You really think THAT’S the reason we don’t have universal healthcare??
Also, in case you were not aware–and I know you were because you’ve been told this in another of your threads–the major pharmaceutical companies are present in ALL the developed worlds. In fact 7 out of the top 15 pharm companies aren’t even American companies and aren’t headquartered in the US either.
If people love the ACA that much, imagine what single-payer will do.
There’s a substantial difference between single payer–which I do not support for various reasons, and which has zero chance of ever being implemented in the US in the foreseeable future–and govt-provided universal basic care for all (which I do support).
If true this was brought to you by the status quo media. The ones who were against Sanders because they were afraid that his message would diminish their power and money
I remember all the talking heads were predicting a Clinton victory as Trump was somewhat of an outsider. So the establishment got behind Clinton, including some influential Republicans i.e. Bush.
And the polls that had Clinton ahead had Sanders more ahead of Trump more than Clinton.
Do Pharma co.'s in other countries with Universal healthcare have the same sway over the healthcare system as they do in this country?
Do you deny this?
Do I deny what? You asked me a question here you didn’t make a statement to me.
You argued that the US is the only industrialized country without universal healthcare because Big Pharma controls law makers.
I pointed out that Big Pharma is headquartered all over the WORLD, not just the US, and that half of all the top 15 revenue generating pharma companies are NON US companies headquartered somewhere else.
If Big Pharma buying politicians were the reason, then these other countries with the top Pharma companies in the world would also control lawmakers, because Big Pharma companies existed prior to most of these universal healthcare systems you speak of.
Which leads us to a new word. That word is Wronger.
ex. The polls that were wrong about Clinton were even Wronger about Sanders.
So there you have it. A new word for you to be about things.
This is what socialized medicine looks like. Doctors and courts have all of the power. Parents who want to try an experimental treatment with a small chance to save their child, are not allowed.
This is what you are advocating for. You bastard.
So if Big Pharma money(worried about their profits) isn’t the reason what is? Most Americans are in favor of single-payer. And the political time is right for this to actually happen.
Man you can’t stand the fact that your dessicated political philosophy is losing.
Single-payer is not socialized medicine. So people can’t choose their treatments. Sounds like the U.S. where people can’t have their own stem cells multiplied to treat a disease. Even when all conventional methods have failed. And this isn’t a small chance of survival. This treatment has shown powerful healing powers with certain diseases. While tens of thousands of people are having positive outcomes, people from the U.S. have to travel outside this country to be treated.
So are you advocating the same system that forces people to suffer so that pharma can make more money? You bastard.
You ought to know the differences. Universal Health Care and Socialized Medicine
One of the big players is that we have a fundamentally different culture and value system than other countries.
L O fucking L
In the US you are free to choose a treatment or fly to another nation if you want. These Docs and courts are telling this family that they can’t try a hail Mary to save their kid. They won’t even let the parents bring the child home to die at home.
The state owns their child. They have no agency and no recourse. That is not okay. If someone tried to pull that with me I’d be back in an hour with 25 mercs at my back taking my child to get treatment.
Stop it with the Big Pharma whining. Everywhere medicine is used somebody is making money. That includes your pet socialist nations.
Mine is losing?
Losing what? The last election?
Talk about desiccated political philosophies- The closest to any candidates your affiliations could come up with was a career criminal and and abysmal failure (thank god for that) of a socialist. Both of which look like freeze dried corpses that didn’t quite make through a reanimation experiment. Now they just stumble about mumbling about like zombies looking for tax dollars instead of brains.
Only 25% are strongly in favor of a “public option”, which is not single-payer.
Same deal with a federally funded system:
More people support selling insurance across state lines = more competition = free market.
Try reading what you post.
This is actually not the panacea it is made out to be.
Yeah, I’ve kinda come over towards that side of the road. The barriers to entry are high. However I think it should be tried–there is too much artificial splitting up of regions and I believe that is bad for everybody. And nobody is as capable of overcoming high barriers to entry than large well funded corporations.
Hadn’t read that, but ran across this awhile back.
And @EyeDentist - agreed, it is no panacea. It would be so (maybe) if everyone started competing at the same time in an open market, but with entrenched relationships and market share already captured by big insurers already, new market entrants are going to have a Hell of a time actually penetrating said market.
And, as this article points out, insurers that have big market shares in local markets with local providers have the necessary leverage to grind providers’ prices down. Ok, true enough, but in reality those cost savings are not translating into reduced premiums for the consumer - insurers are pocketing the savings.
The ACA tried to deal with that some by limiting the amount of money big insurers could take as profit - yes, you can stay big and use your power to get lower prices from providers, but you can’t pocket all the savings. Not sure what the data are saying about how that is playing out.
