn't allow them to. The U.S. just needs to get with the program instead of allowing itself to be owned by corporations to such a degree.
Thats one option. IMO the US should try to pressure European countries to pay more. So, you know, in 50 years we don't have the same healthcare as we have in 2020.
|
Congress reaches an agreement on reviewing the Iran deal and President Obama drops his veto threat. The bill is expected to get veto-proof support anyways so it's a moot point.
Link
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it it completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote.
While Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, said Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, the president decided the new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was acceptable.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee today,” Mr. Earnest told reporters.
The compromise between Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Mr. Cardin would shorten a review period for a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran ending its support for terrorism.
The agreement almost certainly means Congress — over the White House’s stern objections — will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement. One senior Democratic aide said the bill would have overwhelming, veto-proof support in the full Senate.
"Not particularly thrilled" is political code for "livid". Those Democrats better not be expecting Obama to fund-raise and stump for them in 2016 because he won't.
|
On April 15 2015 06:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 15 2015 06:08 m4ini wrote:I wasn't the one who brought up waiting for pharmacies. People do wait for treatment. If you want elective surgery for a chronic problem, you're out of luck and must wait quite awhile. There is rationing. My mom had a chronic bad hip, which she never really cared much about until 3 weeks ago. She's now 3 days into recovering, waited roughly 2 weeks for the surgery (after years of not telling the doctors because she's stupid that way). If i have the choice between paying hundreds of thousands of monies, or wait 2 weeks.. Well, honestly, that's pretty simple. In fact, i do have a chronic condition too (cluster-headaches), and waited (i think) 8 days for my appointment for the brainscan. I do think that's reasonable, because it also allowed me to schedule work etc around it. Now, i can only talk about german (and nowadays also for the welsh) system, some people here (mainly/entirely americans) seem to have a very weird picture of it. It's primarily the right wing echo chamber. They make European healthcare sound like bread and soup lines. There isn't really any counter narrative in our country. Most Americans don't have a clue about how European healthcare tends to work at all. The closest thing we have to a counter narrative is anecdotes and such from people like Rick Steves. Not sure if anyone knows who Rick Steves is but he's a well respected traveler (particularly Europe) from the Northwest. But his quick take on healthcare gives you an idea of how little the average American planning to travel to Europe knows about even the most basic aspects of healthcare. One person told me about how she sprained her ankle during a visit to Denmark. She was X-rayed, bandaged up, and given a pair of crutches to use. The hospital did not ask her to pay a dime — only to return the crutches when she left Denmark. And a staff member of mine, whose infant son received excellent care after a lung infection in France, came home to declare, "Anyone who says socialized medical care is subpar hasn't seen it in action."
Throughout Europe, people with a health problem go first to the pharmacy, not to their doctor. European pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe remedies for many simple problems, such as sore throats, fevers, stomach issues, sinus problems, insomnia, blisters, rashes, urinary tract infections, or muscle, joint, and back pain. Most cities have at least a few 24-hour pharmacies from which you can pick up what you need and be on the mend pronto.
A trip to a clinic is actually an interesting travel experience. Every year I end up in a European clinic for one reason or another, and every time I’m impressed by its efficiency and effectiveness. SourceEDIT: A small point for the US medical system, If one had unlimited funds there is no better option than the American Healthcare system. Maybe US trained people operating elsewhere, so they can legally use experimental stuff, but if your a billionaire trying to avoid your inevitable death, you're going to the US (or people trained/taught here at some point). American emergency care is just as good. Sure you have to pay for it, but so do Europeans. Nothing is truly free. They pay higher taxes. America does not have treatment rationing however. You want elective surgery? You can get it basically as quick as you like.
1) No you can't. There's plenty of wait in the U.S., both due to limited resources and the consumer not having enough money.
2) Why is this necessarily a good thing? Consumer choice isn't always good. It isn't a good thing if some rich old man gets to tie up resources on an operation he doesn't actually need due to "consumer choice".
As others have said, you haven't offered one real rationale for why American health care is actually better or why it's logical for it to cost more.
|
On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7AyDdJX.png) forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aLKFTkq.png) It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me.
The funny part is that you ignore the incredibly important fact that NHS wait times are due to massive budget cuts.
Go figure. If you significantly cut the budget, you are going to have longer waiting times!
A few other points:
1) It's telling that you can't respond to the plethora of evidence showing that the U.K. health care system is still rated better than the U.S. one despite these wait times. It says a lot about the lack of quality of U.S. health care that someone can wait 18 weeks to treat cataracts and the U.K. system is still rated better.
2) You keep bringing up one article about one European health care system. That's not much of an argument.
3) Anyone hear could do a very quick Google search and bring up countless articles about people being ruined by medical debt or not being able to get cancer treatments because they cost too much. There's your rationing in the U.S. system. The poor are denied health care. And no, it isn't better because it's "consumer-driven". Even if you have to wait a long time to get it, at least you can get those treatments in the U.K. eventually. Plenty of people here in the U.S. just can't get it period. Stop buying into Santorum's "death panel" B.S. about how European health care systems supposedly decide who lives and dies like that.
|
WASHINGTON -- After several months of wrangling between the White House and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a controversial bill to increase Congress’ involvement in the Iran nuclear talks passed the committee Tuesday on a unanimous vote of 19-0. In a dramatic change from its stance only hours before the vote, the White House indicated that the president would not veto the legislation.
The bill’s apparent success is the result of last-minute negotiated changes to the text, which were hammered out by Corker and the committee's new ranking member, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), on Monday night into Tuesday morning.
According to Corker, the revised text was posted just minutes before the committee markup, which had been postponed 30 minutes to allow for last-minute discussions.
These efforts may have rescued the bill, which previously faced a veto threat from President Barack Obama and looked to be several votes short of the 67 needed from the full Senate to override a veto.
In its post-markup form, the legislation still requires the president to submit for congressional review the final nuclear agreement reached between Iran, the U.S. and its five negotiating partners. The bill also maintains the prohibition on the president's waiving congressionally enacted sanctions against Iran during the review period.
However, the review period in the measure has been shortened from 60 days to an initial 30 days. If, at the end of the 30 days, Congress were to pass a bill on sanctions relief and send it to the president, an additional 12 days would be automatically added to the review period. This could be another 10 days of review if the president vetoed the resulting sanctions bill.
The international nuclear negotiators currently face a deadline of June 30 to reach a final agreement. Under the new bill, the congressional review period would automatically return to 60 days if the negotiators ran late and concluded an agreement after June 9.
Source
|
On April 15 2015 08:25 coverpunch wrote:Congress reaches an agreement on reviewing the Iran deal and President Obama drops his veto threat. The bill is expected to get veto-proof support anyways so it's a moot point. LinkShow nested quote +The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it it completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote. Show nested quote +While Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, said Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, the president decided the new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was acceptable.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee today,” Mr. Earnest told reporters.
The compromise between Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Mr. Cardin would shorten a review period for a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran ending its support for terrorism.
The agreement almost certainly means Congress — over the White House’s stern objections — will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement. One senior Democratic aide said the bill would have overwhelming, veto-proof support in the full Senate. "Not particularly thrilled" is political code for "livid". Those Democrats better not be expecting Obama to fund-raise and stump for them in 2016 because he won't.
wait, i thought we were blaming the republicans and politics for reviewing the iran deal. what are these democrats doing?!?
|
WASHINGTON -- A handful of Senate Democrats are pushing back against a letter Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sent to all 50 governors urging them to not comply with the administration's signature climate rule.
Last month, McConnell pressed states to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulation on pollution from existing power plants, which seeks to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
McConnell criticized the proposal as "illegal" and told governors to "think twice before submitting a state plan -- which could lock you in to federal enforcement and expose you to lawsuits -- when the administration is standing on shaky legal ground."
Now, some members of the Democratic Conference are sending all 50 governors their own message, according to a letter provided first to The Huffington Post.
That message: Don't listen to McConnell but pay attention to other Kentuckians.
"Before you take advice about climate change from Senator McConnell please consider first what so many knowledgeable voices from the Bluegrass State are saying about climate change, and second how failing to act gives up your state's right to set its own course of action toward a clean energy future," states the letter spearheaded by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and signed by four other senators in the Democratic Conference.
"His is not the voice from ahead saying the trail is not safe; his is the voice obstinately staying behind saying, 'Let's not even try,'" the letter continues.
The senators argue that Kentucky is "already crafting its plan for complying" with President Barack Obama's carbon pollution rule.
Source
|
On April 15 2015 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:25 coverpunch wrote:Congress reaches an agreement on reviewing the Iran deal and President Obama drops his veto threat. The bill is expected to get veto-proof support anyways so it's a moot point. LinkThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it it completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote. While Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, said Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, the president decided the new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was acceptable.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee today,” Mr. Earnest told reporters.
The compromise between Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Mr. Cardin would shorten a review period for a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran ending its support for terrorism.
The agreement almost certainly means Congress — over the White House’s stern objections — will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement. One senior Democratic aide said the bill would have overwhelming, veto-proof support in the full Senate. "Not particularly thrilled" is political code for "livid". Those Democrats better not be expecting Obama to fund-raise and stump for them in 2016 because he won't. wait, i thought we were blaming the republicans and politics for reviewing the iran deal. what are these democrats doing?!?
We blamed the Republicans for interfering to the extend of sending dumb letters to Iran to tell them the deal was a bad idea.
I donno how far this would get Congress in the decision making process but its pretty sure its all behind the scenes stuff which is far from sending letters to foreign nations about how you will ignore the treaty.
|
On April 15 2015 08:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 15 2015 08:25 coverpunch wrote:Congress reaches an agreement on reviewing the Iran deal and President Obama drops his veto threat. The bill is expected to get veto-proof support anyways so it's a moot point. LinkThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it it completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote. While Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, said Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, the president decided the new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was acceptable.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee today,” Mr. Earnest told reporters.
The compromise between Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Mr. Cardin would shorten a review period for a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran ending its support for terrorism.
The agreement almost certainly means Congress — over the White House’s stern objections — will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement. One senior Democratic aide said the bill would have overwhelming, veto-proof support in the full Senate. "Not particularly thrilled" is political code for "livid". Those Democrats better not be expecting Obama to fund-raise and stump for them in 2016 because he won't. wait, i thought we were blaming the republicans and politics for reviewing the iran deal. what are these democrats doing?!? We blamed the Republicans for interfering to the extend of sending dumb letters to Iran to tell them the deal was a bad idea. I donno how far this would get Congress in the decision making process but its pretty sure its all behind the scenes stuff which is far from sending letters to foreign nations about how you will ignore the treaty.
it went well beyond the letter in this thread. people claimed the deal was iron proof and that the only reason anyone would have to object to it was for politicking. now we see a bipartisan bill to force the president to allow congress to review the deal.
|
On April 15 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:44 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 15 2015 08:25 coverpunch wrote:Congress reaches an agreement on reviewing the Iran deal and President Obama drops his veto threat. The bill is expected to get veto-proof support anyways so it's a moot point. LinkThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it it completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote. While Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, said Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, the president decided the new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was acceptable.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee today,” Mr. Earnest told reporters.
The compromise between Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Mr. Cardin would shorten a review period for a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran ending its support for terrorism.
The agreement almost certainly means Congress — over the White House’s stern objections — will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement. One senior Democratic aide said the bill would have overwhelming, veto-proof support in the full Senate. "Not particularly thrilled" is political code for "livid". Those Democrats better not be expecting Obama to fund-raise and stump for them in 2016 because he won't. wait, i thought we were blaming the republicans and politics for reviewing the iran deal. what are these democrats doing?!? We blamed the Republicans for interfering to the extend of sending dumb letters to Iran to tell them the deal was a bad idea. I donno how far this would get Congress in the decision making process but its pretty sure its all behind the scenes stuff which is far from sending letters to foreign nations about how you will ignore the treaty. it went well beyond the letter in this thread. people claimed the deal was iron proof and that the only reason anyone would have to object to it was for politicking. now we see a bipartisan bill to force the president to allow congress to review the deal. I was one of those yes and I stand by it. Your not going to get a better deal and the other alternative is war.
|
On April 15 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:44 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 15 2015 08:25 coverpunch wrote:Congress reaches an agreement on reviewing the Iran deal and President Obama drops his veto threat. The bill is expected to get veto-proof support anyways so it's a moot point. LinkThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it it completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote. While Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, said Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, the president decided the new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was acceptable.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee today,” Mr. Earnest told reporters.
The compromise between Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Mr. Cardin would shorten a review period for a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran ending its support for terrorism.
The agreement almost certainly means Congress — over the White House’s stern objections — will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement. One senior Democratic aide said the bill would have overwhelming, veto-proof support in the full Senate. "Not particularly thrilled" is political code for "livid". Those Democrats better not be expecting Obama to fund-raise and stump for them in 2016 because he won't. wait, i thought we were blaming the republicans and politics for reviewing the iran deal. what are these democrats doing?!? We blamed the Republicans for interfering to the extend of sending dumb letters to Iran to tell them the deal was a bad idea. I donno how far this would get Congress in the decision making process but its pretty sure its all behind the scenes stuff which is far from sending letters to foreign nations about how you will ignore the treaty. it went well beyond the letter in this thread. people claimed the deal was iron proof and that the only reason anyone would have to object to it was for politicking. now we see a bipartisan bill to force the president to allow congress to review the deal.
That's not what most people were saying. Not iron proof; more that the framework was a good one, which achieves our objectives. And that the objections to it from some on the republican side were unsound, or factually false.
|
On April 15 2015 08:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 15 2015 08:44 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 15 2015 08:25 coverpunch wrote:Congress reaches an agreement on reviewing the Iran deal and President Obama drops his veto threat. The bill is expected to get veto-proof support anyways so it's a moot point. LinkThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it it completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote. While Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, said Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, the president decided the new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was acceptable.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee today,” Mr. Earnest told reporters.
The compromise between Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Mr. Cardin would shorten a review period for a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran ending its support for terrorism.
The agreement almost certainly means Congress — over the White House’s stern objections — will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement. One senior Democratic aide said the bill would have overwhelming, veto-proof support in the full Senate. "Not particularly thrilled" is political code for "livid". Those Democrats better not be expecting Obama to fund-raise and stump for them in 2016 because he won't. wait, i thought we were blaming the republicans and politics for reviewing the iran deal. what are these democrats doing?!? We blamed the Republicans for interfering to the extend of sending dumb letters to Iran to tell them the deal was a bad idea. I donno how far this would get Congress in the decision making process but its pretty sure its all behind the scenes stuff which is far from sending letters to foreign nations about how you will ignore the treaty. it went well beyond the letter in this thread. people claimed the deal was iron proof and that the only reason anyone would have to object to it was for politicking. now we see a bipartisan bill to force the president to allow congress to review the deal. That's not what most people were saying. Not iron proof; more that the framework was a good one, which achieves our objectives. And that the objections to it from some on the republican side were unsound, or factually false.
I'm wondering what posts he's thinking of?
|
On April 15 2015 07:46 oneofthem wrote:
not sure what you are not getting militron. rationing exists in both, so if you don't like rationing morally speaking you would dislike both.
I don't mind rationing. It's a necessary fact of life. What I mind is some bureaucrat deciding who gets what treatment, instead of the people who want said treatment.
Rationing is not immoral to me. But rationing being dictated from on-high is.
If rationing is cost-based, the act of weighing all the options is left up to the consumer. It is up to them to decide if getting that bone spur fixed is worth the cost. Being denied treatment because someone decided your minor operation was unnecessary is insane to me. How can they decide how much you are allowed to value that operation?
On April 15 2015 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me. The funny part is that you ignore the incredibly important fact that NHS wait times are due to massive budget cuts.Go figure. If you significantly cut the budget, you are going to have longer waiting times! A few other points: 1) It's telling that you can't respond to the plethora of evidence showing that the U.K. health care system is still rated better than the U.S. one despite these wait times. It says a lot about the lack of quality of U.S. health care that someone can wait 18 weeks to treat cataracts and the U.K. system is still rated better. 2) You keep bringing up one article about one European health care system. That's not much of an argument. 3) Anyone hear could do a very quick Google search and bring up countless articles about people being ruined by medical debt or not being able to get cancer treatments because they cost too much. There's your rationing in the U.S. system. The poor are denied health care. And no, it isn't better because it's "consumer-driven". Even if you have to wait a long time to get it, at least you can get those treatments in the U.K. eventually. Plenty of people here in the U.S. just can't get it period. Stop buying into Santorum's "death panel" B.S. about how European health care systems supposedly decide who lives and dies like that.
I never said anything about death panels. I've been talking about elective surgery this entire time. I've been very careful to specify that every time. The people who treat minor stuff are pretty rarely the same people who treat life-or-death stuff. And where there is overlap, they'll drop the minor stuff to save a life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe
Check out those wait times. Sure, there's a few in the single digits, and that's great for them. But there's an awful lot over 20 days and a few over 30.
I am curious how rationing works with life-threatening illnesses though.
|
are you seriously deaf or something?
If you pay for it yourself, you can get every surgery you want (as long as its legal)... You will just have to pay for it yourself (or get extra private insurance). There are no evil buerocrats that will stop you from getting some surgery (as long as you find a doctor/hospital that thinks its ethically ok to do).
Where exactly is your problem? That state run insurance/health care doesn't just pay everything because Mister Hypochondrian thinks he needs a certain treatment?
|
On April 15 2015 09:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:46 oneofthem wrote:
not sure what you are not getting militron. rationing exists in both, so if you don't like rationing morally speaking you would dislike both. I don't mind rationing. It's a necessary fact of life. What I mind is some bureaucrat deciding who gets what treatment, instead of the people who want said treatment. Rationing is not immoral to me. But rationing being dictated from on-high is. If rationing is cost-based, the act of weighing all the options is left up to the consumer. It is up to them to decide if getting that bone spur fixed is worth the cost. Being denied treatment because someone decided your minor operation was unnecessary is insane to me. How can they decide how much you are allowed to value that operation? Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me. The funny part is that you ignore the incredibly important fact that NHS wait times are due to massive budget cuts.Go figure. If you significantly cut the budget, you are going to have longer waiting times! A few other points: 1) It's telling that you can't respond to the plethora of evidence showing that the U.K. health care system is still rated better than the U.S. one despite these wait times. It says a lot about the lack of quality of U.S. health care that someone can wait 18 weeks to treat cataracts and the U.K. system is still rated better. 2) You keep bringing up one article about one European health care system. That's not much of an argument. 3) Anyone hear could do a very quick Google search and bring up countless articles about people being ruined by medical debt or not being able to get cancer treatments because they cost too much. There's your rationing in the U.S. system. The poor are denied health care. And no, it isn't better because it's "consumer-driven". Even if you have to wait a long time to get it, at least you can get those treatments in the U.K. eventually. Plenty of people here in the U.S. just can't get it period. Stop buying into Santorum's "death panel" B.S. about how European health care systems supposedly decide who lives and dies like that. I never said anything about death panels. I've been talking about elective surgery this entire time. I've been very careful to specify that every time. The people who treat minor stuff are pretty rarely the same people who treat life-or-death stuff. And where there is overlap, they'll drop the minor stuff to save a life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_EuropeCheck out those wait times. Sure, there's a few in the single digits, and that's great for them. But there's an awful lot over 20 days and a few over 30. I am curious how rationing works with life-threatening illnesses though.
that's not wait time.. that's the ranking for wait time. And everything in the 20's is still rated better than the US for wait times.
|
On April 15 2015 09:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:46 oneofthem wrote:
not sure what you are not getting militron. rationing exists in both, so if you don't like rationing morally speaking you would dislike both. I don't mind rationing. It's a necessary fact of life. What I mind is some bureaucrat deciding who gets what treatment, instead of the people who want said treatment. Rationing is not immoral to me. But rationing being dictated from on-high is. If rationing is cost-based, the act of weighing all the options is left up to the consumer. It is up to them to decide if getting that bone spur fixed is worth the cost. Being denied treatment because someone decided your minor operation was unnecessary is insane to me. How can they decide how much you are allowed to value that operation? Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me. The funny part is that you ignore the incredibly important fact that NHS wait times are due to massive budget cuts.Go figure. If you significantly cut the budget, you are going to have longer waiting times! A few other points: 1) It's telling that you can't respond to the plethora of evidence showing that the U.K. health care system is still rated better than the U.S. one despite these wait times. It says a lot about the lack of quality of U.S. health care that someone can wait 18 weeks to treat cataracts and the U.K. system is still rated better. 2) You keep bringing up one article about one European health care system. That's not much of an argument. 3) Anyone hear could do a very quick Google search and bring up countless articles about people being ruined by medical debt or not being able to get cancer treatments because they cost too much. There's your rationing in the U.S. system. The poor are denied health care. And no, it isn't better because it's "consumer-driven". Even if you have to wait a long time to get it, at least you can get those treatments in the U.K. eventually. Plenty of people here in the U.S. just can't get it period. Stop buying into Santorum's "death panel" B.S. about how European health care systems supposedly decide who lives and dies like that. I never said anything about death panels. I've been talking about elective surgery this entire time. I've been very careful to specify that every time. The people who treat minor stuff are pretty rarely the same people who treat life-or-death stuff. And where there is overlap, they'll drop the minor stuff to save a life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_EuropeCheck out those wait times. Sure, there's a few in the single digits, and that's great for them. But there's an awful lot over 20 days and a few over 30. I am curious how rationing works with life-threatening illnesses though.
1. As velr stated above, you can still opt to pay for it yourself in the EU systems and not wait for insurance to cover it, therefore giving you the same amount of choice as you would have in the US, even in your worst case scenario.
2. That bureaucrat is your insurance company in the US, the bureaucracy hasn't just magically disappeared.
|
On April 15 2015 09:15 Velr wrote:
are you seriously deaf or something?
If you pay for it yourself, you can get every surgery you want (as long as its legal)... You will just have to pay for it yourself. There are no evil buerocrats that will stop you from getting some surgery (as long as you find a doctor/hospital that thinks its ethically ok to do).
Where exactly is your problem? That state run insurance/health care doesn't just pay everything because Mister Hypochondrian thinks he needs a certain treatment?
Except you've been taxed more heavily to cover the insurance you aren't actually getting to use. Meaning you have less money to get the treatment you need.
Ethics will prevent a doctor from doing a needless treatment. No decent doctor would just hand out pills or yank your tonsils or whatever for no reason beyond "you asked them to".
On April 15 2015 09:16 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:05 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:46 oneofthem wrote:
not sure what you are not getting militron. rationing exists in both, so if you don't like rationing morally speaking you would dislike both. I don't mind rationing. It's a necessary fact of life. What I mind is some bureaucrat deciding who gets what treatment, instead of the people who want said treatment. Rationing is not immoral to me. But rationing being dictated from on-high is. If rationing is cost-based, the act of weighing all the options is left up to the consumer. It is up to them to decide if getting that bone spur fixed is worth the cost. Being denied treatment because someone decided your minor operation was unnecessary is insane to me. How can they decide how much you are allowed to value that operation? On April 15 2015 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me. The funny part is that you ignore the incredibly important fact that NHS wait times are due to massive budget cuts.Go figure. If you significantly cut the budget, you are going to have longer waiting times! A few other points: 1) It's telling that you can't respond to the plethora of evidence showing that the U.K. health care system is still rated better than the U.S. one despite these wait times. It says a lot about the lack of quality of U.S. health care that someone can wait 18 weeks to treat cataracts and the U.K. system is still rated better. 2) You keep bringing up one article about one European health care system. That's not much of an argument. 3) Anyone hear could do a very quick Google search and bring up countless articles about people being ruined by medical debt or not being able to get cancer treatments because they cost too much. There's your rationing in the U.S. system. The poor are denied health care. And no, it isn't better because it's "consumer-driven". Even if you have to wait a long time to get it, at least you can get those treatments in the U.K. eventually. Plenty of people here in the U.S. just can't get it period. Stop buying into Santorum's "death panel" B.S. about how European health care systems supposedly decide who lives and dies like that. I never said anything about death panels. I've been talking about elective surgery this entire time. I've been very careful to specify that every time. The people who treat minor stuff are pretty rarely the same people who treat life-or-death stuff. And where there is overlap, they'll drop the minor stuff to save a life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_EuropeCheck out those wait times. Sure, there's a few in the single digits, and that's great for them. But there's an awful lot over 20 days and a few over 30. I am curious how rationing works with life-threatening illnesses though. that's not wait time.. that's the ranking for wait time. And everything in the 20's is still rated better than the US for wait times.
How can there be ties if its a ranking?
On April 15 2015 09:20 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:05 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:46 oneofthem wrote:
not sure what you are not getting militron. rationing exists in both, so if you don't like rationing morally speaking you would dislike both. I don't mind rationing. It's a necessary fact of life. What I mind is some bureaucrat deciding who gets what treatment, instead of the people who want said treatment. Rationing is not immoral to me. But rationing being dictated from on-high is. If rationing is cost-based, the act of weighing all the options is left up to the consumer. It is up to them to decide if getting that bone spur fixed is worth the cost. Being denied treatment because someone decided your minor operation was unnecessary is insane to me. How can they decide how much you are allowed to value that operation? On April 15 2015 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 15 2015 07:22 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 07:04 oneofthem wrote:On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. when you are no longer moralizing about rationing the problem becomess efficiency and welfare. rationing a limited resource is the basic problem of economics. in thw case of healthcare the mkt as it stands now is empirically lacking in both objectives, not even considering the less welloff I am moralizing though. Cost-based rationing leaves the decision up to the person affected by the illness. It is up to them to decide how much this elective surgery means to them. It's not some bureaucrat telling them from on-high that they don't get to have that bone spur removed, or those cataracts corrected. On April 15 2015 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 15 2015 06:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:47 oneofthem wrote:
of course there is rationing in the american system it is called price. That leaves it more up to the customer though. Not many people are so destitute they have absolutely no recourse. Yes, there are lots of people that would end up in debt over it if they chose to get an elective surgery, but that leaves the choice up to them. In the UK, if you want your cataracts fixed, you'd better hope the government agrees to let you get them fixed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view. forbes seems to rank the UK a better than the US when it comes to "timeliness of care", which seems to be what you're arguing to be really shitty in the EU and the UK in particular? Maybe your example is right, maybe it's just one that works that way while the majority of stuff works the other way around. Idk, but do you have anything that states that it's better in the US? I can only find sources that state it the other way around, like the forbes article linked above, or this from who: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf It's hard to deny this article. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.htmlBeing forced to wait 18 weeks before even starting the process of getting treatment is insane to me. The funny part is that you ignore the incredibly important fact that NHS wait times are due to massive budget cuts.Go figure. If you significantly cut the budget, you are going to have longer waiting times! A few other points: 1) It's telling that you can't respond to the plethora of evidence showing that the U.K. health care system is still rated better than the U.S. one despite these wait times. It says a lot about the lack of quality of U.S. health care that someone can wait 18 weeks to treat cataracts and the U.K. system is still rated better. 2) You keep bringing up one article about one European health care system. That's not much of an argument. 3) Anyone hear could do a very quick Google search and bring up countless articles about people being ruined by medical debt or not being able to get cancer treatments because they cost too much. There's your rationing in the U.S. system. The poor are denied health care. And no, it isn't better because it's "consumer-driven". Even if you have to wait a long time to get it, at least you can get those treatments in the U.K. eventually. Plenty of people here in the U.S. just can't get it period. Stop buying into Santorum's "death panel" B.S. about how European health care systems supposedly decide who lives and dies like that. I never said anything about death panels. I've been talking about elective surgery this entire time. I've been very careful to specify that every time. The people who treat minor stuff are pretty rarely the same people who treat life-or-death stuff. And where there is overlap, they'll drop the minor stuff to save a life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_EuropeCheck out those wait times. Sure, there's a few in the single digits, and that's great for them. But there's an awful lot over 20 days and a few over 30. I am curious how rationing works with life-threatening illnesses though. 1. As velr stated above, you can still opt to pay for it yourself in the EU systems and not wait for insurance to cover it, therefore giving you the same amount of choice as you would have in the US, even in your worst case scenario. 2. That bureaucrat is your insurance company in the US, the bureaucracy hasn't just magically disappeared.
I don't like insurance companies either. You haven't been following the discussion since the beginning I guess.
|
On April 15 2015 09:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:15 Velr wrote:
are you seriously deaf or something?
If you pay for it yourself, you can get every surgery you want (as long as its legal)... You will just have to pay for it yourself. There are no evil buerocrats that will stop you from getting some surgery (as long as you find a doctor/hospital that thinks its ethically ok to do).
Where exactly is your problem? That state run insurance/health care doesn't just pay everything because Mister Hypochondrian thinks he needs a certain treatment?
Except you've been taxed more heavily to cover the insurance you aren't actually getting to use. Meaning you have less money to get the treatment you need. Ethics will prevent a doctor from doing a needless treatment. No decent doctor would just hand out pills or yank your tonsils or whatever for no reason beyond "you asked them to".
So US healthcare is better because it has no ethics?
Wtf has your argument come down to?
yes there is a form of rationing by EU health insurgence. The same exists but worse with US insurgence.
Money gets you what you want if insurgence doesn't cover it in the EU. the same counts for the US.
While not paying health insurgence frees more money in the US there is the matter that you cannot afford 90% of healthcare without an insurance and even ignoring that the EU healthcare you desire is probably cheaper then the US one.
|
On April 15 2015 08:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 15 2015 04:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pharmaceutical spending is ~10% of healthcare spending. Even if we were subsidizing the rest of the world, you're talking small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. General medical equipment suffers from the same problems. Why does an X-ray cost hundreds? It takes seconds, and doesn't use anything up. The answer is the company that builds X-ray machines price gouges, and hospitals are forced to pass that cost on to the customer. As someone said before, this price gouging has no relevance to European health care. It's not like Big Pharma/medical device companies keep prices in Europe low just because they get a profit in the U.S. They don't just say, "Oh, we're making enough money, let's be nice to Europe". They don't make nearly as much in Europe because the system doesn't allow them to. The U.S. just needs to get with the program instead of allowing itself to be owned by corporations to such a degree. Thats one option. IMO the US should try to pressure European countries to pay more. So, you know, in 50 years we don't have the same healthcare as we have in 2020.
they wouldn't sell in Europe if they didn't make some kind of profit in Europe, they just make a lot more in the US, I give you that.
And as already stated, your idea that the US does a lot more than European countries in R&D seems to be wrong from what google tells me:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=1846#36905
If anything, the US amount of papers published is pretty average in comparison to the other 8-9 countries in that list if we take the non-1st-word-nations out while articles like http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w969.full seem to say that the money invested into R&D isn't what you're implying it's like either.
Top 10 pharma companies seem to be:
# / Company / 2014 ($m) / country
1 / Novartis / 47101 / Swiss
2 / Pfizer / 45708 / US
3 / Roche / 39120 / Swiss
4 / Sanofi / 36437 / French
5 / Merck & Co. / 36042 / US
6 / Johnson & Johnson / 32313 / US
7 / GlaxoSmithKline / 29580 / UK
8 / AstraZeneca / 26095 / UK
9 / Gilead Sciences / 24474 / US
10 / Takeda / 20446 / JP
which doesn't seem to support that standpoint either if my google skills are to be trusted (google always linked be to the german pages of those... but I think I got it correctly?)
I mean you can always argue that giving them as much money as possible would be best because that means more profit and thus more R&D but I don't think that's how it goes. So the approach to cut spending in half (if forbes is correct) while keeping the quality you have right now and move on from there seems to be reasonable.
If they don't get enough money anymore they'll raise prices all over the world, including Europe
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
