Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 137 of 137

Thread: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    If it were just a matter of making our interest payment on the debt, I'd agree with you 100% as clearly we did generate more than enough revenue to pay the interest.
    Avoiding default IS just a matter of making the interest payment on the debt, as a default can only happen if we choose not to. By choosing to spend money on -anything else- to the point that we no longer have the revenue to make the interest payment, we choose to default on the debt.

    That a failure to raise the ceiling must result in a default in only sound if you assume the status quo does not change; nothing precludes from changing the status quo, and so the assumption is unsound. All spending can be cut. All spending. Choosing not to do so means you've chosen to default.

    Bottom line... failing to raise the debt ceiling in no way necessarily leads to default.

  2. #132
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    As you can very well see with our current difficulties in government spending---government officials are piss poor at thinking long term. Most R&D spending is a long term investment and would be the easiest to cut from a budget. Companies, specifically Pharmaceutical companies know the payout on research and foot it gladly knowing it will pay itself back. I truly dont think government officials are smart enough to realize the impact of short term research cuts.

    Note: I dont have any citation or anything to back this up, but if their spending is so much lower than ours, what do you think is the cause?
    The cause? One less paper work. One site suggests we would save a bundle there alone. Access is better, which allows earlier care before things get worse. It can be structured to better provide preventive care. Also, the cost whihc actually be less hidden than it is now where many don't realize how much is actually being spent on their insruance. Many ignore what the employer pays (this btw would also help business and better aid us in competiting internationally).

    This is one source that attempts to make the case:

    Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #133
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,820

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Im speaking directly about R&D. Im not addressing single payer except to say that European development has gone down and continues to slide. You then threw out a red herring and didnt address what you think may be causing the slide in Europe. So, sorry, youre not posting very coherently. Pointing fingers at our system isnt the same as addressing why the supposedly superior system has shrinking R&D.

    Again---what do you think is causing European R&D to slide?

  4. #134
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Im speaking directly about R&D. Im not addressing single payer except to say that European development has gone down and continues to slide. You then threw out a red herring and didnt address what you think may be causing the slide in Europe. So, sorry, youre not posting very coherently. Pointing fingers at our system isnt the same as addressing why the supposedly superior system has shrinking R&D.

    Again---what do you think is causing European R&D to slide?
    Not sure one has anything to do with the other. Seriously, healthcare is all about R&D. How we help with R&D here may play a role in why we're doing better. Maybe focus? I don't pretend to know. But if you're going to say it is the health care system, I'd like you to explain how. Nothing that I support concerning a single payer system should effect R&D and how we do it here at all.

    Allow me to add:

    It would be too simplistic to attribute the relative lack of attractiveness of Europe for pharmaceutical R&D to one single factor. Contributing to this problem are the economic and regulatory framework, the science base, the investment conditions, and societal attitudes towards new technologies.

    http://www.efpia.org/content/Default.asp?PageID=388
    Last edited by Boo Radley; 06-10-11 at 06:33 PM.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #135
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It would be too simplistic to attribute the relative lack of attractiveness of Europe for pharmaceutical R&D to one single factor. Contributing to this problem are the economic and regulatory framework, the science base, the investment conditions, and societal attitudes towards new technologies.
    you are incapable of writing the above paragraph, you really should use a quote box or at least quotation marks when pasting from a source

    it's a matter of integrity, ie, character

    single payer, by the way, here in america, y'know, in 2011, is a fantasy

    reid can't even come close to a public option

    Update: List of Dem Senators Who Don't Support the Public Option | TPM

    sorry

  6. #136
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Here, the NCPA report argues against price controls of drugs as ineffective, restricting research and development (R&D) of new drugs, and limiting access abroad to important new drugs through national drug formularies. It also argues that drug prices in other countries are often higher than in the United States.Unsupported claims are made: “On the whole, prescription drug prices in countries with national health insurance are comparable to U.S. prices despite stringent rationing of availability in the other countries” (4, p. 81) and “the United States produces by far the most innovative drugs” (p. 83). This argument breaks down under overwhelming evidence to the contrary:
    78 / Geyman

    • According to studies by the AARP Public Policy Institute, drug manufacturers’ drug prices are 69 percent higher in the United States than in Canada, wholesale prices are 72 percent higher, and retail prices up to 72 percent higher (71).

    • According to IMS Health, a pharmaceutical industry research firm, in 2003 Americans spent $695 million on drugs bought from Canada (75).

    • The average price for prescription drugs around the world is just one-quarter of the U.S. price (76).

    • Even though R&D costs of many drugs developed in the United States are funded in large part by federal tax monies through basic research by the National Institutes of Health, drug manufacturers exaggerate their own
    R&D expenditures, claiming that about $800 million are expended to bring a new drug to market (77). Studies by Public Citizen’s Health Research Group put that figure closer to $110 million (78).

    • Most new drugs are not innovative and are merely “me-too” drugs with minimal structural change but maximal marketing hype as “breakthroughs,” launching another 17-year period of patent protection (79). The nonprofit
    Myths about Single-Payer Health Insurance / 79

    Table 3

    Investor-owned care: Comparative examples versus not-for-profit care
    Hospitals
    HMOs
    Dialysis centers
    Nursing homes
    Mental health centers

    Costs 3 to 13 percent higher, with higher overhead, fewer nurses, and death rates 6 to 7 percent higher (56–61)
    Higher overhead (25 to 33 percent for some of the largest
    HMOs); worse scores on 14 of 14 quality indicators reported
    to National Committee for Quality Assurance (62–64)
    Death rates 30 percent higher, with 26 percent less use of
    transplants (65, 66)
    Lower staffing levels and worse quality of care (30 percent
    committed violations that caused death or life-threatening
    harm to patients) (67)
    Medicare expelled 80 programs after investigations found
    that 91 percent of claims were fraudulent (68); for-profit
    behavioral health companies impose restrictive barriers and
    limits to care (e.g., premature discharge from hospitals
    without adequate outpatient care) (69)
    Source: Geyman (55); adapted with permission from the American Board of Family Practice,
    Lexington, Kentucky.
    National Institute of Health Care Management estimates that 85 percent
    of drugs approved by the FDA between 1989 and 2000 were modifications
    of existing drugs (80).
    • Fifty-seven percent of the more important new drugs are discovered by
    R&D in other countries and later marketed in the United States (81). The
    European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries, despite the presence
    of price controls in their countries, spent $47 billion on R&D in 2002, about
    50 percent more than R&D spending by U.S. drug manufacturers (82, 83).
    • The price of Lanoxin (digoxin), the most common drug used by the elderly,
    rose seven times the inflation rate in 1998 (84). Tamoxifen (Nolvadex), a
    long-term drug used by patients with breast cancer, costs $360 in the United
    States for a 30-day supply, compared with $60 at the pharmacy at the Munich
    International Airport in Germany (85).
    Competing Abroad

    http://www.pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #137
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,820

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Sorry bud, Physicians for a National Health Program may not be the most reliable sources on how efficient or inefficient the European and Canadian systems are. As a hint, dig up how we track infant mortality in the US and how they track it in Canada. Ill help you out some and tell you it isnt the same.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •