How wealth is created...

[bobblehead]

Re: How wealth is created...

True. And extreme forms of capitalism have led to the failure of the financial markets in the U.S.

Wouldn't you at least agree that an extreme form of socialism - forcing the sale of homes to people that can't pay for them (and artificially driving up demand) - also contributed to the failure of the financial markets? Or will you only look for failures of capitalism.

ya, that was part of problem, I don't know what percentage of problem.

but we could lump it all under "deregulation"

Ok, I'm going to expain it again. First we forced the loans to unqualified people. Then the lenders squaked that it was suicide, we need to be able to move them. Then, with congress' blessing, wall street devised ways to dump that bad paper into mass bunches of investment vehicles...hey, cool, we can make bad paper, get the origination fees and pass it to joe schmoe...and the politicians love us for it. Who would expect them to stop at minority housing. A lot of brokers started writing bad paper all over the place, housing, secondary housing, automotive, hedgefund loans ect...then passed it along with congress blessing. Bammo....credit crunch when joe investor figured out what they were buying. Credit crunch = recession.

show me where exactly deregulation caused this?

All that being said, REASONABLE regulation is a good thing. It allows consumers to feel confident that they are getting what they bargain for, it stops unscrupulous folks from putting poison in the ground water. It can stop child labor. You get the idea. But when someone decides that infrastructure investment can't be written off of taxes unless it is amortized over 7 years it gets burdensome and harmful.

[bobblehead]

What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

I have a friend, more like an ex-friend, who is extremely liberal. She accuses me of being a closet conservative, sorta hate me for it. The one point where she abandons her liberal stripes is with health care. She does not want the health care system to be expanded to include everybody, because she says there is not enough health care capacity to go around, she doesn't want to degrade her own access.

Hell, at least she is honest. I think her opinion is typical, she is just more honest than many. I think this is the main holdup in expanding health care to all - the ones who have don't want to share.

How about someone as whacky as me. I think aging is a disease that we will beat in 30 years or less. I also think if we adopt a national health care system techno advances will nearly halt. Cancer cures will never be found. See cy's original post and apply it to healthcare. We could have had NHC back in 1968 when ted kennedy started us down that road....of course breast cancer would still kill most who got it and there would be no bioengineering based chemotherapy. Sure, the shortsighted and not so intelligent would be none the wiser, but fuck I would.

[bobblehead]

Do you think we have a free-market in health care presently?

relatively speaking, ya.

It is not government interference that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to people based on their risk level.

I think you are wrong. I THINK that back in the day when they were trying to get the HMO's going they allowed other companies to dump the sick and deny them coverage so the HMO's would be more appealing. IF I'm wrong correct me, but I'm pretty sure that is what happened.

[bobblehead]

a fundamental change towards universal systems that have been shown to reduce overall quality of care and access to care in almost every place they've been tried.

speaking of willful ignorance, did you watch any of this documentary when it was on the telly:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

The rumor that the choice is between a free market and horrible government run hospitals is propoganda.

Is that the same one you made me watch before where the fat doctor got a bonus for keeping his patients fit, then complained cuz he had a heart attack in Las Vegas and it cost him 60k cuz the UK didn't cover him in america?

[bobblehead]

thread..getting....convoluted.

GK, you're wasting your breath...I have made all these arguements to HH before and he refuses to get it.

Let me ask a question.

In Thailand healthcare for the masses is piss poor. I MEAN PISS POOR. If it is a right why doesn't america provide health care for all those very poor deprived people. Is it only a "right" if you are born on american soil (like running for president...yea I opened that can).

If it is such a right that people in america who have every chance to succeed deserve it at the expense of my pocket, than why stop there. Shouldn't we have an agenda to insure everyone in the world?? shouldn't we be fully funding AIDs medication in Africa? I mean those people had far less of a chance in life than pretty much 99.9% of our population, it is our MORAL IMPERATIVE to insure them.

[MJZiggy]

What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

I have a friend, more like an ex-friend, who is extremely liberal. She accuses me of being a closet conservative, sorta hate me for it. The one point where she abandons her liberal stripes is with health care. She does not want the health care system to be expanded to include everybody, because she says there is not enough health care capacity to go around, she doesn't want to degrade her own access.

Hell, at least she is honest. I think her opinion is typical, she is just more honest than many. I think this is the main holdup in expanding health care to all - the ones who have don't want to share.

How about someone as whacky as me. I think aging is a disease that we will beat in 30 years or less. I also think if we adopt a national health care system techno advances will nearly halt. Cancer cures will never be found. See cy's original post and apply it to healthcare. We could have had NHC back in 1968 when ted kennedy started us down that road....of course breast cancer would still kill most who got it and there would be no bioengineering based chemotherapy. Sure, the shortsighted and not so intelligent would be none the wiser, but fuck I would.

National healthcare insurance does not affect either NIH or CDC where most of the medical research is conducted. Labs still will want to make money no matter who is paying for health coverage and prestigious hospitals will still want to take the money they won't be forced to spend on indigent care and putting it into research. I just don't get the doomsday attitude. Every Nobel prize for research does not come out of the US you know. Teaching hospitals will still teach and lo and behold, the world will not implode if the Federal Government forms an insurance network and covers the 8 million people you say is too insignificant a number to worry about.

[mraynrand]

In Thailand healthcare for the masses is piss poor. I MEAN PISS POOR. If it is a right why doesn't america provide health care for all those very poor deprived people. Is it only a "right" if you are born on american soil (like running for president...yea I opened that can)..

You are wrong. I took a flight to Thailand to get my species change operation. Very good health care. It was free, since it was a right.

[HowardRoark]

In Thailand healthcare for the masses is piss poor. I MEAN PISS POOR. If it is a right why doesn't america provide health care for all those very poor deprived people. Is it only a "right" if you are born on american soil (like running for president...yea I opened that can)..

You are wrong. I took a flight to Thailand to get my species change operation. Very good health care. It was free, since it was a right.

Did you get the first class ticket too? I heard that is a right. Well, I suppose only on the way there. On the way back I suppose you were down below with the cargo. We need to work on that too.

[mraynrand]

National healthcare insurance does not affect either NIH or CDC where most of the medical research is conducted.....

Surprisingly, the NIH budget comes from the same source as any Federal health program - the Federal Budget. You add billions to the budget and sooner or later - even with increased taxes on business the rich (those making 250, 200, 140, 120, 70, 50, or 40 K - whatever it is this week) and all of the sudden, with decreasing revenues, you have a huge budget deficit, to the tune of 500billion to 1 trillion/year. Now, we can just keep borrowing and keep funding NIH research, but I'm guessing with huge mandates for free stuff, the NIH budget will get pinched. Also, you should know that the Dept. of defense also funds tons of research. Frank wants to reduce the military budget by 25%. Research will be one of the first things to go.

[mraynrand]

In Thailand healthcare for the masses is piss poor. I MEAN PISS POOR. If it is a right why doesn't america provide health care for all those very poor deprived people. Is it only a "right" if you are born on american soil (like running for president...yea I opened that can)..

You are wrong. I took a flight to Thailand to get my species change operation. Very good health care. It was free, since it was a right.

Did you get the first class ticket too? I heard that is a right. Well, I suppose only on the way there. On the way back I suppose you were down below with the cargo. We need to work on that too.

Well that was because I'm now a Golden Retriever and Thailand hasn't passed prop 10 like Ohio. But I'm optimistic - Obama is going to change the world.

[Cy]

Cy, I agree with you that there is no inherent right to health care. It can be thought of like any other commodity, if that is how you choose to view it. I think it is wise to give health care to all citizens.

It sounds like you are for an every-man-for-himself society. I think the outcome would be brutally unpleasant and violent.

Cy: I am not for an "every man for himself" society. Our constitution is. That is the contract that I was born into, that defines my relationship with you. That is, I am not bound by what you think is wise.

Let me tell you some things that I think are wise for you:

I think you should be baptized.

I think you should not have pre-marital sex.

I think you should only be married to one wife.

I think you should drink only one glass of alcohol a day.

I think you should limit your TV watching to less than a half hour a day.

Now, statistics show that those who live by the above lifestyle will have a general level of happiness and wealth above others. Also, the general costs to our nation in terms of health care, prison, moral costs, etc. etc. would be lowered, if everyone just did what I believed was wise.

But then, we wouldn't really be in America anymore, would we. We'd be in a society of philosopher kings, where the "experts" engineer society based on scientifically proven facts.

And there's another name for that sort of system: fascism.

So yes, I most certainly believe in an "every man for himself" society, because the alternative must necessarily always come down to some level of tyranny.

Further, we never discount nature. Nature does not allow us to be "every man for himself," but nature places in each of us a desire to care for our fellow man, beginning with our families and panning out.

But decisions of that nature must be free, in a free society.

[Cy]

What if we give them insurance under a federal mandate and the result is a drop in the quality of the health care itself?

I have a friend, more like an ex-friend, who is extremely liberal. She accuses me of being a closet conservative, sorta hate me for it. The one point where she abandons her liberal stripes is with health care. She does not want the health care system to be expanded to include everybody, because she says there is not enough health care capacity to go around, she doesn't want to degrade her own access.

Hell, at least she is honest. I think her opinion is typical, she is just more honest than many. I think this is the main holdup in expanding health care to all - the ones who have don't want to share.

How about someone as whacky as me. I think aging is a disease that we will beat in 30 years or less. I also think if we adopt a national health care system techno advances will nearly halt. Cancer cures will never be found. See cy's original post and apply it to healthcare. We could have had NHC back in 1968 when ted kennedy started us down that road....of course breast cancer would still kill most who got it and there would be no bioengineering based chemotherapy. Sure, the shortsighted and not so intelligent would be none the wiser, but fuck I would.

National healthcare insurance does not affect either NIH or CDC where most of the medical research is conducted. Labs still will want to make money no matter who is paying for health coverage and prestigious hospitals will still want to take the money they won't be forced to spend on indigent care and putting it into research. I just don't get the doomsday attitude. Every Nobel prize for research does not come out of the US you know. Teaching hospitals will still teach and lo and behold, the world will not implode if the Federal Government forms an insurance network and covers the 8 million people you say is too insignificant a number to worry about.

Cy: Ohhhh, so the whole "big pharmaceutical" thing was just a bugbear? Just a rhetorical device of the Dems to get the "little guy" worked up?

No, obviously big pharmaceutical is big, and that is because lots of money is going on with big pharmaceutical. Isn't that what is inherently wrong with that industry, according to the Libs?

Why is there lots of money in big pharma?

Because the investment in terms of research and time is extraordinary. Think about it. The net actual amount of physical resources put into a new drug could probably fit into your house, a chemical here and a chemical there put together.

But putting the right quantities of those chemicals together takes a brain far bigger than mine, and many others.

And attracting that brain to work for you rather than for Microsoft requires money, an investment in human intellectual capital.

And then spending the average of 15 years to discover, develop, and get FDA approval for, and then get your intellectual property protected from Canadian generic drugs, paying for lobbiests, etc, requires that -- in order for you to go into the project of finding a cure to cancer -- you have some assurance that your risk will be rewarded.

The government cannot compete on that level, and at near the efficiency. They simply cannot.

They cannot attract the brains with the same amount of competetive wages. Something would have to give somewhere -- either higher costs for the drugs they produce or higher taxes to fund whatever program is doing the research.

The only way they could attract those sort of brains is through forcing intelligent people with aptitude in sciences to work on the cure, as opposed to working for Microsoft.

But then, that would (a) take resources away from Microsoft that could potentially deliver something really cool, perhaps even as cool as the cure to cancer, or (b) lead to a product produced through coersion, which would necessarily -- if we have any appreciation for human nature -- be inefficiently produced, and thus, wastefully produced.

[MJZiggy]

National healthcare insurance does not affect either NIH or CDC where most of the medical research is conducted.....

Surprisingly, the NIH budget comes from the same source as any Federal health program - the Federal Budget. You add billions to the budget and sooner or later - even with increased taxes on business the rich (those making 250, 200, 140, 120, 70, 50, or 40 K - whatever it is this week) and all of the sudden, with decreasing revenues, you have a huge budget deficit, to the tune of 500billion to 1 trillion/year. Now, we can just keep borrowing and keep funding NIH research, but I'm guessing with huge mandates for free stuff, the NIH budget will get pinched. Also, you should know that the Dept. of defense also funds tons of research. Frank wants to reduce the military budget by 25%. Research will be one of the first things to go.

Could you please explain to me how ditching indigent care that the govt. has to cover so as not to bankrupt every hospital in the county in favor of an insurance network is going to bankrupt the country? Last I looked, the insurance companies were MAKING money doing this--and if you think the government runs every one of its programs without ever contracting anything out, I suggest you take a much longer look at USACE, DOT and USAID. Get over the doomsday. The country could actually profit from this and looking at the results of the last election, it seems to be policy that the people have spoken about--loudly.

[wist43]

Too bad none of it is Constitutional, i.e. none of it is even legal...

Ah, but that's right... who cares about the Constitution??? it only protects us FROM government.

Unbelievable. Really... I can't believe how ignorant you people are about how our Amercian system of government is supposed to work.

Katie bar the door... everybody's rights are up for grabs, everybody's money is up for grabs, everybody's property is up for grabs.

Wow

[MJZiggy]

How is subcontracting government services unconstitutional? It keeps a WHOLE lot of people employed. Now the DOT is unconstitutional?