More referring to the concept of a “can’t live without it” service and the potential for crippling snowball prices and very little competition.
I actually had a conversation with my wife the other day about something similar to this. I would argue with every breath that energy efficiency products have all been huge utilities innovations. I mean hell when I was a kid a lightbulb would last 8 months. I bought a pack the other day that said average lifespan 10-13 YEARS.
Not to sound cyncial, but we’ve already got massive overpopulation problems all over the place. With our (globally) scaling population we’ll probably have a war over food in my lifetime or my kids.
How much innovation truly NEEDS to happen in HC that single payer would eliminate? I would argue any system that encourages preventative care is a huge step in the right direction. Our current system doesn’t do this in any way
Edit: not to say that I don’t understand the inherent problem of America subsidizing the world’s health research and that going away. But I think that, like defense spending, if we scaled back our spending other countries will compensate
Did you or did you not refer to people crying over spilled milk as an answer to why Big Pharma lobbied against legalization of medicinal cannabis? You honestly think that is an answer? Maybe this is another example of you decimating one of my points. I know you are just doing what decades of propaganda have instructed you to do.
So show me the studies that render single-payer healthcare cost statistics useless. Seeing how these studies were done so long ago, it makes them useless.
2+2=5 might be a belief system, but it is wrong and ought to be discarded. If there is evidence showing the inferiority of single-payer it should be shown. Do the studies I post account for all of the nuances? No. But do you honestly believe they move the needle that much to render those studies as useless? Because I don’t. If I’m wrong show me and tell me of the metrics used.
This is also NORMAL AND EXPECTED. When you transition from a model where prices can keep segments of people out of being potential customers (cost) TOWARDS a single payer everyone is covered approach, you simply have a lot more warm bodies to take care of.
I disagree, with all of the tax cuts we have a revenue problem. Corporate subsidies are a problem. The bloated military budget is a problem. But since the politicians are in bed with their donors it is unlikely to stop. Unless money is gotten out of politics. Another point I’d like to bring up is the criticism of ACA. This was modeled on Romneycare, codified by The Heritage Foundation and first mentioned by President Nixon. A thouroughly Republican idea. But since it was championed by a Democrat it is wrong. This criticism just goes to show the dishonesty of the politicians. Willing to attack their own ideas because it is associated with a Democratic President. How pathetic. Can you imagine the conservative pundits like Hannity if 9/11 happened on a Democrats watch and a Republican President killed Bin Laden. Man the spin that would have generated. I can imagine it now. Even on this forum with the amount of dolts that post on here.
The “except ifs” of the ACA doomed it to fail. The Dems were so keen to get it in place they gave up too much and underestimated the consequences.
It was also a blatant overreach of power, and imo should have been outside the scope of POTUS to do. I personally strongly disagree with Obama’s methods to bring ACA to light. I voted for Obama twice.
Innovation is being stifled by the current system. If a profit is being threatened then it’s time to protect a market. Money is THE most important thing in our healthcare system, not helping people.
Here is UFC fighter TJ Dillishaw explaining how he has been suffering for 6 years with Psoriasis-a skin disease. Not as serious as some of the other diseases they routinely treat, such as MS, Cerebal Palsy etc. But the condition was completely gone in months. No monthly expense for medications. So the cash flow spigot for Big Pharma is turned off. Any questions? But maybe Dillishaw is just a paid lackey and is lying for a paycheck?
Net Spending per capita
USA - 2,504
China - $303
Japan - $1,763
Germany - surplus
France - $1165
America ABSOLUTELY has a spending problem. We bring in more money than the 2nd and 3rd global countries combined, with like 1/5th the population.
No shit. It’s called capitalism. If you don’t like it, move to China. Money makes the world go round.
This shit again? You live in fuckin Florida man. You’re mainland USA. Did you not once leave your basement in the last 20 years? The enemy of stem cell research is the anti abortion crowd. The public just doesn’t fucking care to educate themselves on this kind of stuff. And whackadoodles like you only hurt the cause.
The Republican platform also expressed support for non-embryonic fields of stem cell research, but was clear in its opposition to embryonic stem cell research: “We oppose embryonic stem cell research. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. We support adult stem cell research and urge the restoration of the national placental stem cell bank created by President George H.W. Bush but abolished by his Democrat successor, President Bill Clinton. We oppose federal funding for harvesting embryos and call for a ban on human cloning.”
It’s not that complicated. Low information population with talking points and anti abortion screaming whenever stem cells are brought up.
Yes, maybe embryonic stem cell but not adult, where most of the research is being done. Speaking about someone not leaving a basement. You do not know this? How long have you not been paying attention?
Adult Stem Cell research is fully supported by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church unequivocally opposes human embryonic stem cell research.
Please show me proof that the anti-abortion crowd is against adult-stem cells.
So I ought not try and call for this system in the U.S. to be changed? If people have to suffer to make this system functional, is it really worth having? Can we not do better?
You don’t care, because you can’t as it undermines your economic ideology.
And If the pharma industry would have gotten it’s way, the public would have suffered. But hey, public suffering is no big deal so why should you care?
