|
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 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". Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:16 Toadesstern wrote: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. ![[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. 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? Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:20 Jormundr wrote: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.
idk how they measure it but it IS just a ranking within Europe...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9JUUeBe.png)
you can sort by everything in there if you click on it. I'll give you though that the UK really is shitty in that regard apparently
|
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". Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:16 Toadesstern wrote: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? Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:20 Jormundr wrote: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.
I did follow since the beginning. You spout a free market fallacy about getting rid of insurance companies to fix pricing in the US. You've told us that a naturally monopolistic market (people who are sick have less bargaining power and less choice) will have improved pricing by getting rid of the government and/or insurance.
You have also spent the better part of (5?) pages boogeyman-ing about various things like wait times for breast implants and how the US is actually subsidizing the rest of the world, because in your mind pharmaceutical companies are stupid enough to do that. Sounds like you're spouting a bunch of free market magic nonsense without anything to back it up, and you know it.
|
So the US has 4 of the top 10 Pharma companies, doubling the value of the 2nd highest nation. How doesn't that support that the US does more for R&D?
|
Maybe the US is bigger than those other countries combined?
Edit: Yes, yes it is.
Even with Japan added they still have less population than USA. So spending per capita would seem to be an inefficient argument.
|
On April 15 2015 09:31 Chewbacca. wrote:
So the US has 4 of the top 10 Pharma companies, doubling the value of the 2nd highest nation. How doesn't that support that the US does more for R&D?
well because the US is a bigger country... I wouldn't expect switzerland with a population of 8 million to do as much R&D as the US. So instead you either look at it per capita or take together a couple nations to get a better picture
|
On April 15 2015 09:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:22 Millitron wrote: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.
I'm saying the EU denies or severely delays treatment that is legitimate but not deemed "necessary". My point about ethics was to counter your hypochondriac jab. These are truly helpful treatments being denied, not just some hypochondriac's whims.
Not paying insurance would cover minor stuff. Imagine decades of lower taxes. That's thousands of dollars you can save, more than enough for the minor stuff.
On April 15 2015 09:31 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:22 Millitron wrote: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: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: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. I did follow since the beginning. You spout a free market fallacy about getting rid of insurance companies to fix pricing in the US. You've told us that a naturally monopolistic market (people who are sick have less bargaining power and less choice) will have improved pricing by getting rid of the government and/or insurance. You have also spent the better part of (5?) pages boogeyman-ing about various things like wait times for breast implants and how the US is actually subsidizing the rest of the world, because in your mind pharmaceutical companies are stupid enough to do that. Sounds like you're spouting a bunch of free market magic nonsense without anything to back it up, and you know it.
Breast implants are not generally counted as elective surgery, they're cosmetic. Elective surgery is treatment for actual medical problems which are not life-threatening. Like bone spurs, cataracts, chiropractic work, stuff like that.
Did you read my explanation of how bargaining power is not the issue? That prices will fall because of lack of demand?
|
The statement made was about contribution to R&D, not on a per captia basis.
I also suspect that if you expanded that top 10 to top 50 the US would have a lot more additional companies than those other nations and the per capita values would move in a more favorable direction for the US
|
On April 15 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 09:22 Millitron wrote: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. I'm saying the EU denies or severely delays treatment that is legitimate but not deemed "necessary". My point about ethics was to counter your hypochondriac jab. These are truly helpful treatments being denied, not just some hypochondriac's whims. Not paying insurance would cover minor stuff. Imagine decades of lower taxes. That's thousands of dollars you can save, more than enough for the minor stuff.
No, they aren't. They are hypothetical treatments that you still haven't told us about.
|
remember guys, thousands of dollars we could save from those tax dollars could save us from those 30k+ medical bills due to emergencies, and unfortunate circumstances.
|
On April 15 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 09:22 Millitron wrote: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. I'm saying the EU denies or severely delays treatment that is legitimate but not deemed "necessary". My point about ethics was to counter your hypochondriac jab. These are truly helpful treatments being denied, not just some hypochondriac's whims. Not paying insurance would cover minor stuff. Imagine decades of lower taxes. That's thousands of dollars you can save, more than enough for the minor stuff.
Thousands of dollars for decades that will pay for 1 broken leg.
You cannot ever possible save enough money to cover for a major accident on an average salary. this argument has been debunked a 100 times already.
|
On April 15 2015 09:36 Chewbacca. wrote:
The statement made was about contribution to R&D, not on a per captia basis.
I also suspect that if you expanded that top 10 to top 50 the US would have a lot more additional companies than those other nations and the per capita values would move in a more favorable direction for the US
If you're going down that road, you're assuming that Palestine and North Korea should have as much medical research as the US, which is fucking stupid. Per capita makes much more sense from both a statistical and a logical point of view.
|
On April 15 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 09:22 Millitron wrote: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. I'm saying the EU denies or severely delays treatment that is legitimate but not deemed "necessary". My point about ethics was to counter your hypochondriac jab. These are truly helpful treatments being denied, not just some hypochondriac's whims. Not paying insurance would cover minor stuff. Imagine decades of lower taxes. That's thousands of dollars you can save, more than enough for the minor stuff.
You know who deems these treatments necessary or not?
Doctors (at least in switzerland).
Not paying insurance would cover minor stuff. Imagine decades of lower taxes. That's thousands of dollars you can save, more than enough for the minor stuff.
Please, just stop it. Thousands of dollars... Rofl. Thousands of dollars maybe (MAYBE) are enough to treat a "clean" broken leg... But even then i wouldn't bet on it, at least not if you want the standard of treatment that insurance companies grant you... If your fine with just binding a stick to your leg and "wait"... Well... Ok.
Cancer medication alone (just the medication... Whiteout application and all the other stuff) can go well in to the tenths of thousands per application. The whole treatment? EASY hundreds of thousands.
|
On April 15 2015 09:36 Chewbacca. wrote:
The statement made was about contribution to R&D, not on a per captia basis.
I also suspect that if you expanded that top 10 to top 50 the US would have a lot more additional companies than those other nations and the per capita values would move in a more favorable direction for the US
if you actually looked at the post you would have seen that the whole point of it was "yeah if you look at total numbers it looks like the US does a lot more but if you look at per capita or get a couple countries that together make up for 318,9 million people it's pretty average."
Noone is denying that the US is spending more money on it than any other country, but the notion that european countries are just freeloading is retarded if you look at the per capita values...
|
On April 15 2015 09:37 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 09:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 09:22 Millitron wrote: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. I'm saying the EU denies or severely delays treatment that is legitimate but not deemed "necessary". My point about ethics was to counter your hypochondriac jab. These are truly helpful treatments being denied, not just some hypochondriac's whims. Not paying insurance would cover minor stuff. Imagine decades of lower taxes. That's thousands of dollars you can save, more than enough for the minor stuff. No, they aren't. They are hypothetical treatments that you still haven't told us about.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.html
52,000 people denied common treatments, such as cataract removal and varicose vein treatment. Both of these are real things that you can test for. It's not just some hypochondriac saying "I've been sneezing, gimme your strongest anti-biotics."
|
On April 15 2015 09:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:37 Jormundr wrote:On April 15 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 09:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 09:22 Millitron wrote: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. I'm saying the EU denies or severely delays treatment that is legitimate but not deemed "necessary". My point about ethics was to counter your hypochondriac jab. These are truly helpful treatments being denied, not just some hypochondriac's whims. Not paying insurance would cover minor stuff. Imagine decades of lower taxes. That's thousands of dollars you can save, more than enough for the minor stuff. No, they aren't. They are hypothetical treatments that you still haven't told us about. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.html52,000 people denied common treatments, such as cataract removal and varicose vein treatment. Both of these are real things that you can test for. It's not just some hypochondriac saying "I've been sneezing, gimme your strongest anti-biotics."
GO FIGURE
http://venacure-evlt.com/varicose-veins/insurance/
THE SAME SHIT HAPPENS HERE
As it turns out, europe has a problem with not covering cosmetic surgery and so do we. I don't think that's a valid criticism of either system unless you suddenly want to be a socialist.
Not to mention you're criticizing one of the worst programs in the EU, which is STILL better by most metrics than the US.
|
On April 15 2015 09:41 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:36 Chewbacca. wrote:
The statement made was about contribution to R&D, not on a per captia basis.
I also suspect that if you expanded that top 10 to top 50 the US would have a lot more additional companies than those other nations and the per capita values would move in a more favorable direction for the US if you actually looked at the post you would have seen that the whole point of it was "yeah if you look at total numbers it looks like the US does a lot more but if you look at per capita or get a couple countries that together make up for 318,9 million people it's pretty average."Noone is denying that the US is spending more money on it than any other country, but the notion that european countries are just freeloading is retarded if you look at the per capita values...
I like how Switzerland is on that list... The rank 1 and 3 companies sit and were founded in a country with 10-11 Million inhabitants (~7.5 Million citizens). All you other guys are seriously not pulling your weight!
Nevermind that all these companies have facilities/research centers all over the world and it is a truely globalised industry.... Who cares about logic or reality when an incredibly stupid rating makes your country look awesome...
/sigh...
|
On April 15 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 08:53 zlefin wrote: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?
Not to put words in his mouth, but probably something like this:
On April 03 2015 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 05:19 ticklishmusic wrote:
It would be evidence of the incredibly sad state of American politics if a deal that contains everything you want fails to meet approval just because of partisan bickering. Some people (myself included) would say we have seen plenty of evidence to that effect already over the last 8 years. I am interested in what the Republican voters (like xDaunt) on this forum think of this deal and on the chances of it getting past congress.
It's a post that belies a dismissive attitude about Congressional opposition to terms of the deal, as though Republicans are only upset because they want to make Obama look bad in a partisan way.
Note that this only gets Congress to the table. It doesn't say what they'll do next, although everyone in Congress has been quite vocal that they don't like some of the things they're hearing, in particular the day one end to the sanctions.
But the broader point is that we're still a long ways off. They have a framework in place but negotiations for the details start April 21 and have a deadline of June 30. A lot can and will change in that time.
|
You can still get the minor operation if your insurance denies the claim. You just have to pay yourself.
|
On April 15 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:
You can still get the minor operation if your insurance denies the claim. You just have to pay yourself.
Unless you're a 2% or 1%, that's pretty much out of the question, at least financially.
|
On April 15 2015 09:41 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 09:36 Chewbacca. wrote:
The statement made was about contribution to R&D, not on a per captia basis.
I also suspect that if you expanded that top 10 to top 50 the US would have a lot more additional companies than those other nations and the per capita values would move in a more favorable direction for the US if you actually looked at the post you would have seen that the whole point of it was "yeah if you look at total numbers it looks like the US does a lot more but if you look at per capita or get a couple countries that together make up for 318,9 million people it's pretty average."Noone is denying that the US is spending more money on it than any other country, but the notion that european countries are just freeloading is retarded if you look at the per capita values...
In which case, see my point 2. If you expand that list past 10 to show top 50 or top 100 it will shift the $/capita much more in favor of the US.
Hell just looking at the "List of Pharmaceutical Companies" page on Wikipedia has the US at 14 of the top 41 companies and Switzerland only has those two in your list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
