[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Unfortunately you don’t have an economy which is run to benefit the public as a whole. You have an economy designed to benefit the shareholders above all else, no matter what the externalities are. You seem to prefer a fairyland where theories are the order of the day and their practical applications are ignored.
An institutional analysis dictates that companies like Pfizer need to do whatever is in their power to protect profits. Not letting adult stem cells come to fruition is one way to protect this. Very simple, if you will.
As a side note why do Americans pay twice as much as anyone else in the world for their healthcare and medical costs are the number 1 reason for bankruptcy? And people on here believe we have a model that is to be envied by others. If this model is so good why don’t other wealthy industrialized countries adopt it?
[/quote]
No “run” economy could ever benefit the public as a whole.
What powers, pray tell, does Pfizer have to prevent the research or adoption of new technology?
I don’t know if or why Americans pay twice as much as anyone else in the world for healthcare. Please explain and substantiate.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
No idiot it is you who doesn’t understand. We have a government by and for the corporations for the most part. If it was a governent by and for the people things would be much different.
[/quote]
Please explain what a government “by and for the people” would look like, if that’s not what we have. The people have certainly voted themselves this government.
I don’t want a government for either “the people” or “the corporations”. I would prefer a government that stays the hell out of the way of all, unless someone is violating someone else’s right to life, liberty, or property(I believe your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins-that kind of thing).
Please provide your views on what government should do.
Skyzyk, it seems improbable that a child could have joined this site over a decade ago and spent over $14,000 on Biotest products since that time, doesn’t it? And yet, it seems that is the case.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes cause my side is closer to the truth. That is what there primary concern is not profits. So if it comes from a side or journalist who isn’t motivated by profit it can’t be true?[/quote]
So let me see if I have this straight - being motivated by profit is a bad thing. There can be no truth when profit is one’s main objective. Is that your contention? I will assume that it is - given your unintelligible gibberish quoted above.
Being motivated politically means that one is more truthful and therefore more noble in his reasons for pushing his political motivations?
A simple yes or no will suffice. No need to use words you don’t understand or ones you can’t spell. Just yes or no. [/quote]
Let me give you a little lesson moron. Healthcare is a perfect example of how the profit motive is dangerous and inefficient. Adult stem cells cannot be patented so the pharmaceutical companies-who own the FDA- purposefully put up roadblocks to keep this from coming to market. Because the treatment works so much better than there garbage pharmaceuticals it represents a huge economic threat to their bottom line. So it pays to make people suffer. And just out of curiosity, since you’re a bonehead conservative, do you think GE is a socialsit style company?[/quote]
You failed.
This thing you do where you take a flying leap straight off of the cliff of rational though and head first into evil corporate conspiracy land is fucking hilarious, But you aren’t going to school anybody like that.
Especially not yourself, which is kinda sad.
[/quote]
So what I wrote is not true? So where are all the stem cell facilities in the U.S. and why are other countries whose healthcare is not run by corporations making great strides in this field?
You contribute nothing of substance here, as usual.[/quote]
They do not have the same regulatory constraints to work under as US researchers do, and by the way, what proof do you have that stem cell treatments are superior or even applicable to the conditions that standard pharmaceutical medications are used to treat?
And you don’t patent the actual stem cells. You patent the process by which they are produced. See definition of utility patent-
You do know that US based technology and companies do operate outside of the US, right?
[/quote]
Try most people that want to try this treatment have to go out of the U.S. The Stem Cell Institute in Panama City was started by a U.S. doctor because he was sick and tired of the roadblocks put up by the FDA to open up a clinic in the U.S. Vet Stem is a company located in San Diego that has been in business since 2002. They treat animals with there own fat derived stem cells, horses that have run in the Kentucky Derby and so forth. Over 10 years of business and no side effects. However, you can’t get this in our country because of the pharmaceutical companies and the economic threat it represents to them. It’s merely an institutional analysis of these corporations. You can reply with all of the right-wing free-market talking points you wish while others are getting treated successfully for diseases outside this country. You have provided nothing to counter reality only an ideology. It pays to make people suffer.[/quote]
Okey Dokey there Bambi! You go frolic in the woods now and don’t go filling your head with any factual or scientific gobletygook.
[/quote]
You contribute nothing of substance in your posts no evidence to support your mildly retarded beliefs just infantile sarcasm. Please just go away…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Unfortunately you don’t have an economy which is run to benefit the public as a whole. You have an economy designed to benefit the shareholders above all else, no matter what the externalities are. You seem to prefer a fairyland where theories are the order of the day and their practical applications are ignored.
An institutional analysis dictates that companies like Pfizer need to do whatever is in their power to protect profits. Not letting adult stem cells come to fruition is one way to protect this. Very simple, if you will.
As a side note why do Americans pay twice as much as anyone else in the world for their healthcare and medical costs are the number 1 reason for bankruptcy? And people on here believe we have a model that is to be envied by others. If this model is so good why don’t other wealthy industrialized countries adopt it?
[/quote]
No “run” economy could ever benefit the public as a whole.
What powers, pray tell, does Pfizer have to prevent the research or adoption of new technology?
I don’t know if or why Americans pay twice as much as anyone else in the world for healthcare. Please explain and substantiate.[/quote]
!.) A government that cracked down on corporations who do not pay taxes could use this money for infrastructure and put people to work all the while providing this country with needed overhaul of it’s roads and bridges. That would be a simple way to help “run” an economy for the benefit of the public good vs. shareholders of corporations. Quite simple if you think about it.
2.) The major pharmaceutical companies own the FDA. They are bound to protect their profits. Fat-derived stem cell treatments threaten this and must be stopped. Why doesn’t the U.S. have adult stem cell clinics while other countries are making great strides in this form of treatment? Eventually it will happen as the tide will rise too high for even these corporations to keep it from coming to market.
3.) This is common knowledge but I suppose since Rush Limbaugh didn’t tell you it must not be true. Explaination: this is market-based healthcare. The profit motive is not magical and doesn’t work in every market.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why don’t you provide some evidence, George? Is it that you can’t because you make no sense?[/quote]
Advice? What kind of ‘advice’ would you like me to give? You have demonstrated your colossal inability to comprehend even the most basic concepts of common sense.
And since ‘advice’ is predicated on understanding such concepts, my chances at success would be tenfold greater if, rather than giving you ‘advice’, I instead taught my mini-Australian Shepherd how to play the Blue Danube on an accordion.
[/quote]
Try reading it again. I never used the word advice.
[/quote]
I hate when I do that.
Evidence of what? That GE is a crony capitalist? Or evidence that you have no earthly idea what a crony capitalist is?
Your inability to grasp anything business-related suggests to me that you wouldn’t know evidence if it slapped you in the face and called you mommy. [/quote]
More drivel and nothing of substance from you. I know, I should be used to it.
Crony capitalism has little to do with my point. You act as if profits are not GE’s major concern. They own the so called lefty NYTimes. More proof that the propaganda model is alive and well. Fools believe that the NYTimes are liberal. Really? Is that why they led the drumbeat for the immoral Iraqi war? Or do you think it is because GE is a major defense contractor who make billions from wars? And please explain to me how GE is liberal?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why don’t you provide some evidence, George? Is it that you can’t because you make no sense?[/quote]
Advice? What kind of ‘advice’ would you like me to give? You have demonstrated your colossal inability to comprehend even the most basic concepts of common sense.
And since ‘advice’ is predicated on understanding such concepts, my chances at success would be tenfold greater if, rather than giving you ‘advice’, I instead taught my mini-Australian Shepherd how to play the Blue Danube on an accordion.
[/quote]
Try reading it again. I never used the word advice.
[/quote]
I hate when I do that.
Evidence of what? That GE is a crony capitalist? Or evidence that you have no earthly idea what a crony capitalist is?
Your inability to grasp anything business-related suggests to me that you wouldn’t know evidence if it slapped you in the face and called you mommy. [/quote]
More drivel and nothing of substance from you. I know, I should be used to it.
Crony capitalism has little to do with my point. You act as if profits are not GE’s major concern. They own the so called lefty NYTimes. More proof that the propaganda model is alive and well. Fools believe that the NYTimes are liberal. Really? Is that why they led the drumbeat for the immoral Iraqi war? Or do you think it is because GE is a major defense contractor who make billions from wars? And please explain to me how GE is liberal?[/quote]
If you knew what the hell it was, then you would know that crony capitalism has everything to do with your point, and everything you jsut said in this post.
But yeah - crony capitalism has nothing to do with anything.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Skyzyk, it seems improbable that a child could have joined this site over a decade ago and spent over $14,000 on Biotest products since that time, doesn’t it? And yet, it seems that is the case.[/quote]
Yeah. He joined the site when he was like 14 or so. Being a precocious kid, he thought he knew everything. As time went on he has progressed into knowing things that don’t even exist.
He must be the beneficiary of a trust fund or something. No one like him survives in this world unattended to or otherwise taken care of.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
!.) A government that cracked down on corporations who do not pay taxes could use this money for infrastructure and put people to work all the while providing this country with needed overhaul of it’s roads and bridges. That would be a simple way to help “run” an economy for the benefit of the public good vs. shareholders of corporations. Quite simple if you think about it.
2.) The major pharmaceutical companies own the FDA. They are bound to protect their profits. Fat-derived stem cell treatments threaten this and must be stopped. Why doesn’t the U.S. have adult stem cell clinics while other countries are making great strides in this form of treatment? Eventually it will happen as the tide will rise too high for even these corporations to keep it from coming to market.
3.) This is common knowledge but I suppose since Rush Limbaugh didn’t tell you it must not be true. Explaination: this is market-based healthcare. The profit motive is not magical and doesn’t work in every market.
So more taxes are needed? Our government is barely scraping by with what it already takes? Got it.
Do the major pharmaceutical companies pay taxes? If they do, then I suppose you can say they own the FDA(in the same way you and I do). That would seem to conflict with number one though.
I was under the impression that the FDA was part of the federal government, so before I learned the FDA is privately owned, my solution would have been to get the government out of the medical business.
I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the direct consumer cost of healthcare in those countries and American inmates’ healthcare costs. Our prison system seems to have really nailed the way to reduce healthcare costs.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
!.) A government that cracked down on corporations who do not pay taxes could use this money for infrastructure and put people to work all the while providing this country with needed overhaul of it’s roads and bridges. That would be a simple way to help “run” an economy for the benefit of the public good vs. shareholders of corporations. Quite simple if you think about it.
2.) The major pharmaceutical companies own the FDA. They are bound to protect their profits. Fat-derived stem cell treatments threaten this and must be stopped. Why doesn’t the U.S. have adult stem cell clinics while other countries are making great strides in this form of treatment? Eventually it will happen as the tide will rise too high for even these corporations to keep it from coming to market.
3.) This is common knowledge but I suppose since Rush Limbaugh didn’t tell you it must not be true. Explaination: this is market-based healthcare. The profit motive is not magical and doesn’t work in every market.
So more taxes are needed? Our government is barely scraping by with what it already takes? Got it.
Do the major pharmaceutical companies pay taxes? If they do, then I suppose you can say they own the FDA(in the same way you and I do). That would seem to conflict with number one though.
I was under the impression that the FDA was part of the federal government, so before I learned the FDA is privately owned, my solution would have been to get the government out of the medical business.
I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the direct consumer cost of healthcare in those countries and American inmates’ healthcare costs. Our prison system seems to have really nailed the way to reduce healthcare costs.[/quote]
You are so nieve that it is beyond reproach. To not know that corporations buy out the federal government is to be completely ignorant.
Our government is barely scraping by? Hmmm… now imagine if all those corporations were not allowed to hide their money offshore and had to pay taxes on it. But if you ay attention in the slightest you would know that these corporations send their hundreds of lobbyists to make sure the loopholes are there for them to do so under the veil of the law. But according to your reasoning this can’t happen because it is a government owned organization.
If you are really interested in reducing healthcare costs why not look at the way other countries keep their costs under control?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Skyzyk, it seems improbable that a child could have joined this site over a decade ago and spent over $14,000 on Biotest products since that time, doesn’t it? And yet, it seems that is the case.[/quote]
Yeah. He joined the site when he was like 14 or so. Being a precocious kid, he thought he knew everything. As time went on he has progressed into knowing things that don’t even exist.
He must be the beneficiary of a trust fund or something. No one like him survives in this world unattended to or otherwise taken care of.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why don’t you provide some evidence, George? Is it that you can’t because you make no sense?[/quote]
Advice? What kind of ‘advice’ would you like me to give? You have demonstrated your colossal inability to comprehend even the most basic concepts of common sense.
And since ‘advice’ is predicated on understanding such concepts, my chances at success would be tenfold greater if, rather than giving you ‘advice’, I instead taught my mini-Australian Shepherd how to play the Blue Danube on an accordion.
[/quote]
Try reading it again. I never used the word advice.
[/quote]
I hate when I do that.
Evidence of what? That GE is a crony capitalist? Or evidence that you have no earthly idea what a crony capitalist is?
Your inability to grasp anything business-related suggests to me that you wouldn’t know evidence if it slapped you in the face and called you mommy. [/quote]
More drivel and nothing of substance from you. I know, I should be used to it.
Crony capitalism has little to do with my point. You act as if profits are not GE’s major concern. They own the so called lefty NYTimes. More proof that the propaganda model is alive and well. Fools believe that the NYTimes are liberal. Really? Is that why they led the drumbeat for the immoral Iraqi war? Or do you think it is because GE is a major defense contractor who make billions from wars? And please explain to me how GE is liberal?[/quote]
If you knew what the hell it was, then you would know that crony capitalism has everything to do with your point, and everything you jsut said in this post.
But yeah - crony capitalism has nothing to do with anything.
You stupid dolt. [/quote]
No crony capitalism or monopolistic behavior has nothing to do with my point. If you could see beyond your right-wing ideology you might be able to open up your mind.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You are so nieve that it is beyond reproach. To not know that corporations buy out the federal government is to be completely ignorant.
Our government is barely scraping by? Hmmm… now imagine if all those corporations were not allowed to hide their money offshore and had to pay taxes on it. But if you ay attention in the slightest you would know that these corporations send their hundreds of lobbyists to make sure the loopholes are there for them to do so under the veil of the law. But according to your reasoning this can’t happen because it is a government owned organization.
If you are really interested in reducing healthcare costs why not look at the way other countries keep their costs under control?[/quote]
I am not familiar with the definition of this “nieve” you say I am. Please define it for me.
Again, you are arguing that the government is responsible for problems, not corporations. No business has any power to force anything on anyone else.
I’m not sure what you claim I say is a government owned organization. If you are talking about the FDA, then yes, it is part of the government.
I thought I had already indicated that I’m not primarily interested in reducing the costs of anything. I prefer an unobstructed market set prices.
Do you have any insight into the direct consumer cost of healthcare in all those countries vs. the price paid by inmates of our prison system for their healthcare?
No crony capitalism or monopolistic behavior has nothing to do with my point. If you could see beyond your right-wing ideology you might be able to open up your mind.
[/quote]
Open my mind to the idea that GE owns the NYT?
Are you confusing the NYT with NBC and/or MSNBC? GE used to own them, but unless I’ve been asleep for the last 30 years, GE never owned the NYT.
Aside from that - Until you can answer my question - I won’t be helping you with your homework, and you will be left to wallow in your own ignorance.
The funny thing is that drunkpig’s line of reasoning could (and probably will) be used to justify neo-malthusian theories and policies.
“Nothing is really sustainable, so we should just keep farming, hoping that some technological breakthrough will solve our problems”
can very easily become
“nothing is really sustainable, so let’s reduce the population and run a ressource based economy”.
It’s not only an economical problem, it’s a political one.
Maybe we won’t condemn our great grand-children to starvation.
But we may very well condemn them to eco-fascism.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t understand how you reconcile that in your mind.[/quote]
Because I have enjoyed universal health care my entire life, and it’s fucking awesome. It is better than private health care in every way, shape, and form, period.
I would never put my health care in the hands of an insurance company, and if any politician here even so much as speaks to the idea of health care privatization they are immediately committing political suicide.
The only thing worse than putting your health care in the hands of government administrators is putting your health care in the hands of a private insurance company.
[quote]This is the worst idea to come out of Washington in a long, long time. It sounds real good in stump speeches and gets the low information voter that can’t think, nor understands how interest rates work or what they are for all riled up.
Congratulations for buying into a massive scam, and possibly the dumbest move in a long long time. But shit you are in Canada, it isn’t dollars out of your pocket.[/quote]
The purpose of interest rates on student loans specifically, which are meant to be a social assistance program (at least in any civilized society) to ensure the working class have greater opportunity for self-advancement, are to cover the costs of administering the student loans. That’s it.
Um… Not so much. When the pay of the union employees comes from those same tax dollars, I’d venture to guess you’d get a similar “30 cents on the dollar” increase in GDP…
The money they are spending is tax taken from someone else, and in your example, themselves. Think. All that does is shuffle the money around, it doesn’t grow the pie.[/quote]
I suspect you would defend to the death the rights of financial institutions to bankrupt the world economy on CDO’s, which are literally shuffling money around in computers while accruing interest…
…but paying people to do real, necessary infrastructure work that has been neglected for years, even decades? Taking home their paycheques and making their mortgage payments, paying their taxes, their groceries, buying clothes, their car payments, fuel for the car, and the proven fact that these kinds of expenditures have a greater economic multiplier than do “tax breaks for X, Y, and Z type corporations”. That you call this “shuffling money around” is absolutely astounding.
[quote]
No you’re just making shit up. This is literally a complete and total fairy tale. “Finding Nemo” has more basis in reality than this statement, and that is a movie with talking fish.[/quote]
Excuse me then. “Then majority of the rich don’t even pay anywhere near equivalent rate of taxes as paid by the rest of the 99% of Americans”. They don’t pay their equivalent share. They get by on loopholes and special tax rates for ‘their’ special kind of income: dividends and cap gains. Taxes are for the little people, after all, is the motto of the wealthiest. How many trillions was it recently discovered are hidden in offshore accounts?
Ha! You have nothing. Absolutely nothing, and this proves it. That the majority of people struggle their entire lives to carve out their place in the economy while an elite few enjoy the overwhelming majority of ownership and profit in the economy simply due to birthright is indefensible no matter which way you try to re-frame it.
The fact that the people who repeatedly occupy the commanding heights of the public and private spheres come from generations of wealth is proof positive that social support systems benefiting the working masses at the expense of these elites are absolutely necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of everyone. They are vital and they must be protected by the participation of all citizens in the political process so that they do not get co-opted by the elites for their own profit.
…which is what has basically happened in America, and so Americans have a lot of work ahead of them.
[quote]
The problem is not that keynesian economics doesn’t work, it’s that politicians are doing it wrong. So horribly wrong.[/quote]
So the government is proven, over and over, they can’t use that model. Yet, for whatever reason you want them to keep trying? Why?[/quote]
Well I’m not sure why the American government particularly sucks at it, but it is definitely a structural problem and something you all should be working on.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The funny thing is that drunkpig’s line of reasoning could (and probably will) be used to justify neo-malthusian theories and policies.
“Nothing is really sustainable, so we should just keep farming, hoping that some technological breakthrough will solve our problems”
can very easily become
“nothing is really sustainable, so let’s reduce the population and run a ressource based economy”.
It’s not only an economical problem, it’s a political one.
Maybe we won’t condemn our great grand-children to starvation.
But we may very well condemn them to eco-fascism.
[/quote]
I’m afraid the eugenics/progressive crowd might have the malthusian crowd beat to the punch. They are already running our government. Kathy Sebelius is a known eugenics supporter. And she’s in charge of our healthcare.
So which is the greater satan? The killing of the old and the undesirable now, or the off chance that there might be forced population control in the distant future?
My stance on sustainability, rather the myth of anything being sustainable forever, is purely common sense. Given all of the things that need fixing in the here and now, it is a little presbyopic to concern ourselves with how long dirt will last.