President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1159

On November 03 2012 05:32 cLAN.Anax wrote:


You've introduced government into the problem. I don't see that as "hassle removed;" rather, I see quite the opposite, lol.

On November 03 2012 05:41 Souma wrote:


wha'?

On November 03 2012 05:45 Rassy wrote:
The problem with the healthcare in the usa is that the doctors make way to much.
I can not think of anny other reason why a hospital bed in the usa costs 10 times more per day then a hospital bed in the netherlands.
They are the same beds, the buildings cost the same, the medication cost the same, so i asume the difference is in what the doctors get paid.
Stop paying your doctors so much!
I dont know why in usa doctors have to earn 1 million/year but it cant be the "market".
In the netherlands a doctor only makes 2-4 times the amount an unskilled worker makes but we have no shortage of med students at all, despite this "low" payment. Universitys even have to refuse students because to manny of them aply.

On November 03 2012 05:46 cLAN.Anax wrote:


It's just my opinion, but bringing in the government to help solve the issue of healthcare only serves to create problems and hassle rather than get rid of them. Surrendering freedom for security will get neither.

On November 03 2012 05:05 magnusfrater wrote:
History has proven that capitalism does not work, at least not as well as highly regulated economies. More importantly, competition is a destructive and counter intuitive process. Tearing each other down instead of working to achieve common goals is an antiquated system. Cooperation and unity of intentions are what make for a strong nation, and that vision should be imposed upon the people if they do not currently see it's worth. The revolution of system shall initiate the revolution of thought.

On November 03 2012 05:38 Souma wrote:


R&D costs are bloated due in part to artful accounting practices due to the fact that pharma companies get a double-incentive for such: one, they get tax breaks for R&D and two, they get justification for what they price their drugs at.

Just take a look at the profit margins of big pharma. If it took $1 billion to develop a new drug, and if you factor in the amount of drugs that never make it to the market, that would equate to a few-several billion per successful drug. That would result in a possibly unsustainable market.

Yet here we are... http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/industries/21/index.html

By the way, a lot of research is also funded by tax-payer dollars as it happens in university labs - research which is then taken by drug companies.

Also, most of the rest of the world are subject to U.S. patent laws. The U.S. has stopped many countries from producing generics which could do a lot of good for their country which results in black-market dealings (take a look at Africa).

On November 03 2012 05:57 Atrain1982 wrote:
I love (not really) when people use the argument: "the rest of the world does it this way...” 200+ years ago Europe was ruled by monarchs, not represented by free people. Thankfully George Washington had the foresight to turn down offers of kingship and step-down from being President, despite what many in the public may have wanted. Certainly in the United States a better argument for a single-payer/government run health care model can be presented than: "the rest of the world does it this way". If the rest of the world was going to jump of a bridge....

Any American citizens want to choose another country where they would rather have a major surgeory performed?

The U.S. is full of obese and over-weight people (about 2/3 of adults). Diabetes, Heart Disease, and even possibly cancer are just a few diseases related to a condition that for the majority of people is something they have the ability to control (No, No, the box of fruit roll-ups unwrapped themselves and crawled into my belly). I am sure there is someone on here more qualified to report on the national cost of healthcare associated with overweight/obesity disorders in the U.S. And I hope they do. My point being, that in an unhealthy society, who 'for the most part' can afford it, would it not be reasonable to expect their health costs to be higher with worse outcomes. While I am not a health professional, the best treatments and diagnostics cannot over-come non-compliant patients and a society that is literally eating itself to death.

Government should play some role in healthcare, but it should not be the sole provider of healthcare. I don't care if someone smokes or wants to sit on their ass and eat sour patch kids while doing endless act 3 runs on Diablo for 12 hours. But the moment you start taking resources from me to pay for someone else’s poor health decisions is the moment I want a national ban on smoking and a 'fat tax'. Do I really want those things? No! I live in the United States of America, where we are partially founded on the principle that you have the right to fuck your own life up as much as you want, as long as you don't infringe on other people's right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.

Many of us on this site spend extended periods of time sitting in front of a computer doing something we love: playing StarCraft. All of us are partially aware of the negative side effects of prolonged sedentary activities. Yet we still play because the game and the community provide some meaning to us. Guess what? The majority of the world doesn't care if we find enjoyment playing SC. South Korea has laws restricting gaming time for those under 18 to curb "gaming addiction". New York City has restrictions on the size of a Big Gulp you can buy at 7-11. Can't have toys in Happy Meals in California. Many states have motorcycle, bike helmet, and seat belt laws. Some of these laws may make sense and some don't, but precedents have already been set. If you are in favor of government run health care in the U.S., then be prepared for the power of the almighty dollar to be the gavel with which government regulations are created to restrict your health care choices and your behavior in the name of saving money for the federal and state governments (i.e. tax payers).

A major factor in reducing healthcare costs in the U.S. is changing health related behavior in our society. I have been in Ph.D. classes with Public Health graduate students (the next wave of public health policy makers) and I can tell you that the majority of them are not opposed to dictating/regulating behavior (food consumption/physical activity) in the name of greater public health. Make no mistake; you will be giving up more than tax dollars for a single payer/government run health care system.

Summary of ramble:
1. I don't care what the rest of the world does. Give me a reasonable argument for single payer health care that allows for a discussion.
2. The U.S. is fat...that’s PARTIALLY why our healthcare is high with relatively low outcomes
3. Government run health-care will eventually lead to restrictions on your right to fuck your own life up.

On November 03 2012 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Universities make money off the patents too.

On November 03 2012 05:57 Atrain1982 wrote:
I love (not really) when people use the argument: "the rest of the world does it this way...” 200+ years ago Europe was ruled by monarchs, not represented by free people. Thankfully George Washington had the foresight to turn down offers of kingship and step-down from being President, despite what many in the public may have wanted. Certainly in the United States a better argument for a single-payer/government run health care model can be presented than: "the rest of the world does it this way". If the rest of the world was going to jump of a bridge....

Any American citizens want to choose another country where they would rather have a major surgeory performed?

The U.S. is full of obese and over-weight people (about 2/3 of adults). Diabetes, Heart Disease, and even possibly cancer are just a few diseases related to a condition that for the majority of people is something they have the ability to control (No, No, the box of fruit roll-ups unwrapped themselves and crawled into my belly). I am sure there is someone on here more qualified to report on the national cost of healthcare associated with overweight/obesity disorders in the U.S. And I hope they do. My point being, that in an unhealthy society, who 'for the most part' can afford it, would it not be reasonable to expect their health costs to be higher with worse outcomes. While I am not a health professional, the best treatments and diagnostics cannot over-come non-compliant patients and a society that is literally eating itself to death.

Government should play some role in healthcare, but it should not be the sole provider of healthcare. I don't care if someone smokes or wants to sit on their ass and eat sour patch kids while doing endless act 3 runs on Diablo for 12 hours. But the moment you start taking resources from me to pay for someone else’s poor health decisions is the moment I want a national ban on smoking and a 'fat tax'. Do I really want those things? No! I live in the United States of America, where we are partially founded on the principle that you have the right to fuck your own life up as much as you want, as long as you don't infringe on other people's right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.

Many of us on this site spend extended periods of time sitting in front of a computer doing something we love: playing StarCraft. All of us are partially aware of the negative side effects of prolonged sedentary activities. Yet we still play because the game and the community provide some meaning to us. Guess what? The majority of the world doesn't care if we find enjoyment playing SC. South Korea has laws restricting gaming time for those under 18 to curb "gaming addiction". New York City has restrictions on the size of a Big Gulp you can buy at 7-11. Can't have toys in Happy Meals in California. Many states have motorcycle, bike helmet, and seat belt laws. Some of these laws may make sense and some don't, but precedents have already been set. If you are in favor of government run health care in the U.S., then be prepared for the power of the almighty dollar to be the gavel with which government regulations are created to restrict your health care choices and your behavior in the name of saving money for the federal and state governments (i.e. tax payers).

A major factor in reducing healthcare costs in the U.S. is changing health related behavior in our society. I have been in Ph.D. classes with Public Health graduate students (the next wave of public health policy makers) and I can tell you that the majority of them are not opposed to dictating/regulating behavior (food consumption/physical activity) in the name of greater public health. Make no mistake; you will be giving up more than tax dollars for a single payer/government run health care system.

Summary of ramble:
1. I don't care what the rest of the world does. Give me a reasonable argument for single payer health care that allows for a discussion.
2. The U.S. is fat...that’s PARTIALLY why our healthcare is high with relatively low outcomes
3. Government run health-care will eventually lead to restrictions on your right to fuck your own life up.

On November 03 2012 06:09 coverpunch wrote:
You're making the big points of the health care debate.

First off, this is a revenue-raising measure, not a cost-cutting one. Obamacare treats people without insurance as free-loaders, not victims, which is why the individual mandate requires everyone to get insurance. So yes, for young or healthy people who rarely use their insurance, it is bad because you're paying for something you don't use. But you're treated as a free-loader because too many young or healthy people don't get insurance and then can't pay when something does happen to them. Those cost gets imposed on people with insurance or who do pay, which is partly why US hospital expenses are so high.

The second issue is government bureaucracy. Part of this is a good thing - too many people are going to the wrong place in the US medical system. But yes, sooner or later, if we're serious about cutting costs, sooner or later someone will have to demand that a fat person that they must stop eating because their diabetes will cost more than they are paying. Or we can just cut off their treatment at a certain point. It's simple math - the entire regime can only survive so long as the group pays more than the sum of every individual's use.

On November 03 2012 05:59 oneofthem wrote:
the point with the rest of the world doing it has more substance than that, in particular the rest of the world has lower healthcare cost for better service. that it's the rest of the world getting those results is not very relevant, the relevant substance of the argument is that there are alternative systems getting better results. the better results is the point.

you have a single payer system completely run by the government with its own hospitals and providers already existing in the u.s. itself. it gets pretty damn good results for low cost and cost increase. factor into the difficulties of transition etc, the result for a larger single payer system in the u.s. should also be superior to the existing system. there is not much to argue on this front.

edit: this guy thinks a private system with vouchers won't have government funding...what?

you do realize the very point of lowering health care cost is for you to pay less right

On November 03 2012 06:04 Souma wrote:
Jonny you have this weird habit of not addressing the actual argument. How does that refute the fact that drug companies purposefully bloat their R&D costs...?

On November 03 2012 06:13 ThreeAcross wrote:


You bring up the VA so often, and I haven't seen this answered yet. What is your experience with the VA that leads you to believe it is the savior of the nations healthcare problems?

Just a quick example. My wife, who is covered under my plan, recently got her gallbladder removed. We had no issues with the doctor, hospital, or insurance company. Easy peasy, cost me about a grand. Well worth it.
Now my grandfather has been experiencing the same issues that my wife. His ultrasounds and labs all show he has gallstones. The doctor at the VA refuses to sign off on medical necessity which means my grandfather can't have his surgery.

My work work hospitals and insurance companies also shows it is easier to work with Medicare / private insurance than it is to work with the VA.
Clearly this is anecdotal, but please stop being a parrot about how great the VA system is.

I apologize if I am getting you mixed up with someone else.

On November 03 2012 05:07 magnusfrater wrote:

Competition will never be as effective as cooperation with a single purpose of mind. Working together instead of apposing.