Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And that is?
I said so above. Post 45 I think.
And that is?
Pretty much libs show they are literally 4th grade debaters. That's a good way to put it. "Well, rest assured, if a republican was president you'd be fine with the national debt."
I have issues with that statement and they are as follows:
1. A republican isn't president, so who the **** cares?
2. I would definitely care about the debt, it's just that we're finally not facing 1. the worst terrorist attack on our nation or 2. the worst natural disaster our nation has ever faced....that would drive up debt. We are in a lull, a time where we can actually recover if we behave financially.
3. How the hell do you know how I would think of a president was in power?
Why don't you actually give real responses to questions instead of the usual grade school "Well, you guys did it too!" response. That ensures you keep the debate down at your level on not on an actual adult level and ensures no answers come from your mouth as you constantly move the goalposts so people who debate you find themselves defending your false baseless accusations and not addressing the issue at hand.
But you are perfectly happy to have the govenment invade your neighbors and confiscate from them to give to your brother and grandmother so you don't have to provide for them.No, I really don't think it does.
In a large situation I would likely have to do both. Been there and did that.
Who decides able? I know my family members quite well. I have a brother who sponges. I have a grandmother who needs care. Both are a problem, but I would still choose helping both over invading my neighbor, no matter how much he was a problem in his own home.
Well, it isn't what I said, but I sure as hell when do it when I couldn't afford it. Seems to me you're trying to skip the point.
Are you a majority of republcans? Or did you read it as saying dontworrybehappy wouldn't care?
I said so above. Post 45 I think.
I think the health care problem has to be fixed, in a way that reduces cost. I think a universal payer system would help do that. I think we have to address The big three, moving medicare and medicaid to a Universal payer system would help. I don't oppose means testing to help lower costs.
You mean this?
I think the health care problem has to be fixed, in a way that reduces cost.
I think a universal payer system would help do that.
I don't oppose means testing to help lower costs.
The military must also face cuts, and we don't need to be invading countries and nation building, period.
No, just a wish. Some consistency would be nice. I would bet republicans would give nothing more than lip serice to the debt if they were in power. History shows this to be so.
Not really. It is larger and with different responsibilities that effect many more people. It is in fact very different.
Glad you agree.
Yep. And your objection is?
Would that include rationing? In the Robert Reich method of such?
It is so stupid that people try to force feed that word. Does your insurance company ration? Does your wallet ration? Setting forth policy, like elective procedures won't be covered, or that ineffective and untested procedures won't be covered is not rationing. It is a lie to call it such.
There isn't a Universal system out there right now that isn't bankrupting the countries using them, so how would ours turn out any differently?
None of them are. The problems with financing are not the product of the health care system. other problems, like here, effect how much the government can pay. But as those systems pay less than we do, they are not the larger problems.
Nor do I
See an area of agreement.
I am not a fan of nation building either. But in our case now we have a sticky situation as far as just leaving where we are at. So how do you propose achieving this when Obama can't get it done either?
You know my thoughs. Once we made the mistake, there is no easy answer. But, it is a reminder of why these things should be reserved for only when there is no other option. And let's not forget I have criticsed Obama on this front. The Afghan surge for example was a mistake, and wrong. We should only be concerned with our safety. Iraq and Afghanistan belong to the Iraqi and Afghan people. But, the military has to also face cuts.
Well, I would argue that this time it is far different than any other in history. So, with the anger of the people to take into account I wouldn't bet on that opinion.
I don't think so. And the anger is largely incoherent.
Math, is math...decimal placement has little to do with the equation.
No, but the size and scope of the operation does.
Well, substance would be better.
j-mac
I'm all for substance.
Yep. And your objection is?
Well let's start with this; the assertions of the single payer camp are matters of great dispute. I would much rather balance the budget with measures I know will work, rather than experiment with single payer healthcare using data which in no way accounts for a world where the US ceases to intellectually subsidize the other global exemplars of socialized medicine.
Single payers pay less. That is a fact. We pay more than nearly any other country.
Jeezy said:I would much rather balance the budget with measures I know will work, rather than experiment with single payer healthcare using data which in no way accounts for a world where the US ceases to intellectually subsidize the other global exemplars of socialized medicine.
Does anyone want to take a guess what liberal made that statement?The bill would continue the authority of the United States Government to borrow funds which we must do to avoid the default on our obligations...I would have no problem with signing an extension of the debt limit. But the choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up. This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my hand, and it's one more reason why the President needs the line item veto to separate the good from the bad.
Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility—two things that set us apart from much of the world.
It is so stupid that people try to force feed that word. Does your insurance company ration? Does your wallet ration? Setting forth policy, like elective procedures won't be covered, or that ineffective and untested procedures won't be covered is not rationing. It is a lie to call it such.
None of them are. The problems with financing are not the product of the health care system. other problems, like here, effect how much the government can pay. But as those systems pay less than we do, they are not the larger problems.
I don't think so. And the anger is largely incoherent.
I don't think so. And the anger is largely incoherent.
I'm all for substance.
Right. It was "the libs", Obama and the Democrats.
We'll just ignore the 6 years that the Republicans had control of Congress AND the White House.
We'll completely ignore the spending mandated by TWO FULL INVASIONS.
We'll ignore that the Republicans' response to the increased funds that they decided to send off to be buried in a desert was to cut taxes, primarily for the rich.
We'll ignore the surplus that the Republicans squandered.
We'll ignore the Medicare additions that the Republicans signed into law.
We'll ignore the bubble economy that they sat around and watched.
We'll just ignore the $450,000,000,000 per year interest payments on the debt that the Republicans handed over.
We'll ignore that the TARP was actually signed by a Republican President.
And we'll especially ignore the fact that the Republican plan to "starve the beast" ie shrink the federal government to the size where it can be "drowned in a bathtub" has been motivating the right-wing's attack on America for the past 3 decades.
And now we're supposed to trust the Republicans when it comes to economic matters? After they sat back and watched the subprime market go into critical meltdown taking an economy that was weakened by Republican policies to the point of collapse?
We're supposed to believe that everything will be alright if we listen to the Republicans who want to take us back over the edge of economic destruction.
No thanks.
Oh, so they are all breast implants, and face lifts that are what you are talking about? Robert Reich says differently
What are the financing problems then? Too low taxes? Systemic problems can be addressed without trashing the entire current system. The other HC systems that pay less than us also cover far less population than we have, and restrict services until a board of government hacks approve of them....
That's your opinion....I say watch.
BS, tell me how math changes if the decimal placement changes? I can't wait.
If you say so.
j-mac
No, no, sweetums. We're replying to MY arguments, not spouting general talking points that we use on other members of this forum.
I can't believe you went with Hannity. Seriously. First, Reich isn't a policy. he's a person with an opinon. Second, we ahve no one suggesting anyone doesn't get needed care. So yes, my comment stands.
They world felt the economic effects of the last few years. It wasn't limited to just the US. from the stock market to wars to other problems, countries saw they're economy take a hit. It was not a case of health care taking them down.
And no, they don't cover less than we do. Sorry, we rank low by WHO because we have poorer access. And, depending on which system you're talking about, as they is more than one way to do a Universalpayer system, they don't wait all that much more than we do, and turn down no more than our insurance companies turn down. Not really a huge difference there.
Oh, since Hannity was reporting on it, it doesn't count? Don't make me laugh. And correct me if I am wrong but Robert Reich was a Clinton administration official as well as an Obama advisor was he not? Reich admitted in that clip that he would tell granny sorry, we can't give you the expensive treatments. Didn't you listen? And as far as your point, it just got nuked.
How much of our money went to those countries under Obama? Do you even know?
The WHO study is flawed.
j-mac
Toddy, whatever our rate of over-spending, Obama and the Democrats accelerated it, to that point that the crisis is now upon us. By that I mean that the cost of each passing day of doing nothing is not only at a higher rate than at any time prior, but to where to kick the can down the road would be to see it go off the cliff. Meanwhile, you do the typical liberal crap of throwing out all your red herrings, like mud, in the hope that something will stick.
Bottom line, and its so simple even a liberal should be able to understand it, is that we must address it now. We must restore sanity, via tangible austerity measures, NOW.
Well sweet pea, I did reply to you. And no, we don't intellectually subsidize the other global exemplars of socialized medicine. I think you over credit the US here.
Percent of article in biomedical research in 2009...
Contextual citation impact...
Percent of collaboration-based publications...
(graphs from SciVal analytics)
We host 11 of the top 20 earning pharmaceutical companies on the world in terms of revenue, income, and R&D.
If you want to talk about facts, let's talk about this one: Most new drugs are developed in the United States. According to Forbes Magazine, 80 percent of all new drugs are developed in the United States
A manufacturer that is, say, Canadian doesn't have to redo the R&D cost that US companies bear. Once a product in the United States has been developed and tested and received FDA approval, there is nothing preventing companies outside the United States from making a similar product. A significant portion of savings lie therein. And no, re-importation does not solve that problem.
Getting into an argument about means testing and administrative cost reduction leads into much murkier waters -- in the future, the United States may ultimately opt for a Medicare-inspired single payer system. I don't dispute that. But for now, in terms of present day deficit reduction, I am not especially willing to experiment with something that alters the balance of the global pharmaceutical market.
Little would change that, and really has little to do with a single payer system. Doing more is not equal to subsidizing btw.
And countries do do their own, and we take theirs as well. This too is not subsidizing.
BTW, you might look into Univeristy Hospitals the work they do with R&D. They are largely government subsidized.
This speaks loudly to the idiocy that is anchoring an economy on government spending.IMO, this would be a reckless move. First, the amount of spending reductions necessary to immediately balance the budget would wipe out economic growth, therefore, if sustained they would produce a significant self-inflicted national recession.
It has everything to do with single payer, especially one that means-tests. Once you make the system less about profit and more about coverage, you'll have less R&D. It's elementary. The fact that we, as a country, have taken the lions share of initial development costs and then resold these medicines to single payer countries is equivalent to a subsidy. It is not a subsidy in literal terms -- this is certain. But it is an indirect subsidy regardless.
Did I say Canada didn't do their own? I did not. I merely said we did the most, and later on allowed them to mimic it after eating the research cost .
Most university research is funded by research councils, charities and industry. In a field like physics, you'd be right. But pharma-research is backed by for-profit companies. Additionally, the existence of the hospitals is often tax-payer funded, but that doesn't speak to research grants. My sister is a PhD candidate at a state university doing immunology/microbiology research. I'm not clueless as to what university hospitals do.