Ask Me Help Desk - Ashamed by way Veterans are treated

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitvenom

We as a country are better then that.

On what particular bit of history do you base that statement?

As I said, every time we have tried a socialist response to a problem, it has failed miserably. The VA system, medicare, medicaid, social security, price fixing of vaccines (under Clinton), the UAW's control of the auto industry, the public education system, welfare, etc.

What makes you think that this time would be any different? What makes you think it is something we should even attempt?

There is nothing American about socialized healthcare.

I am not going to waste time trying to convince you because when it comes to the government you are a gloom and doom type of guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitvenom

I am not going to waste time trying to convince you because when it comes to the government you are a gloom and doom type of guy.

That's pretty much what I get too. Pessimistic about everything, no solutions about anything.

Spit and NK,

I have been giving solutions. I have been doing nothing BUT give solutions.

Well, that, and explaining why Obama's solutions won't work.

But I have been giving alternatives to his plans. You guys just refuse to accept them as viable alternatives to Obama's ideas.

In other words, I'm not the one lacking in solutions. YOU are.

You have no solutions for the problems that are inherent in socialism. Your answer when I raise those issues is to say that I'm just "doom and gloom" and "the party of No". You have not given a viable response to any of my valid points. You have not even proven that the system we have now doesn't work. But you have come to the conclusion that I'm wrong and you're right...

And you call me and other conservatives the "party of No". YOU guys are the party of "No Answers".

If there were no evidence for my position, then yes, I would be a pessimist. But there is, and you have done NOTHING to allay those issues.

So please, refrain from the "doom and gloom" talk until and unless you have the ability to show me how this system can possibly work better than any other government run healthcare system.

Put up or shut up, guys.

Elliot

I like a two tier system.

El if you have all the solutions when are you running for any politcal office? Seems like you are doing a disservice to the country if you are just going to sit on a website and talk about all your great idea's. I am not paid to have a solution but what I can do Is support the one that has been presented. Sure you think it won't work but then again you think Hybrids have to be plugged in so...

Hello again:

Elliot isn't wrong. He's just forgetful, and doesn't grasp context. He complains that all we need is a free market, and it'll be OK. What he forgets is that we HAD a free market at one time. It worked good too. Doctors even made house calls, and people could pay for their own health care.

But, something changed. Lots of people began jumping on the health care gravy train; insurance companies, first and foremost, the trial lawyers, the pharma industry, med schools, government bureaucrats, medical device companies... I'm sure there are others. Me being able to name them isn't important...

What's important, is that there is a lot of dead weight being carried around by ALL of us. If we could go back to the good old days as Elliot would like, I'm all for it.

But, he lives in the fantasy world of "wouldn't it be nice". Because in the real world, where you and I live, those hangerson ain't going to go willingly.

Therefore, they're going to have to be reformed, re-regulated, and maybe even removed from the equation. That's fine with me.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

I like a two tier system.

I would not have a problem with a 2-tier system as well. At least then we have a choice of whether to be part of the government-run system or not. But that is not what is being proposed by the Obama Admin.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitvenom

El if you have all the solutions when are you running for any politcal office? Seems like you are doing a disservice to the country if you are just going to sit on a website and talk about all your great idea's. I am not paid to have a solution but what I can do Is support the one that has been presented. Sure you think it won't work but then again you think Hybrids have to be plugged in so....

Run for office? Bite your tongue.

No, I'm not a part of the Washington elite and have no desire to become part of it. I'm a person with ideas, not a whore for power.

Besides, I have too much baggage in my past to run for office.

Now... just because I don't run for office, does that mean that a) I'm not entitled to an opinion on the issues, or b) I HAVE to support the ideas of the current government? Because that seems to be your argument here. You seem to believe that if I'm not being paid to have a solution, then I have to support the solutions of others.

Well you're right, I don't agree with the solution being presented. It is a failed solution with lots of examples of that failure, both here and in other countries. Why should I support something that has a history of failure? Do you support policies being put forward by governments that are in power that you know are fundamentally flawed?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. Communism tried it and failed. The VA system has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. The countries that have nationalized healthcare do not have the beneficial outcomes that we have here in the USA. Why would we try the same failed thing again and expect the result to be any different from what it has been every other time it was tried?

You can talk about not having solutions all you want, but the fact is there is an alternative. It's called the free market. And it HAS been proven more effective than the socialist system of health care. Even those who do not have health insurance still get health care in the USA. That is NOT true in socialist health care systems where the wait times for procedures have been known to kill the patients that would otherwise have lived, and that have denied life-saving procedures to patients based on cost. The socialist system has failed, whereas the American private system has succeeded.

Elliot

The proposals being floated by Obama and others on Capitol Hill in no way propose the elimination of the insurance industry's involvement . If anything the popular plan (Kennedy's ) would give 100 % coverage by shifting payment for the gappers to the tax payers . Insurance companies ,doctors ,those "evil " Pharmaceutical companies ,the really evil slip and fall lawyers (who also make the laws ) will still be getting their cuts... and if their cuts are less ,then expect the services provided to become curtailed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But that is not what is being proposed by the Obama Admin.

Can you link us to the details of what he is proposing please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Elliot isn't wrong. He's just forgetful, and doesn't grasp context. He complains that all we need is a free market, and it'll be ok. What he forgets is that we HAD a free market at one time. It worked good too. Doctors even made house calls, and people could pay for their own health care.

But, something changed. Lots of people began jumping on the health care gravy train; insurance companies, first and foremost, the trial lawyers, the pharma industry, med schools, government bureaucrats, medical device companies... I'm sure there are others. Me being able to name them isn't important...

What's important, is that there is a lot of dead weight being carried around by ALL of us. If we could go back to the good old days as Elliot would like, I'm all for it.

But, he lives in the fantasy world of "wouldn't it be nice". Because in the real world, where you and I live, those hangerson ain't gonna go willingly.

Therefore, they're going to have to be reformed, re-regulated, and maybe even removed from the equation. That's fine with me.

excon

Excon,

You're right, we should talk about context.

Insurance companies exist because they make health coverage less expensive to the clients than if they had to pay out of pocket. The insurance companies get paid a monthly fee from ALL their clients, pool that money, and use it to pay out for medical benefits for the few who are sick. They provide a service, and it is a service with value.

I'll agree with you on the thing with the trial lawyers, but I have also presented a solution to that problem... tort reform in the form of civil grand juries.

The pharmaceutical industry creates the medications. It is EXTREMELY expensive to create medications. Some of the rough numbers I have seen look like this:

Animal (screening) in rats—about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year, in monkeys—about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year. Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year. Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year. If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and "off-label" uses: 5–10 years at another $100+ million a year. So for ONE DRUG that is successfully fielded, the cost is roughly $2 BILLION. But that's just for the research and development on that one drug. For every successful drug fielded by a drug company, there are roughly 10,000 compounds that fail somewhere along the line... all of which adds to the cost of developing that one successful drug. If every one of the 10,000 failures failes during rat screening (which is not the case... they usually fail later in the process), the cost of those failed drugs is only another $5 billion. But that's a low-end estimate.

So the cost of developing ONE new drug is roughly $7 billion dollars... as a low estimate. And it doesn't even consider the cost of liability insurance in case they are sued over their new drug.

And yet, despite the incredible cost of developing those drugs, most pharmaceutical companies in the USA have a program to give reduced-cost or even free drugs to patients with financial difficulties. THOSE ARE PATIENTS FROM WHOM THE DRUG COMPANIES WILL NEVER RECOUP THEIR COSTS. But they do it anyway, because they see it as a civic responsibility.

Patient Assistance Programs | Pfizer: the world's largest research-based pharmaceutical company
The Merck Company Foundation
Bristol-Myers Squibb: Patient Assistance Programs
Eli Lilly and Company » Patient Assistance Programs
https://www.genentechaccesssolutions...assistance.jsp
Alcon Assistance Program for Patients, Clinics, and Institutions | Alcon
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Patient Assistance Program | Wyeth
Amgen - Patients - Patient Assistance
Products & Care - Patient Assistance and Support Programs

Ditto for most medical device companies. The costs of development are high, but these companies generally offer free or reduced price products to those who cannot afford them.

So what is your issue with pharmaceutical and medical device companies? Are they too profitable for you? Are their costs too high? Look at the numbers and tell me, truly, if they are making too much money and killing the medical system.

I agree with your assessment of government bureaucrats. What I can't understand is if you believe that government bureaucrats are part of the problem, why would you advocate more government intervention in the medical system? I guess it's the same logic that tells you that the best way to cut the national debt is to increase borrowing, and the best way to fix a national budget deficit is to spend more. But I sure don't understand it.

I don't get what your issue with medical schools is. Seems to me that medical schools have been pretty much unchanged over the past 200 years. The system by which doctors are trained is the same today as it was in the days that you agree the free-market system worked. The stuff they learn has improved, but the method by which that information is imparted is unchanged. It is a guild-based system, wherein advanced practitioners teach less advanced ones (fellows teach residents who teach interns), a system of hand-on training, and a system of theoretical testing (board certification). This is the same system that has existed since the Medieval Persia, and probably earlier. I'm not sure what your issue is with the medical school system in the USA, or how nationalizing medicine will improve medical education.

So what is your issue? What part of the system is broken? What part of the "broken system" do you believe will be fixed by nationalizing it? How will nationalizing it fix the problems without causing worse problems, like a lack of products and services, increased wait times for basic services, a decrease or complete elimination in R&D, and a decrease in both the number of and quality of practitioners? Not to mention a mass exodus from the industry (like the one we saw from vaccine companies in the Clinton era).

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Can you link us to the details of what he is proposing please?

No, I can't. That's because he hasn't put it online, because he's afraid that people might actually learn what he has planned.

But if you are trying to find out what he has planned, all you need to do is look at what he did with the S-Chip (child health care) program... he rammed that through as a part of the "stimulus bill". He is creating a government-run health system in which even people who can afford their own health care will be part of the government system. His expansion of S-Chip without allowing debate on the issue, and by keeping it hidden in a much larger bill, is a clear statement of Obama's intent. He wants to nationalize healthcare for everyone, whether they need it or not, and he will brook no debate on the issue.

So in answer to your unasked question of "how do I know", my response is "look at what he has already done." His plan is clear.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

No, I can't. That's because he hasn't put it online,

You keep on your fear mongering, it's what you do best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So what is your issue? What part of the system is broken? What part of the "broken system" do you believe will be fixed by nationalizing it?

Hello again, El:

We have discussed this at length over the years. Suffice to say, that you're just fine with it the way it is. You find no fault with any of the hangers on.

The problem is, there is more going out than is coming in. Something has to be cut out. You think ALL those hangers on are going to get THEIR money, because they somehow DESERVE it, and it's going to be the PATIENTS who loose services. I think it's going to be one or more of useless hangers on. Then there will be MORE services, and cheaper prices.

An example of that would be the insurance industry. They are absolutely unnecessary. I'll bet if we threw them out, there would be BILLIONS and BILLIONS of $$$'s available for health care... It could even be TRILLIONS!!

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You keep on your fear mongering, it's what you do best.

You mean as opposed to the fear-mongering you did about Bush being a dictator?

At least I have some evidence to back me up. All you had was your hate. In fact that's STILL all you've got.

I also notice that you NEVER seem to have a response to any of my points. It's easier to just try to dismiss it as "fear mongering" or "pessimism" or "no solutions". But there are other people who read this, see the points I'm making and agree with them.

Peekaboo, I see you, NK. You don't respond because you CAN'T respond. You have no response because there IS no response.

I'm right, you're wrong, that's the end of the story. Your own inability to actually answer the points I have made proves it.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

All you had was your hate. In fact that's STILL all you've got.

Nice try, you must be getting desperate for material. :)

Obama's plan such as it is (he likes defering to Madame Mimi ) is not as some are suggesting a single payer /remove the insurance companies from the equation plan. It is simply adding about 50 million people (some who want coverage... many who don't) into a "public " insurance plan. Medicare is $80 trillion in the hole and this will just add to the public obligation to entitlements.

The longer strategery(in theory ) is that since this public insurance plan would be run as a non-profit ;that the private companies would find it hard to compete ;and the government can lure more and more people into the public plan. Employers will be given incentives to drop their employee benefit programs and encourage the employees to sign on. This will incrementally create a universal government run insurance... probably in cooperation with the select private businesses that have garnered favor with the government (see my crony socialism posting ) .

To pay for this nonsense he floated the idea of draconian carbon emission taxes. But someone got to him and told him the reality that if you tax something revenues actually end up reduced. Now there is talk of taxing soda and potato chips instead.

Social Security,Medicare,Post Office... the list goes on and on of incompetently run government agencies. Guess we will be adding national health care to the list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Social Security,Medicare,Post Office...the list goes on and on of incompetently run government agencies.

I guess that's one of the problems with the US, their entire government is run by buffoons and has been for decades.

Governments by nature are inefficient . Surely you aren't saying there is no inefficiencies and waste in the Canadian government .