[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why would American drug companies not be able to sell drugs to Americans? If we copy this aspect of Canada, Canada's drug companies are private. Medicare does not cover drugs.

Sorry, I missed this response.

As this whole discussion has been about government control, your question implied you were talking about altering the current situation.

If your question is how would things be different if we switch to Canada's system for drugs, which also happens to be more or less the same system as ours, the answer is there would be negligible change.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sorry, I missed this response.

As this whole discussion has been about government control, your question implied you were talking about altering the current situation.

If your question is how would things be different if we switch to Canada's system for drugs, which also happens to be more or less the same system as ours, the answer is there would be negligible change.

I arrived at the same conclusion. So, under such system, where is there a loss in profits?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

How does moving mean giving up the market? It only means that a market was once national for you is now international.

Likewise, I'm not sure what you think makes the U.S. the "largest" market. It's obviously not population, otherwise China would be the largest market. Our market is large because of its profitability. If you make it less profitable, that is equivalent to reducing the size of the market.

I mean largest in the sense of dollars spent. I fail to see what you're getting at here - why would you move to SA, and who would care? I'm not certain you understand, so unless you start to show some basic knowledge of healthcare economics, this is over as far as I'm concerned.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I arrived at the same conclusion. So, under such system, where is there a loss in profits?

In procedures not based on drugs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

In procedures not based on drugs.

Where does that research occur? In Universities and possibly some private companies. What's the difference?

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

why would you move to SA

If the system changed to make the amount of dollars spent in the US less, the US becomes a smaller market. If the market becomes too small there is no longer any value in staying within it.

You do realize I have been answering a hypothetical question about what would happen if you moved drug companies off of a capitalistic model? At least, that's what I thought the question was, it does look like I misunderstood the initial question.

Originally Posted by peeb 

this is over as far as I'm concerned.

Please stay. I don't know how long I'll last without your personal attacks.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where does that research occur? In Universities and possibly some private companies. What's the difference?

Possibly some private companies?

According to the wiki, private non-pharmaceutical biomedical companies spend more on research than pharmaceutical companies (though not by much).

I'll admit, I don't know too much about the vagaries of University research, but am willing to learn.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

At least, that's what I thought the question was, it does look like I misunderstood the initial question.

Along with everything else, by the looks of it.

Originally Posted by subego 

Please stay. I don't know how long I'll last without your personal attacks.

They're not attacks, they are attempts to point you towards an education. But that process is just too painful. So long.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Possibly some private companies?

According to the wiki, private non-pharmaceutical biomedical companies spend more on research than pharmaceutical companies (though not by much).

I'll admit, I don't know too much about the vagaries of University research, but am willing to learn.

The point is, anyway you cut the cake, the profit motive is still there in a system like Canada's... we don't have to give that up.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The point is, anyway you cut the cake, the profit motive is still there in a system like Canada's... we don't have to give that up.

Now you've gotten me completely confused.

I'm not saying it isn't there at all, I'm saying it isn't there where it isn't there.

Their system for drugs is similar to ours, so the profit motive remains.

Their hospital and physician care isn't like ours, so for non-pharmaceutical biomedical research the profit motive does not remain... at least, anywhere near the extent that it does here.

I'm still wondering why you think a vertical slice (everyone is more or less on a government program, it's only a matter of degree) is superior to a horizontal slice (everyone below a certain level is on a government program)? You came up with a list of problems in our current health care system, but (AFAICT) you haven't given any reason these issues wouldn't be better addressed with regulation, as opposed to throwing everyone on a state program.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Originally Posted by subego

it does look like I misunderstood the initial question.

Along with everything else, by the looks of it.

No attack here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now you've gotten me completely confused.

I'm not saying it isn't there at all, I'm saying it isn't there where it isn't there.

Their system for drugs is similar to ours, so the profit motive remains.

Their hospital and physician care isn't like ours, so for non-pharmaceutical biomedical research the profit motive does not remain... at least, anywhere near the extent that it does here.

Are you trying to imply that Canadian hospitals are government run? I just don't understand your point...

I'm still wondering why you think a vertical slice (everyone is more or less on a government program, it's only a matter of degree) is superior to a horizontal slice (everyone below a certain level is on a government program)? You came up with a list of problems in our current health care system, but (AFAICT) you haven't given any reason these issues wouldn't be better addressed with regulation, as opposed to throwing everyone on a state program.

I would be for heavy regulation as a possible solution to the problems we are facing now, but doesn't regulation stifle the free market? If we are going to stifle the market, shouldn't we also fund it to help it keep its edge?

I've been thinking more about the Guiliani plan, and have researched it a little bit. It sounds like every family will have a tax credit of $15,000, and whatever they don't use they can keep. The hope is to encourage (but not mandate) people use this money to buy private health insurance, and that this demand will create competition and lower costs.

Competition doesn't work so well in old, established markets. Is there a whole lot of room for a little startup when it is so trivial for one of the big insurance companies to buy out this company? These markets are already established. Just like it would be nearly impossible to compete against Walmart, at best these insurance company startups can fill niches not covered by the big insurance companies.

Secondly, what is forcing these same families to spend their money on health care? If they don't, we still have that same strain put on the system as long as we accept anybody to the ER where costs have to be absorbed elsewhere, and large billing departments are required to haggle with the insurance companies.

Thirdly, $15,000 is a lot of money. If the primary objective against public health is that we don't want our tax dollars funding other people's health this way, here we are dumping enough into our taxes to divvy out $15,000/family. That's a *lot* of money, and in light of my first argument doesn't address the root problem of why these costs are so high in the first place when $900 will get you health insurance in Canada. Even if you think that health care in the US is vastly superior, comon, this is a *huge* difference that perhaps we should try to account for rather than just throwing money at the problem?

As far as your horizontal slice idea, this is more or less what we have now, isn't it? You would just want to expand Medicare? This would be an improvement over what we have now, but I don't see it as much different than the vertical slice. How would it be different?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you trying to imply that Canadian hospitals are government run? I just don't understand your point...

I'm working on the rest, but I can answer this one quickly.

Canadian hospitals are government run in the sense that their economy is planned by the state.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm working on the rest, but I can answer this one quickly.

Canadian hospitals are government run in the sense that their economy is planned by the state.

So would taxes paying $15,000/family so that people can afford to go to hospitals... no?

It seems that no matter what you do, we are at the point where there are no solutions that don't require government involvement.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm working on the rest, but I can answer this one quickly.

Canadian hospitals are government run in the sense that their economy is planned by the state.

Canada is unusual in that the government pays for almost 100% of hospital and physician care.

sounds more like being a contractor to the government.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

sounds more like being a contractor to the government.

Which means what?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So would taxes paying $15,000/family so that people can afford to go to hospitals... no?

No.

They're both funded by the state, but that's where the difference ends.

The economy of the Canadian system (WRT hospitals and physicians) is determined by the government, i.e. the government is determining what it thinks costs should be. Since the Giuliani plan would allow individuals to make choices, the costs in this system are determined by the market.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It seems that no matter what you do, we are at the point where there are no solutions that don't require government involvement.

I think I can better address this in my response to the second half of your last post, so I beg your patience for a moment.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would be for heavy regulation as a possible solution to the problems we are facing now, but doesn't regulation stifle the free market? If we are going to stifle the market, shouldn't we also fund it to help it keep its edge?

Regulation of private industry stifles the market less than state planning of the whole kit and kaboodle (in this case, hospitals and physicians). Likewise, regulation generally tries to repair the problem of a market not being free, or more accurately, not having perfect competition.

That's the point behind, say, an anti-trust law. Monopolies are busted up because they discourage competition, and hence lead to the market not being free.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The hope is to encourage (but not mandate) people use this money to buy private health insurance

Maybe I missed something here, but I think you have it reversed. You don't get the money unless you get the insurance. While that isn't mandating that someone needs to get insurance, it is mandating what must be done to get the money.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Competition doesn't work so well in old, established markets. Is there a whole lot of room for a little startup when it is so trivial for one of the big insurance companies to buy out this company? These markets are already established. Just like it would be nearly impossible to compete against Walmart, at best these insurance company startups can fill niches not covered by the big insurance companies.

True, yet this is still vastly more competitive than a government monopoly.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Thirdly, $15,000 is a lot of money. If the primary objective against public health is that we don't want our tax dollars funding other people's health this way, here we are dumping enough into our taxes to divvy out $15,000/family.

No. No. No. No. No. A thousand times no.

I can see how if this was the case, not only would it make no sense, it makes the person proposing it seem like a major league asshole.

A dollar is a dollar, it doesn't matter where it comes from. The question is how efficiently it is used. Competitive free markets are always more efficient than state planned ones. Always. Note that efficiency doesn't mean that things are the cheapest they could possibly be, efficiency means that things are accurately valued.

If a state planned economy worked better, I'd be all for it. It's not a question at all of whether tax dollars should fund peoples' healthcare, it's a question of what is the best way to use those dollars.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's a *lot* of money, and in light of my first argument doesn't address the root problem of why these costs are so high in the first place when $900 will get you health insurance in Canada. Even if you think that health care in the US is vastly superior, comon, this is a *huge* difference that perhaps we should try to account for rather than just throwing money at the problem?

Problem number one right off the bat is that Canadian system clearly undervalues the cost of health care. If something is undervalued (say, because of a government mandated price ceiling), your market won't work as efficiently. Basic economics tell us a price ceiling will cause demand to outstrip supply. Let's see here... what are the criticisms of the Canadian system? According to the wiki they are long wait times, and a medical professional shortage.

Just what economic theory predicts. Demand outstrips supply.


From the other direction, and this relates to your question of the strain of people who decide not to get healthcare, AFAICT one of the points of the Giuliani system is that it is intentionally giving you more money than you need. This means that someone who doesn't get insurance is essentially pissing money out the window.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As far as your horizontal slice idea, this is more or less what we have now, isn't it? You would just want to expand Medicare? This would be an improvement over what we have now, but I don't see it as much different than the vertical slice. How would it be different?

I think you mean Medicaid, but yeah, if it needs to be expanded. Differences in vertical vs. horizontal slicing discussed above.

[Chongo]

I know, it's from the eeeevil Fox News
FOXNews.com - Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver

Wednesday, October 10, 2007
By Sara Bonisteel

Mothers in British Columbia are having a baby boom, but it's the United States that has to deliver, and that has some proud Canadians blasting their highly touted government healthcare system.

"I'm a born-bred Canadian, as well as my daughter and son, and I'm ashamed," Jill Irvine told FOX News. Irvine's daughter, Carri Ash, is one of at least 40 mothers or their babies who've been airlifted from British Columbia to the U.S. this year because Canadian hospitals didn't have room for the preemies in their neonatal units.

"It's a big number and bigger than the previous capacity of the system to deal with it," said Adrian Dix, a British Columbia legislator, told FOXNews.com. "So when that happens, you can't have a waiting list for a mother having the baby. She just has the baby."
FOXNews.com - Free Video Player
The mothers have been flown to hospitals in Seattle, Everett, Wash., and Spokane, Wash., to receive treatment, as well as hospitals in the neighboring province of Alberta, Dix said. Three mothers were airlifted in the first weekend of October alone, including Carri Ash.

"I just want to go home and see my kids," she said from her Seattle hospital bed. "I think it's stupid I have to be here."

Canada's socialized health care system, hailed as a model by Michael Moore in his documentary, "Sicko," is hurting, government officials admit, citing not enough money for more equipment and staff to handle high risk births.

[besson3c]

Chongo: like I said earlier, we could post links to stories that illustrate failures of both systems all day, but what would that accomplish?

And yes, Fox News suck absolute balls. After seeing their correspondents get all bent out of shape by Obama not wearing his US pin anymore, I'm even more convinced that that network is setup solely to provide brain dead entertainment so that the elite 1% of our population can remain wealthy and stay in power.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Chongo: like I said earlier, we could post links to stories that illustrate failures of both systems all day, but what would that accomplish?

And yes, Fox News suck absolute balls. After seeing their correspondents get all bent out of shape by Obama not wearing his US pin anymore, I'm even more convinced that that network is setup solely to provide brain dead entertainment so that the elite 1% of our population can remain wealthy and stay in power.

And CNN is the Gold Standard of Cable news even though they admitted to turning a blind eye to Saddam's atrocities and aired video of snipers.

[besson3c]

I sure hope that you aren't insinuating that I'm trying to pronounce CNN as a model of broadcast journalism....

[Chongo]

Or MSNBC, CBS, NBC or ABC.

[Chongo]

The Canadians use the money they don't spend on defense for social programs. That is the norm for all countries were the U.S. has a large military presence.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't see how this invalidates Chongo's point. Two wrongs not making a right and such.

True. But, what does one insanely expensive wrong make?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And the Clintons had 8 years to fix it, and it was evening what they RAN on "We are gonna fix health care" and did not either. (Not that I am placing the blame solely on them either..)

Interesting that you choose to say "the Clintons" rather than the Democrats or Clinton (singular). I wonder who you're trying to discredit here? Possibly someone who had no official say in the matter at the time but you're afraid might have a chance at having an official say in the matter in the near future?

[Chongo]

by their own words it was a "co-presidency"

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

True. But, what does one insanely expensive wrong make?

Not a particularly good argument against a different expensive wrong.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not a particularly good argument against a different expensive wrong.

Perhaps, but I think the ultimate question is "where would you rather waste trillions of dollars? In a dust-bowl on non-Americans or at home on Americans?"

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Canada's socialized health care system, hailed as a model by Michael Moore in his documentary, "Sicko," is hurting, government officials admit, citing not enough money...

And yet it is much cheaper than the US system. Canada could easily allocate much more money to it if they wanted to, and come in much cheaper than the US.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

And yet it is much cheaper than the US system. Canada could easily allocate much more money to it if they wanted to, and come in much cheaper than the US.

You are playing a futile game with him, peeb. You could go on about the number of Americans that travel abroad for cheaper surgeries, Americans traveling to Canada to buy cheaper drugs, health insurance claims that are denied for various individuals, etc. Similarly, Chongo or somebody else could drudge up some articles with stories about how Canada's system has failed in various circumstances, but... At the end of this all, what would the conclusion be?

It is absolutely futile trying to debate by shining a light on weaknesses while turning a blind eye to strengths, or vice versa. Nobody here has ever claimed that either system is flawless.

This is all a question of balance, of resource allocation, and of careful weighing of pros to cons. You cannot have a reasonable discussion with people that do not choose to be reasonable.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

At the end of this all, what would the conclusion be?

That no system is perfect, but some work better than others?

Ah who am I kidding.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

That no system is perfect, but some work better than others?

Ah who am I kidding.

If you want to make the argument that one is better than the other, you need to account for the balance that needs to exist and the tradeoffs that need to be made... You can't just ignore these tradeoffs as if they don't exist.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps, but I think the ultimate question is "where would you rather waste trillions of dollars? In a dust-bowl on non-Americans or at home on Americans?"

I'd be less inclined to "waste" money on non-Americans if we hadn't chosen to kick the **** out of a bunch of non-Americans. Since we can't unexplode the grenade we chucked in the loo, and we can't unshoot the dog very well, responsibility dictates we clean up our mess.

Of course, I want to waste money on Americans too. At least that's what everyone says the tax credit idea is doing. That seems to be the big argument against it. We can do it cheaper.

Cause that's sure what I want when someone is poking around my squishy bits, cheap.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No I support both.

Hitler and National Socialist Germany did not attack us either, but we went to war with them. In fact the left did not want us to get involved in the war in Europe at all, until the collectivist Hitler attached collectivist U.S.S.R., then lo and be hold, we needed to get involved ASAP. By your logic we should have just dealt with Japan, since they were they one that attacked us, and left the French to fend for themselves.

I cringe because I know what your answer is going to be, but what do you mean by "the left." Democrats?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I cringe because I know what your answer is going to be, but what do you mean by "the left." Democrats?

The antiwar Socialists/Communists had not yet taken over either party at that time, but were vocally against the U.S. getting involved in the war in Europe. Once the Soviet Union was attacked that changed their mood.
Opposition to World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opposition to World War II was most vocal during its early period, and stronger still before it started while appeasement and isolationism were considered viable diplomatic options. Communist-led organizations opposed the war during the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact but then turned into hawks after Germany invaded the Soviet Union. In nations occupied by Germany, and even in Germany itself there was a resistance movement, but rather than opposing the war in itself, this opposed the Nazi Government and its prosecution of the war, and generally supported the Allies.

[Face Ache]

Watch This.

[Chongo]

Heir Conditioned

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Heir Conditioned

"We're sorry. The clip you are trying to play is not available in your area."

Apparently we don't have all the internet tubes in Australia yet.

What's it about? A brief synopsis please.

[Chongo]

Heir-Conditioned (1955) - Plot summary

[Face Ache]

Sylvester is a rich cat, courtesy of his deceased mistress, who has left him 3 million dollars. His alley cat friends hope to sponge off his good fortune, and Sylvester is eager to share with them. But Elmer Fudd as Sylvester's new financial advisor lectures him on investing his wealth in business and industry.

So... some silly old bint leaves $3,000,000 to a pussycat while human children go without healthcare? And then the cat gets his inheritance (what cat needs three million dollars for cryin' out loud?) and rather than sharing his good fortune with his less fortunate friends, decides to use it to further enrich himself? (presumably because he thinks $3,000,000 isn't enough for one cat).

Is that where the term "fat cat" comes from?

And this Fudd character - what's his angle?

I'm outraged, good sir. OUTRAGED I tell you!

I'm sure my Mr. Duck made the right choice - he even put the common good before pants (your cat is a nudist, which is typical of the kinky konservatives).


The point of my cartoon was to illustrate how during WWII the entire population was mobilised towards the war effort, unlike now when the population is asked to ignore the war and go shopping.

Who is paying for the current war and how? Credit?

Your cartoon...

... was the second of three cartoons on economic subjects underwritten by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is a philanthropic non-profit organization in the United States. It was established in 1934 by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., then-President and Chief Executive Officer of General Motors.

The Foundation's programs and interests fall into the areas of science and technology, standard of living, economic performance, and education and careers in science and technology. The total assets of the Sloan Foundation have a market value of about US$1.8 billion.

And while they're to be commended for their philanthropy (and cartoons), they aren't feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless or getting leg braces for poor little Timmy's polio with their cash.

[Chongo]

The Common good

We must think of others before we think of our selves"
Hilary Clinton

The common good comes before the private good
You are nothing, the people are everything
He who shall be not named

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
Ayn Rand

Ah, but we had Hollywood on 100% on the team then also. The Hollywood left wanted Stalin saved from destruction. All the major wars the U.S. has been involved in since WW II have been against some form of communist aggressor( and why the left was/is antiwar): Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Yes, Saddam was great admirer of Stalin.
Tyrants on Trial - New York Times

Saddam Hussein admired, studied and copied Stalin, the paragon of modern dictators. Here's one story. Stalin had 15 scenic seaside villas, some of them czarist palaces, on the Black Sea coast of Abkhazia. In 2002, I visited and photographed these extraordinarily well-preserved Stalinist time capsules. At one point, I asked an old caretaker if any other Westerners had visited them. ''No,'' she replied, ''but there was an Arab gentleman in 1970's who insisted on visiting every one!'' His name? ''Saddam Hussein.''

According to Mr. Hussein's courtiers, he was obsessed with Stalin. Kurdish politicians who visited his apartments recall seeing shelves of Stalin biographies, translated just for him into Arabic.

[Face Ache]

It's fitting that we have cartoons on this page, because you're dealing with caricatures (like Ayn Rand).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

It's fitting that we have cartoons on this page, because you're dealing with caricatures (like Ayn Rand).

Which makes me wonder why Phil Donahue was obsessed with Ayn Rand.

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Canadians use the money they don't spend on defense for social programs. That is the norm for all countries were the U.S. has a large military presence.

There is no US miliary presence in Canada.

Canada's Health Care system is not socialized, or gov't run: It is our single payer health insurance system which you might regard as 'socialized'. Efficiences gleaned from a single payer system constitutes a key reason why our health care costs significantly less as a proportion of GDP than the american system, with its myriad of competing for-profit health insurers.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by tie 

An important point is that the insurance is for five years. (What kinds of idiots wrote this that they don't tell you that?)

Anyway, we all know what Bush and all the conservatives in this forum would prefer: 10 years in Iraq and no health insurance for anyone. Republicans nowadays like big, expensive government that wastes your tax money.

Not Ron Paul.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Not Ron Paul.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

There is no US miliary presence in Canada.

Canada's Health Care system is not socialized, or gov't run: It is our single payer health insurance system which you might regard as 'socialized'. Efficiences gleaned from a single payer system constitutes a key reason why our health care costs significantly less as a proportion of GDP than the american system, with its myriad of competing for-profit health insurers.

No, but we're just south of their border. This allows Canada to spend only 1.1% of it's GDP on defense to the U.S.'s 3.3% (2002 data http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by tie 

An important point is that the insurance is for five years. (What kinds of idiots wrote this that they don't tell you that?)

Anyway, we all know what Bush and all the conservatives in this forum would prefer: 10 years in Iraq and no health insurance for anyone. Republicans nowadays like big, expensive government that wastes your tax money.

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Not all Republicans. There are still some real conservatives left...

The big spenders are what used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans" and are not conservatives, ("Goldwater/Reagan Republicans")
Rockefeller Republican - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tie]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Not Ron Paul.

But Ron Paul also advocates withdrawing from the UN and from NATO. (This is according to Wikipedia.) Also the WTO. So he qualifies as an idiot for other reasons.