[quote]pookie wrote:
Some of the more advanced, modern countries offer free universal healthcare to their citizens.[/quote]
Sorry Pookie, but universal health care is definitely not free. That being said, I’m probably one of the few conservatives on this forum that realizes the U.S. already has “universal” health care, it’s just a crappy system.[/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
Economic segments that do not yet have a market don’t operate at all, because of the lack of a market to operate in. Generally, such as with railroads or national highway systems, when they were new, it takes a huge act of government to create the initial systems or infrastructure to support the new types of economic activity.
[/quote]
JJ Hill built the only transcon railroad that didn’t go bankrupt. He did not rely on government ‘backing’ (aka robbing the taxpayers). From Wiki:
“What we want,” Hill is quoted as saying, “is the best possible line, shortest distance, lowest grades, and least curvature we can build. We do not care enough for Rocky Mountains scenery to spend a large sum of money developing it.” Hill got what he wanted, and in January 1893 his Great Northern Transcontinental Railway, running from St. Paul, Minnesota to Seattle, Washington ? more than 1,700 miles ? was completed. This was the only transcontinental built with neither public money nor land grants and was the only transcontinental that did not go bankrupt."
If embryonic stem cell research was worth a damn, private capital would be all over it. Government funding is simply a scheme to rob taxpayers and enrich criminals.
Headhunter
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There’s no such thing as FREE universal health care. Somebody has to pay. Taxation being the biggest avenue.[/quote]
Well duh.
“Free universal healthcare” is the name given to the system. You don’t pay per usage. And for the poorest of the poor, who pay little or no taxes; it is essentially free (for them, as it’s paid for by others.)
The point was that the end result is that anyone can get access to the care he requires, regardless of income level.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
This is true, but not in the case of medical research. Pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, etc all make a shit-load of money off the patients. So when it comes to medical research, free market has everything to do with it. And these companies should not get a free ride on R&D and then make a killing off the public. [/quote]
I’m not sure there is a market for cures, more so drugs that people can depend on for life and generate ongoing revenue streams with.
While market forces are very efficient, they do have weaknesses, such as valuing money above certain human realities.
However, there is something funky, in that I’m sure most people will support the use of patents, but those are themselves artificial creations used to skew the market in favor of innovation.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Sorry Pookie, but universal health care is definitely not free. That being said, I’m probably one of the few conservatives on this forum that realizes the U.S. already has “universal” health care, it’s just a crappy system.
[/quote]
Allow me to rephrase my point: Developing costly new treatments might only benefit those who can afford it in the US; but it can also benefit a lot of people who have access to publicly-funded universal health care.
Ergo, it is not useless to develop those treatments in the first place.
Better?
Limbaugh not far off on Fox, neurologist says
Published: Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Michael J. Fox in an advertisement for a Democratic Senate candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research.
Re: Oct. 28 editorial cartoon, showing Rush Limbaugh shouting into a radio microphone, with a technician saying, “He must be off his meds.”
There is no doubt that the U.S. radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh’s direct style and his own past medication issues make him an inviting target. And although he was, in all probability, technically inaccurate in accusing Michael J. Fox of “acting” in his recent political TV ad supporting a Democratic senatorial candidate, Mr. Limbaugh may have been very close to the mark.
As a neurologist with a large number of Parkinson’s disease patients, my impression of the video is that Mr. Fox displayed the poorly controlled “choreo-athetotic” movements seen when advanced Parkinson’s patients take their medication to turn “on” and emerge from their natural state of rigidity and rest tremor. At some point after taking a pill, a patient’s voluntary movements are freed up, without much excess involuntary movement.
The issue, then, is one of timing. Indeed, a few days after his political ad came out, Mr. Fox appeared at a Democratic event in Chicago with his movements under control, a situation he called “ironic.” Strangely, however, he seemed unable to appear controlled for a pre-taped TV ad a few days earlier, when the appropriate timing should have been easier, given the possibility of multiple “takes.” Lest this all sound too cynical, consider that Mr. Fox admitted in his 2002 autobiography to going off his medication to appear more disabled before a 1999 Senate subcommittee appearance.
Democratic party manipulation appears to go much further. In offering Mr. Fox as a spokesman, they have clearly hoped he would cut a sympathetic figure immune from criticism, and the faux outrage at Mr. Limbaugh’s comments seems to confirm this. While Mr. Fox deserves sympathy for this medical plight, he must assume full responsibility for his words and actions when he chooses to enter the political arena. By politicizing a medical issue, he is, in effect, saying that anyone who cares about new treatment hope for Parkinson’s disease patients must vote for the the Democratic candidate in Missouri – not coincidentally, a pivotal state in the upcoming election to control the U.S. Senate.
This is not only unfair, but absurd. Everyone, including Republicans, supports the many new treatments emerging for Parkinson’s patients that promise far more immediate application than do stem cells. Republicans also support stem cell research when it comes from ethically sound sources, such as adult tissues and umbilical cord blood. Ironically, these forms of stem cells have had greater success to date than the embryonic-source stem cells lionized in the Michael J. Fox TV ad.
Dr. Paul Ranalli, FRCPC, Toronto.
? National Post 2006
[quote]pookie wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Sorry Pookie, but universal health care is definitely not free. That being said, I’m probably one of the few conservatives on this forum that realizes the U.S. already has “universal” health care, it’s just a crappy system.
Allow me to rephrase my point: Developing costly new treatments might only benefit those who can afford it in the US; but it can also benefit a lot of people who have access to publicly-funded universal health care.
Ergo, it is not useless to develop those treatments in the first place.
Better?
[/quote]
I’ll have to apoligize for splitting hairs there Pookie, It’s just that some individuals don’t consider taxes as payment for anything.
As far as universal health care goes, I’m still quite on the fence. It all comes down to profit motive really. Like I said, “universal” health care is already in place. There isn’t an emergency room in the nation that will turn someone away, and not one ambulance unwilling to transport them.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I’ll have to apoligize for splitting hairs there Pookie, It’s just that some individuals don’t consider taxes as payment for anything.[/quote]
Children should be kept out of adult discussions.
That’s fine for emergency care. But unless I’m mistaken, the situation shown in the John Q. Public movie (yes, I know it’s contrived and pretty much a “worse-case” scenario) is still possible in the U.S. You could be denied some costly elective care if you’re not insured and cannot afford to pay for it, right?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If embryonic stem cell research was worth a damn, private capital would be all over it. Government funding is simply a scheme to rob taxpayers and enrich criminals.
Headhunter
[/quote]
obviously untrue, but scary the level of depth you don’t have in looking at these matters…obviously a trait you share with your avatar.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’d would think libertarians were proposing making private funding and research illegal. I’m pretty sure taxation and federal redistribution (federal funding) is the debate I myself have been engaged in. I don’t know, maybe that distinction isn’t so easily made by some.
I believe public funds should be used.
It is for the betterment of society as a whole that we do the best we can to help the sick and terminally ill.
Hell, Congress will only blow the money on Alaskan bridges and illegal wars anyway, so why not do something good for once.
How does it better society when Government funds research that helps to develop some cure or treatment that only the rich can afford? So when you say benefit society, you meant the upper class society. Ok, now I get it.
[/quote]
Hilariously dumb. What non-existant health insurance plan are you talking about? And given this is now a non-issue, do you now support funding?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Boy, oh boy. See response to Vroom.
Sorry we didn’t go in the direction you intended… maybe it had something to do with the general gist of the thread?[/quote]
Actually, I’d invite you to reread my post, which you’ve commented on. I quoted what I was responding to, the asthma vs. parkisons debate.
Feel free to donate funds to stem cell research. Feel free to adopt responsibility for someone else’s health-care. Just don’t use the government to force it upon us. Alot of other things can be forced upon us for the “common good.”
Nowadays, whenever I hear the phrase “common good,” I know someone is proposing bigger government and higher taxes. It seems that I rarely hear the phrase used, when speaking solely of private charity, anymore. Now I cringe everytime I hear it used.
[quote]pookie wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I’ll have to apoligize for splitting hairs there Pookie, It’s just that some individuals don’t consider taxes as payment for anything.
Children should be kept out of adult discussions.
As far as universal health care goes, I’m still quite on the fence. It all comes down to profit motive really. Like I said, “universal” health care is already in place. There isn’t an emergency room in the nation that will turn someone away, and not one ambulance unwilling to transport them.
That’s fine for emergency care. But unless I’m mistaken, the situation shown in the John Q. Public movie (yes, I know it’s contrived and pretty much a “worse-case” scenario) is still possible in the U.S. You could be denied some costly elective care if you’re not insured and cannot afford to pay for it, right?
[/quote]
I believe you are correct. It’s probably very "unconservative " of me, but I’ve never really been sold on health care with such a high profit motive.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’d would think libertarians were proposing making private funding and research illegal. I’m pretty sure taxation and federal redistribution (federal funding) is the debate I myself have been engaged in. I don’t know, maybe that distinction isn’t so easily made by some.
I believe public funds should be used.
It is for the betterment of society as a whole that we do the best we can to help the sick and terminally ill.
Hell, Congress will only blow the money on Alaskan bridges and illegal wars anyway, so why not do something good for once.
How does it better society when Government funds research that helps to develop some cure or treatment that only the rich can afford? So when you say benefit society, you meant the upper class society. Ok, now I get it.
Hilariously dumb. What non-existant health insurance plan are you talking about? And given this is now a non-issue, do you now support funding?[/quote]
You need to start using a few brain cells there Bro. You think health insurance grows on trees? Do you think we would even need health insurance if healthcare were priced like all the other consumer goods/services?
You are a retard! The entire reason healthcare requires insurance is because it is priced outside the average person’s ability to pay. Not because it actually costs more to develop than other technologies, but because no one gets emotional about the auto industry, or the movie industry, etc it it allowed to be high.
It takes millions to produce some movies, but you don’t need insurance to afford to go see the result of all that work, time, and money.
The point is that healthcare costs are high because they are allowed to be high. This is why you can buy name brand drugs in Mexico 50-75% cheaper than in the States. Because the pharmaceutical companies know we have insurance and we will pay whatever is required to get the life-saving drugs. But in Mexico, they will not pay those high prices so the prices are not high.
Wake up!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’d would think libertarians were proposing making private funding and research illegal. I’m pretty sure taxation and federal redistribution (federal funding) is the debate I myself have been engaged in. I don’t know, maybe that distinction isn’t so easily made by some.
I believe public funds should be used.
It is for the betterment of society as a whole that we do the best we can to help the sick and terminally ill.
Hell, Congress will only blow the money on Alaskan bridges and illegal wars anyway, so why not do something good for once.
How does it better society when Government funds research that helps to develop some cure or treatment that only the rich can afford? So when you say benefit society, you meant the upper class society. Ok, now I get it.
First of all, you don’t have to be rich to have healthcare. I know many working class people that have healthcare, even at tremendous expense to themselves, because it is so necessary in the US.
Secondly, just because you think that it will only help the rich (which is absolutely untrue), it shouldn’t be developed?
Makes me glad that Jonas Salk was a little brighter than you are.[/quote]
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be developed. I’m saying that if the research is funded by our taxes we should not have to pay for it again later.
[quote]pookie wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I’ll have to apoligize for splitting hairs there Pookie, It’s just that some individuals don’t consider taxes as payment for anything.
Children should be kept out of adult discussions.
As far as universal health care goes, I’m still quite on the fence. It all comes down to profit motive really. Like I said, “universal” health care is already in place. There isn’t an emergency room in the nation that will turn someone away, and not one ambulance unwilling to transport them.
That’s fine for emergency care. But unless I’m mistaken, the situation shown in the John Q. Public movie (yes, I know it’s contrived and pretty much a “worse-case” scenario) is still possible in the U.S. You could be denied some costly elective care if you’re not insured and cannot afford to pay for it, right?
[/quote]
My point exactly. And if taxes went to fund that research the cost of the treatment/drug should not be so expensive to not allow the average guy to get it, with or without insurance.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Because the pharmaceutical companies know we have insurance and we will pay whatever is required to get the life-saving drugs. But in Mexico, they will not pay those high prices so the prices are not high.
Wake up!
[/quote]
This point about insurance is very good. I read recently that home inspectors carrying E&O insurance versus inspectors that just carry general liability & bonding get sued alot more.
Why?
Because certain individuals realize that carrying that level of insurance means deep pockets. With almost all insurance companies settling for a ridiculas amount just to go away, it’s usually a good bet for the plaintif.
My point is that I agree 100% w/r/t your point on isurance. It’s like a job estimate going up just because it’s for a government entity.
Deregulate. Oh, and big time malpractice/tort reform.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
It’s like a job estimate going up just because it’s for a government entity.
[/quote]
There are legit reasons for pricing a job up when estimating for the government.
They change the rules. They don’t become a “satisfied” customer in that you need to rebid frequently after acquiring additional resources and staff to handle the contract.
They often won’t purchase as much as they said they would in the timeframe the said either. Basically, if you don’t leave a cushion, it can be damaging to win a government contract.
Often, it is the small hungry company that might win on a low bid and then get strangled as the government screws around, non-maliciously for sure, leaving them up shit creek.
[/rant]
Back on topic, I really can’t see picking on a guy who actually has the disease. I mean, the problem is that it’s obviously an effective ad.
The tactic of attacking anything effective is not a good one here… it just makes conservatives look evil. At the very least, it throws away the concept of “compassionate conservatives”. Oops!
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
pookie wrote:
Some of the more advanced, modern countries offer free universal healthcare to their citizens.
Sorry Pookie, but universal health care is definitely not free. That being said, I’m probably one of the few conservatives on this forum that realizes the U.S. already has “universal” health care, it’s just a crappy system.
[/quote]
Our current “universal” healthcare system is the most expensive in the world.