Did Public Television Commit Self-Censorship to Appease Billionaire Funder David Koch?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Sources: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/01/us-healthcare-costs-sb-idUSTRE5504Z320090601

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/medicare-versus-insurers/

Not even sure why I bother to list sources as it doesn’t matter to you unless they are countingbeans approved. Evidence means nothing to you as you need to mold the truth to fit your ideology.

Why is Medicare so much less expensive than private pay for fee services you covet so much? It exists in this country where the population, environment and diets are the same. So your argument holds no water. And do you really think those who get Medicare would love to switch to the private healthcare? You know they do have that option. Funny how no one wants the supreme benefits of the market-based U.S. healthcare system that you tout so much in your replies.

No my contention is that government has some responsibilities and for them to demand that corporations prove their services or products are safe for sale and profit is the right thing to do. Not the other way around like you feel.

Try The Stem Cell Institute in Panama. So Panama has a more advanced medical field than the U.S. Why?

Your questions of why healthcare in the U.S. is higher doesn’t hold water. Are you telling me these are the reasons why we spend twice as much as every other country in the world? Is the U.S. full of aliens? Are the circumstances that much different to cause this lopsided cost? And what of Medicare? Why aren’t those costs skyrocketing? The folks who receive Medicare live in the same country as those who are bound to the most expensive healthcare system in the world. Why the difference? And I expect everything to be sourced. Not just because you say so…
[/quote]

You do understand those numbers mean little to nothing by themselves, right?

Per capita healthcare expenses could be, and most likely are, due to greater healthcare usage.

Lower cost per beneficiary does not mean the healthcare is cheaper. That number could very well mean that taxpayers are forking over huge amounts of money to subsidize the healthcare costs of non-taxpayers. The cost of food to American foodstamp beneficiaries is pretty low, but that doesn’t make that food any cheaper.

42

[quote]NickViar wrote:

You do understand those numbers mean little to nothing by themselves, right?

Per capita healthcare expenses could be, and most likely are, due to greater healthcare usage.

Lower cost per beneficiary does not mean the healthcare is cheaper. That number could very well mean that taxpayers are forking over huge amounts of money to subsidize the healthcare costs of non-taxpayers. The cost of food to American foodstamp beneficiaries is pretty low, but that doesn’t make that food any cheaper.[/quote]

Logic and reason? How dare you.

Let me respond for Zep: You are blinded by your ideology.

It is his favorite response. You know, he might be a cleverbot.

43

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
beans I don’t know why you bother. he started a thread on public tv, and started a market economy/productivity/wage debate but veered to healthcare instead of staying on topic when you replied to him. that was a misdirection on his part. He was expanding the debate to avoid the subject.

Zep, what is the monetary cost of these immoral wars to the US gov’t?[/quote]

As far as hijacking my own thread maybe I should give you an example of the bad news of corporate control over media sources. In the late mid to late 70’s Indonesia invaded East Timor. The U.S. backed Indonesia’s leader and the defense contractors made millions possibly billions off of selling war machinery to Indonesia. They invaded and other countries newspapers called the level of violence genocide. Not barely a peep out of U.S. news sources of the violence. Only from other countries who weren’t making a buck off the death of the East Timorese. In fact the news coverage went down to zero when the violence reached it’s pinnacle. However, U.S. news sources commented tremendously on the Pol Pot massacre because it didn’t serve their purposes. So here we have a paired example of accepted an non-accepted genocides. Do you think it’s acceptable for American defense contractors to make money off the deaths of innocent people?[/quote]

I don’t hold the hijacking of your own thread against you, if anybody deserves to be able to hijack a thread at will it’s the original maker of the thread. I was talking about using that change of topic to deliberately avoid viable and productive debate. It’s a marginal fallacy, not only one of logic but one also of tactics–it wins you no points and you cannot win a debate by throwing red herrings out while siimultaneously expanding or changing the subject of debate. If you want to debate a topic then stay on the questions asked. If you want a soap box just do whatever you want but don’t pretend to claim victory OR the high intellectual ground after knocking the pieces all down and shitting on the game board. You want to claim the high ground that comes with some responsibility.

Speaking of which–you didn’t answer my question: what is the cost of these immoral wars you speak of and source? I would prefer a breakdown of both Iraq and Afghanistan separately, but I will play with a lump sum as long as I have a source and the list of wars included in the financial figure.

I am not going to respond to your distraction technique of avoiding my question and changing the subject here. Stay on topic if you want to talk about it, otherwise just admit you’re on a rant/soap box and it will be fine.

44

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
beans I don’t know why you bother. he started a thread on public tv, and started a market economy/productivity/wage debate but veered to healthcare instead of staying on topic when you replied to him. that was a misdirection on his part. He was expanding the debate to avoid the subject.

Zep, what is the monetary cost of these immoral wars to the US gov’t?[/quote]

As far as hijacking my own thread maybe I should give you an example of the bad news of corporate control over media sources. In the late mid to late 70’s Indonesia invaded East Timor. The U.S. backed Indonesia’s leader and the defense contractors made millions possibly billions off of selling war machinery to Indonesia. They invaded and other countries newspapers called the level of violence genocide. Not barely a peep out of U.S. news sources of the violence. Only from other countries who weren’t making a buck off the death of the East Timorese. In fact the news coverage went down to zero when the violence reached it’s pinnacle. However, U.S. news sources commented tremendously on the Pol Pot massacre because it didn’t serve their purposes. So here we have a paired example of accepted an non-accepted genocides. Do you think it’s acceptable for American defense contractors to make money off the deaths of innocent people?[/quote]

As far as your actual comment on the Timor occupation, you are bordering on conspiracy theory style history here if not simply just shoddy scholarship. No, it is not moral for people to profit from the death of innocents. HOWEVER, you are ignoring the geopolitical atmosphere and the reasons we actually supported Indonesia at the time. Nor were we the only ones. I will tell you this: it was NOT an economic decision/conspiracy for the defense contractors to make money. We supported even worse regimes throughout the entirety of the latter half of the 20th century for reasons entirely devoid of economic gain. International politics isn’t a pretty game or an altruistic game. That doesn’t make it moral, but your assessment of attributing the lack of outcry to economic conspiracy driven by “big business control of news” is pretty much laughable. And for your information, news was incredibly, incredibly LESS monopolistic than the news corps we have today on 24/7 outlets. There were more papers, under more differing owners, with more variable and widely spread opinions among writers and editors.

45

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Try The Stem Cell Institute in Panama. So Panama has a more advanced medical field than the U.S. Why?

[/quote]

This argument is so laughable as to make my head hurt. You say that Panama has a more advanced medical field than the US based… on one, ONE treatment institute offering still experimental options? Ok, I can play that game. The United States has a better women’s olympic weightlifting system than Russia’s because Tara Nott won the gold medal in 2000 at Sydney… Oh wait, the Russians have like 20 times as many gold medals as we do in olympic weightlifting, let alone women’s weightlifting. Damn. Guess they still have a better system in place. Guess even a broken clock is on time occasionally.

See how absurd that is? Oh wait, no you don’t because you’re trolling and avoiding actual meritorious debate.

46

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Try The Stem Cell Institute in Panama. So Panama has a more advanced medical field than the U.S. Why?

[/quote]

This argument is so laughable as to make my head hurt. You say that Panama has a more advanced medical field than the US based… on one, ONE treatment institute offering still experimental options? Ok, I can play that game. The United States has a better women’s olympic weightlifting system than Russia’s because Tara Nott won the gold medal in 2000 at Sydney… Oh wait, the Russians have like 20 times as many gold medals as we do in olympic weightlifting, let alone women’s weightlifting. Damn. Guess they still have a better system in place. Guess even a broken clock is on time occasionally.

See how absurd that is? Oh wait, no you don’t because you’re trolling and avoiding actual meritorious debate.[/quote]

So the treatment is helping thousands of people with a myriad of symptoms and avoiding the garbage pharmaceuticals sold in the U.S. So they are only more advanced in treating plenty of life-threatening life-changing diseases. Forgive me. Where are these advancements in the superior U.S. healthcare system? You’d think all of this competition in our market-based system would be far more advanced than some hospital in Panama. But alas it is not. In this country these kind of treatments can only be performed on animals, not humans. Even though Vet Stem has been performing these on animals for over 10 years with little or no side effects. But with tremendous results.

This institute has more peer-reviewed studies on this particular subject than anyone else. These are not clinical studies. They have been and continue to treat people for these certain ailments. So it is not fair to say that this is experimental. It has been going on too long.

47

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Try The Stem Cell Institute in Panama. So Panama has a more advanced medical field than the U.S. Why?

[/quote]

This argument is so laughable as to make my head hurt. You say that Panama has a more advanced medical field than the US based… on one, ONE treatment institute offering still experimental options? Ok, I can play that game. The United States has a better women’s olympic weightlifting system than Russia’s because Tara Nott won the gold medal in 2000 at Sydney… Oh wait, the Russians have like 20 times as many gold medals as we do in olympic weightlifting, let alone women’s weightlifting. Damn. Guess they still have a better system in place. Guess even a broken clock is on time occasionally.

See how absurd that is? Oh wait, no you don’t because you’re trolling and avoiding actual meritorious debate.[/quote]

So the treatment is helping thousands of people with a myriad of symptoms and avoiding the garbage pharmaceuticals sold in the U.S. So they are only more advanced in treating plenty of life-threatening life-changing diseases. Forgive me. Where are these advancements in the superior U.S. healthcare system? You’d think all of this competition in our market-based system would be far more advanced than some hospital in Panama. But alas it is not. In this country these kind of treatments can only be performed on animals, not humans. Even though Vet Stem has been performing these on animals for over 10 years with little or no side effects. But with tremendous results.

This institute has more peer-reviewed studies on this particular subject than anyone else. These are not clinical studies. They have been and continue to treat people for these certain ailments. So it is not fair to say that this is experimental. It has been going on too long.[/quote]

It is perfectly fair to say it is experimental for a number of reasons. Different countries from Europe to Asia to South America have different standards on what they deem acceptable treatments for various illnesses and what they don’t. Some of them do in fact accept experimental treatments on a wide scale for certain diseases but not for others. Others are more restrictive. Again, there are a number of reasons why “experimental” is an appropriate label, but I don’t want to go into them because you’ve avoided too many questions from too many people myself included and I don’t want to cast pearls before swine.

In addition you neatly avoided the entire purpose of my satirical analogy. Finally, I assume that you would not take drugs for treatment since you continue to cry about “garbage pharmaceuticals” but never good ones. I can therefore only assume that you hold all drugs as “garbage” and therefore if you had cancer you would look to groundbreaking non-pharmaceutical treatment. Or perhaps you just like making ridiculous blanket statements.

Also, one of us has a graduate degree in research biochemistry and one of us does not. I most comfortable in my assessments of the science.

Please answer my question on the immoral wars instead of continuing to avoid it. Answering that is the only way I can even hope to keep taking you remotely seriously on anything. It’s no good debating something if you continue to keep changing subjects in order to avoid having to answer challenges.

If you don’t answer my questions or anybody else’s, don’t expect to be able to convince us of the truth of your non-corporate controlled news sources. In fact, expect to never be taken seriously on ANYTHING.

48

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
beans I don’t know why you bother. he started a thread on public tv, and started a market economy/productivity/wage debate but veered to healthcare instead of staying on topic when you replied to him. that was a misdirection on his part. He was expanding the debate to avoid the subject.

Zep, what is the monetary cost of these immoral wars to the US gov’t?[/quote]

As far as hijacking my own thread maybe I should give you an example of the bad news of corporate control over media sources. In the late mid to late 70’s Indonesia invaded East Timor. The U.S. backed Indonesia’s leader and the defense contractors made millions possibly billions off of selling war machinery to Indonesia. They invaded and other countries newspapers called the level of violence genocide. Not barely a peep out of U.S. news sources of the violence. Only from other countries who weren’t making a buck off the death of the East Timorese. In fact the news coverage went down to zero when the violence reached it’s pinnacle. However, U.S. news sources commented tremendously on the Pol Pot massacre because it didn’t serve their purposes. So here we have a paired example of accepted an non-accepted genocides. Do you think it’s acceptable for American defense contractors to make money off the deaths of innocent people?[/quote]

As far as your actual comment on the Timor occupation, you are bordering on conspiracy theory style history here if not simply just shoddy scholarship. No, it is not moral for people to profit from the death of innocents. HOWEVER, you are ignoring the geopolitical atmosphere and the reasons we actually supported Indonesia at the time. Nor were we the only ones. I will tell you this: it was NOT an economic decision/conspiracy for the defense contractors to make money. We supported even worse regimes throughout the entirety of the latter half of the 20th century for reasons entirely devoid of economic gain. International politics isn’t a pretty game or an altruistic game. That doesn’t make it moral, but your assessment of attributing the lack of outcry to economic conspiracy driven by “big business control of news” is pretty much laughable. And for your information, news was incredibly, incredibly LESS monopolistic than the news corps we have today on 24/7 outlets. There were more papers, under more differing owners, with more variable and widely spread opinions among writers and editors.

[/quote]
Unfortunately for you all this is documented. No conspiracy just business as usual. A institutional analysis. Yes the U.S. corporations profited from the deaths of innocent East Timorese. The Nixon crew gave them the go ahead to invade as soon as he and Kissenger flew out of the country. The invasion took place the next day. The U.S. knew what was going on but continued to supply him with weapons all the while keeping this off the front page. Not so with Pol Pots atrocities which was front and center. In Cambodia the U.S. was not in control and had no economic interest so it was safe to report and give off the impression that we were appalled. Not so with the genocide of East Timor where big oil fields were found. In fact the higher level of atrocity the less coverage in the news. Not even buried in the back pages where it usually was located.

The fact that you do not even know about this is evidence of the powerful effects of the propaganda system in the U.S.

So no, what I’m saying is not conspiratorial just the facts. Big money for defense contractors and big oil. Innocent people all the time die for profits. It is the history of the world. And just because other countries profited as well doesn’t excuse the actions of the major benefactor of these arms sales.

So why did we support Indonesia?

49

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Try The Stem Cell Institute in Panama. So Panama has a more advanced medical field than the U.S. Why?

[/quote]

This argument is so laughable as to make my head hurt. You say that Panama has a more advanced medical field than the US based… on one, ONE treatment institute offering still experimental options? Ok, I can play that game. The United States has a better women’s olympic weightlifting system than Russia’s because Tara Nott won the gold medal in 2000 at Sydney… Oh wait, the Russians have like 20 times as many gold medals as we do in olympic weightlifting, let alone women’s weightlifting. Damn. Guess they still have a better system in place. Guess even a broken clock is on time occasionally.

See how absurd that is? Oh wait, no you don’t because you’re trolling and avoiding actual meritorious debate.[/quote]

So the treatment is helping thousands of people with a myriad of symptoms and avoiding the garbage pharmaceuticals sold in the U.S. So they are only more advanced in treating plenty of life-threatening life-changing diseases. Forgive me. Where are these advancements in the superior U.S. healthcare system? You’d think all of this competition in our market-based system would be far more advanced than some hospital in Panama. But alas it is not. In this country these kind of treatments can only be performed on animals, not humans. Even though Vet Stem has been performing these on animals for over 10 years with little or no side effects. But with tremendous results.

This institute has more peer-reviewed studies on this particular subject than anyone else. These are not clinical studies. They have been and continue to treat people for these certain ailments. So it is not fair to say that this is experimental. It has been going on too long.[/quote]

It is perfectly fair to say it is experimental for a number of reasons. Different countries from Europe to Asia to South America have different standards on what they deem acceptable treatments for various illnesses and what they don’t. Some of them do in fact accept experimental treatments on a wide scale for certain diseases but not for others. Others are more restrictive. Again, there are a number of reasons why “experimental” is an appropriate label, but I don’t want to go into them because you’ve avoided too many questions from too many people myself included and I don’t want to cast pearls before swine.

In addition you neatly avoided the entire purpose of my satirical analogy. Finally, I assume that you would not take drugs for treatment since you continue to cry about “garbage pharmaceuticals” but never good ones. I can therefore only assume that you hold all drugs as “garbage” and therefore if you had cancer you would look to groundbreaking non-pharmaceutical treatment. Or perhaps you just like making ridiculous blanket statements.

Also, one of us has a graduate degree in research biochemistry and one of us does not. I most comfortable in my assessments of the science.

Please answer my question on the immoral wars instead of continuing to avoid it. Answering that is the only way I can even hope to keep taking you remotely seriously on anything. It’s no good debating something if you continue to keep changing subjects in order to avoid having to answer challenges.

If you don’t answer my questions or anybody else’s, don’t expect to be able to convince us of the truth of your non-corporate controlled news sources. In fact, expect to never be taken seriously on ANYTHING. [/quote]

No one is avoiding your question moron. So you don’t consider cherry-picking intelligence to support an administrations desire to go war and the blatant lying immoral? Please answer why this war was not immoral and how it wasn’t a lie. Please cite sources. And to the cost of it http://costofwar.com/ This amount could pay for universal healthcare and education. So we would have a more educated and healthier population with less hatred aimed towards this country.

If I was diagnosed with cancer I would not be receiving chemo and radiation treatments and would certainly look for alternative style treatments. At least I would have a chance. Traditional treatment is like a death sentence.

All of their cord blood is sourced and if you take the time to listen to those who have been treated you will see that their center is of the highest standard. Not in some back alley. When does it cease to be experimental? When they treat 5,000 people , when it’s available in the U.S.? Please answer.

50

No, you FUCKING RETARD. I did not say the war was not immoral. And i made NO MENTION of it as a lie or non-lie. A cursory reading of my posts with any greater intelligence than grade school level reading would in fact reveal that i said nothing th sort. Further i directly called the profiting off innocent deaths immoral.

So stop putting words in my mouth. This is why i can’t take you seriously. It’s not even that you disagree on policy or news, it’s that you avoid the questions asked by me and others–it only took you 2 bleeding pages to answer my ONE question after numerous evasions–and that you put words in my mouth either through deliberate intent or just plain trolling and i dont appreciate it.

Once again, if you want to be taken seriously, 1) dont avoid questions for pages or repeated posts 2) dont put words in people’s mouths 3) dont deliberately mis-take points written by others that you are fully aware of

51

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Not even sure why I bother to list sources as it doesn’t matter to you unless they are countingbeans approved.[/quote]

Ahhh. You start a new darealznewz.omg thread every other day, pot meet kettle.

Pot meet kettle

Did you read your own link?

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

â?¢According to CMS, for common benefits, Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.3 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.5 percent per year.

Then it goes on to say: the growth rate of all health care expenditures other than Medicare and Medicaid includes not just spending by private insurers, but also government programs and out-of-pocket costs paid by the uninsured.

So, what this means is that the two costs you are comparing aren’t even comparable. You are taking a limited pool, limited operation like Care and Caid and comparing it to a vastly larger, more complex pool of both users and administrators.

Medicare Has Lower Administrative Costs Than Private Plans.

Well no shit. They don’t have to advertise, compete for healthy people to join to cover costs, and don’t have the same regulatory limitations that private insures have. They don’t have to chase down people for payment, process invoices, pay payroll service fees, enroll people on a company by company basis, etc. In short they have significantly less to do.

According to hear about 50m people don’t have health insurance Number of people without health insurance in U.S. climbs - Sep. 13, 2011

(50m = 16.3% of 300m in America)

Add that to the 110 or so on government plan here http://cnsnews.com/news/article/medicaid-and-medicare-enrollees-now-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers

That is 160m. There are 300m people in America give or take. That leaves 140m people on private insurance…

So more people, broken up in more complex ways, with more regulation, and you wonder what admin costs are higher? lol

â?¢In most local markets, providers have monopoly power

This is due to government regulation. So ah… Can’t blame the insurance company for that.

Holds plenty of water. Nice try here though, mixing and matching my statements trying to catch shit sticking to the wall.

I assume you mean retirees here. I would assume cash flow has plenty to do with this choice. And seeing as they paid for it their entire working life, why should they switch? Medicare is also less complicated because they aren’t subject to the same regulation private insurers are, so there is that too…

Based on your powers of reason, please stop assuming you have any idea how I feel. You don’t even assume right when I spell it out in plain English.

Why is it the government’s responsibility to do this? Why can’t the citizens organize and do it themselves?

I’m not doing your research for you. This isn’t a source.

[/quote]
Okay so why not the Medicare model for everyone?

You marshall a list of questions as to why private health insurance in America may be more expensive but do not recognize or offer an alternative and give scant reasons why these differences make no effect on Medicare (a government run healthcare).

So your argument holds no water as these potential reasons for a most expensive healthcare doesn’t effect government healthcare. Same country.

What research are you talking about? You can simply go to their website and listen to their doctors and treated patients.

Why do other countries governments demand that a corporation prove that their product is safe for sale and profit before they are allowed to introduce a product to market. Your answer is that the public should police corporations first. How do you propose this to be done? And why can’t government do this? What are your valid reasons?

So cashflow has a lot to do with why retirees keep their Medicare instead of choosing the superior private med service. Why should our healthcare system be out of reach for retirees?

52

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
No, you FUCKING RETARD. I did not say the war was not immoral. And i made NO MENTION of it as a lie or non-lie. A cursory reading of my posts with any greater intelligence than grade school level reading would in fact reveal that i said nothing th sort. Further i directly called the profiting off innocent deaths immoral.

So stop putting words in my mouth. This is why i can’t take you seriously. It’s not even that you disagree on policy or news, it’s that you avoid the questions asked by me and others–it only took you 2 bleeding pages to answer my ONE question after numerous evasions–and that you put words in my mouth either through deliberate intent or just plain trolling and i dont appreciate it.

Once again, if you want to be taken seriously, 1) dont avoid questions for pages or repeated posts 2) dont put words in people’s mouths 3) dont deliberately mis-take points written by others that you are fully aware of[/quote]

No YOU FUCKING MORON you claim that it’s conspiratorial to say that war is supported by the U.S. for benefit (yes you said that in your reply-go look)
But yet give no evidence that the Iraqi war was not started on the basis of lies. So what is your contention of the Iraqi war? Was it moral or immoral and what were the reasons it was started? You admit that wars are immoral but no condemnation for the foreign policy of the country you live in. Just vague descriptions of the messiness of geo-politcal games.

53

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Okay so why not the Medicare model for everyone?

You marshall a list of questions as to why private health insurance in America may be more expensive but do not recognize or offer an alternative and give scant reasons why these differences make no effect on Medicare (a government run healthcare).

So your argument holds no water as these potential reasons for a most expensive healthcare doesn’t effect government healthcare. Same country.

What research are you talking about? You can simply go to their website and listen to their doctors and treated patients.

Why do other countries governments demand that a corporation prove that their product is safe for sale and profit before they are allowed to introduce a product to market. Your answer is that the public should police corporations first. How do you propose this to be done? And why can’t government do this? What are your valid reasons?

So cashflow has a lot to do with why retirees keep their Medicare instead of choosing the superior private med service. Why should our healthcare system be out of reach for retirees? [/quote]

  1. Someone has to pay for medicare. It can’t work for everyone.
  2. I’m not even sure what questions you’re asking countingbeans about here, but government can use taxpayers’ money to fund medicare and buy votes to whatever extent it wants.
  3. I also have no idea what research is being talked about, so I can’t offer an opinion or answer here.
  4. The public absolutely should be the group that “polices” corporations. This can be done by allowing the market and profit motive to work. Government can’t do this because it can support anybody it wants, for any reason(not necessarily because the product produced is good or desirable), and with almost unlimited funds forcibly taken from taxpayers. When a party is not motivated by profit(because it has no need for profit-it takes its money at gunpoint), it is motivated by pull(not altruism, as you seem to believe).
54

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Okay so why not the Medicare model for everyone?

You marshall a list of questions as to why private health insurance in America may be more expensive but do not recognize or offer an alternative and give scant reasons why these differences make no effect on Medicare (a government run healthcare).

So your argument holds no water as these potential reasons for a most expensive healthcare doesn’t effect government healthcare. Same country.

What research are you talking about? You can simply go to their website and listen to their doctors and treated patients.

Why do other countries governments demand that a corporation prove that their product is safe for sale and profit before they are allowed to introduce a product to market. Your answer is that the public should police corporations first. How do you propose this to be done? And why can’t government do this? What are your valid reasons
So cashflow has a lot to do with why retirees keep their Medicare instead of choosing the superior private med service. Why should our healthcare system be out of reach for retirees? [/quote]

  1. Someone has to pay for medicare. It can’t work for everyone.
  2. I’m not even sure what questions you’re asking countingbeans about here, but government can use taxpayers’ money to fund medicare and buy votes to whatever extent it wants.
  3. I also have no idea what research is being talked about, so I can’t offer an opinion or answer here.
  4. The public absolutely should be the group that “polices” corporations. This can be done by allowing the market and profit motive to work. Government can’t do this because it can support anybody it wants, for any reason(not necessarily because the product produced is good or desirable), and with almost unlimited funds forcibly taken from taxpayers. When a party is not motivated by profit(because it has no need for profit-it takes its money at gunpoint), it is motivated by pull(not altruism, as you seem to believe).[/quote]
    So why do other industrialized rich countries have a Medicare- like plan for everyone but you claim this cannot happen. How does it happen in other countries?

The profit motive is not magical and can actually be detrimental in some markets, healthcare is the perfect example. You can go to other countries to have cutting edge treatments like adult stem cell work but you cannot have it done in the U.S. as your fat-derived adult stem cells can not be patent yet. So Big Pharma makes the FDa drag it’s feet on this treatment because it has proven to be so much more effective with little to no side effects and it represents a huge economic threat to their bottom line as to what they offer - pharmaceuticals. So the profit motive here makes the public suffer because Big Pharma needs to keep it’s profits up. So much for the good of the profit motive.

Once companies become big enough they buy out Congress with their hundreds of lobbyists and help create monopolies. This in turn curtails freedom of choice so the public can’t choose, like adult stem cell therapy. Government is the only thing big enough to stop this. Vote 3rd party and have a soul!

55

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So why do other industrialized rich countries have a Medicare- like plan for everyone but you claim this cannot happen. How does it happen in other countries?

The profit motive is not magical and can actually be detrimental in some markets, healthcare is the perfect example. You can go to other countries to have cutting edge treatments like adult stem cell work but you cannot have it done in the U.S. as your fat-derived adult stem cells can not be patent yet. So Big Pharma makes the FDa drag it’s feet on this treatment because it has proven to be so much more effective with little to no side effects and it represents a huge economic threat to their bottom line as to what they offer - pharmaceuticals. So the profit motive here makes the public suffer because Big Pharma needs to keep it’s profits up. So much for the good of the profit motive.

Once companies become big enough they buy out Congress with their hundreds of lobbyists and help create monopolies. This in turn curtails freedom of choice so the public can’t choose, like adult stem cell therapy. Government is the only thing big enough to stop this. Vote 3rd party and have a soul!

[/quote]

I didn’t say it can’t happen. It is just not a good thing. Lots of things can happen, that doesn’t make them good. It happens in other countries the same way Hitler and Stalin killed their enemies. The people permit it.

The profit motive is not detrimental. I don’t know anything about stem cell technology, so I can neither support nor oppose it. If, as you say, the FDA is preventing stem cell research, then why do you want to further empower it? Assuming what you say is correct and “big pharma” is the reason we don’t use stem cell stuff, then why do you want to give “big pharma” more power? Obviously giving the government control over healthcare is not working. “Big pharma” couldn’t do anything about stem cell technology development without the government’s guns backing it. Assuming you are correct about the advantages of stem cells, it is not the profit motive causing the public to suffer, it is the government restricting freedom.(As a side note, “it’s” is a contraction for it is or it has, “its” is a possessive pronoun.)

After reading your third paragraph, I think this discussion is over. It’s been nice talking to you, Bambi, but before I leave, what third party do you support? You have been arguing with a proponent of a third party, but unless the Democratic Party is not quite communist enough for you, you seem to be in love with one of the two major parties in this country.

LMAO. Just imagine someone basically saying, “Companies can buy out government, and government is the only thing that can stop this. We must give government more power to enforce the will of companies.”

56

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So why do other industrialized rich countries have a Medicare- like plan for everyone but you claim this cannot happen. How does it happen in other countries?

The profit motive is not magical and can actually be detrimental in some markets, healthcare is the perfect example. You can go to other countries to have cutting edge treatments like adult stem cell work but you cannot have it done in the U.S. as your fat-derived adult stem cells can not be patent yet. So Big Pharma makes the FDa drag it’s feet on this treatment because it has proven to be so much more effective with little to no side effects and it represents a huge economic threat to their bottom line as to what they offer - pharmaceuticals. So the profit motive here makes the public suffer because Big Pharma needs to keep it’s profits up. So much for the good of the profit motive.

Once companies become big enough they buy out Congress with their hundreds of lobbyists and help create monopolies. This in turn curtails freedom of choice so the public can’t choose, like adult stem cell therapy. Government is the only thing big enough to stop this. Vote 3rd party and have a soul!

[/quote]

I didn’t say it can’t happen. It is just not a good thing. Lots of things can happen, that doesn’t make them good. It happens in other countries the same way Hitler and Stalin killed their enemies. The people permit it.

The profit motive is not detrimental. I don’t know anything about stem cell technology, so I can neither support nor oppose it. If, as you say, the FDA is preventing stem cell research, then why do you want to further empower it? Assuming what you say is correct and “big pharma” is the reason we don’t use stem cell stuff, then why do you want to give “big pharma” more power? Obviously giving the government control over healthcare is not working. “Big pharma” couldn’t do anything about stem cell technology development without the government’s guns backing it. Assuming you are correct about the advantages of stem cells, it is not the profit motive causing the public to suffer, it is the government restricting freedom.(As a side note, “it’s” is a contraction for it is or it has, “its” is a possessive pronoun.)

After reading your third paragraph, I think this discussion is over. It’s been nice talking to you, Bambi, but before I leave, what third party do you support? You have been arguing with a proponent of a third party, but unless the Democratic Party is not quite communist enough for you, you seem to be in love with one of the two major parties in this country.

LMAO. Just imagine someone basically saying, “Companies can buy out government, and government is the only thing that can stop this. We must give government more power to enforce the will of companies.”[/quote]
LMAO Just imagine if we get government completely out of the picture and the corporations can police themselves . No a government by the people for the people- sound familiar? Not by the corporations for the corporations. Citizens United needs to be over turned. You can see who owns the Supreme Court.

Any 3rd party is better than the Reps or Dems. They are both dead. Owned by corporations to do what is in their best interest not the public’s.

What is so obvious about the detriment of government run healthcare (Medicare?)

What is so spectacular about the pay for service system we have now? You don’t give a remedy for the problems you cite. If indeed government run healthcare is so bad what is the alternative? Do you thing our market-based system is working?

Laws need to be put into place to restrict Big Pharma and all corporations from being able to donate to political parties. No revolving door between government organizations and corporations. If you work for a corporation you are forbidden to go into government employment and visa versa. Conflict of interest.

Again government does what is in the best interest of corporations. It is in Big Pharma’s interest to keep adult stem cells from being common place as this represents a huge economic threat to them as this treatment works much better and is much safer than their garbage pharmaceuticals. Until they can figure out a way to patent it or until the public outcry’s are loud enough we will not see this being marketed and the public has to sufferAll because Big Pharma is concerned about their profits. An example of the perversion of the profit motive.

57

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
LMAO Just imagine if we get government completely out of the picture and the corporations can police themselves . No a government by the people for the people- sound familiar? [/quote]

*NSA mass data collection on all Americans.
*IRS targeting of specific groups based on political leanings.
*IRS wasting 50 million over 2 years on conferences.
*Americans killed in foreign lands (Libya) without an explanation.
*Clinton on Libya, “what does it matter?”
*Holder - shit, basically everything he does day to day.
*Obama, has done almost nothing he said he’d do in 2012 let alone 2008. Oh the ACA.
*ACA: Individual plans up 88% Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent
Insurance Analysts: Obamacare to Increase Out-of-Pocket Premium Costs, Despite Lavish Subsidies

I’m probably missing like 50 things. So, what part of this government exactly is run, “by the people for the people?”

58

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
LMAO Just imagine if we get government completely out of the picture and the corporations can police themselves . No a government by the people for the people- sound familiar? [/quote]

*NSA mass data collection on all Americans.
*IRS targeting of specific groups based on political leanings.
*IRS wasting 50 million over 2 years on conferences.
*Americans killed in foreign lands (Libya) without an explanation.
*Clinton on Libya, “what does it matter?”
*Holder - shit, basically everything he does day to day.
*Obama, has done almost nothing he said he’d do in 2012 let alone 2008. Oh the ACA.
*ACA: Individual plans up 88% Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent
Insurance Analysts: Obamacare to Increase Out-of-Pocket Premium Costs, Despite Lavish Subsidies

I’m probably missing like 50 things. So, what part of this government exactly is run, “by the people for the people?”

[/quote]
It isn’t run for the people that is the point!!

59

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Okay so why not the Medicare model for everyone?[/quote]

Because I don’t want a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in the pockets of mega-donors choosing which health services I can or cannot have covered by my insurance.

Because you can’t follow simple logic, doesn’t mean the list of questions doesn’t obviously point out reasons. As for alternatives, you would have to provide any substance in your posts beyond lefty talking points for me to offer one.

[quote]and give scant reasons why these differences make no effect on Medicare (a government run healthcare).
[/quote]

Just lol.

I already started to break this down based on limited factors, even if I took the time to continue, you wouldn’t listen.

Um no… Their own website isn’t a creditable source. How about a medical journal with peer review?

That was NOT my answer, in fact you’re putting words in my mouth.

How do I propose this be done? Do you pay attention to politics? Why not have a “think tank” focused on showing what certain companies do, so people can choose where to spend their money, not have the government tell them where to spend their money.

I’m not 100% opposed to things like the FDA, ect given the ideals under which they are created. I am opposed to the current state of those type programs.

Who says it is out of reach. I think my grandfathers medicare bill was like 1,600 this year. Lets assume that for the sake of argument.

So he retires at 67 and lives 20 years, that is 32,000 in health “insurance costs”. Now lets assume he worked for 50 years and averaged 35k a year. That is about 25k throughout his lifetime he has paid in. (35k x .0145 x 50 years) So in total he will have paid about 57k or 2,850 a year for the time he uses medicare. So tell me this, seeing as he has already paid in all that, which doesn’t include some medications, co-pays, certain treatments or inflation, why should he pay more? (I’m sure you can extrapolate how much more someone who averages a higher salary a year pays in total.)

60

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you work for a corporation you are forbidden to go into government employment and visa versa. [/quote]

LOL

So ridiculous…