• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset

You make so much sense, and then you always say something weird like this.

How can a life be given a cost value?

While it's not something people like to discuss, lives are always assigned monetary values. We do it with every aspect of our bodies - workers comp agreements have charts showing the value of each limb or finger, etc.

Look at it this way:

Say there's a disease called Deathabetes that primarily affects elderly people. Sheisa Pharmaceuticals develops a drug called Death-B-Gon that, on average, extends the life of a Deathabetes sufferer for 1 year. Now, if that drug cost $10, I would assume that every one of us would agree that Medicare should pay for it. If the cost were $5,000, I think most people would still be on board. But what it it cost $50,000? $500,000? $50,000,000?

At some point, everyone would have to agree that the drug becomes too expensive to be worth its benefit. We face this exact same dilemma with thousands and thousands of drugs and procedures today, ranging from hip replacements to cancer treatments. How the balancing point is calculated is incredibly important.

One of the reasons why insurance costs continue to increase is because of special interest groups that lobby insurers on this exact issue. First, a breast cancer group raises a stink about an insurance company refusing to pay for a particular expensive drug. Not wanting the bad publicity, the company agrees to pay for that drug. Then a Parkinson's group does the same. Then a MS group, then a Sickle Cell group, etc. The end result is that most everything ends up getting covered and the rest of the costs get passed on to everyone else.

When the decisions are being made by insurers or politicians who are subject to the fleeting will of the public, inefficient choices are going to be made. The only way to get around this is to have the people making the decisions be as independent from public control as possible. Britain tried to do just this by creating the NICE, but despite that program's successes, it has still fallen prey to some of the same interest group capture.

Here is the stark reality that neither Republicans or Democrats are willing to admit: So long as we as a nation continue to place such an incredibly high value on the availability of expensive life-saving treatments, we will never bring health care spending under control. I don't see such a significant cultural shift happening any time soon.
 
Last edited:
How can a life be given a cost value?

Easy, if it's not my life or anyone I care about, and it's my money, $0.01 is too high when the government is forcing it on me.

Take the guns out of my face and I'll consider what I would feel comfortable donating, but the guns leave, first.
 
I think that's pretty much it. It's a win, and it helps the GOP, but we're a long way from this being a big deal.

If Brown had defeated a living and healthy incumbent (Kennedy or Kerry), then yeah that's big news. But my feeling is either of those guys would have squashed Brown like a bug.

A thirty point swing in attitude from November 2008, in the most flamingly socialist state in the nation?

That it's a continuation of a trend away from the Democrats already shown in two other states?

That's a big deal.
 
I don't know if they choose it or not but a lot of them are to lazy to do anything about it...........

Not having the gumption to do something about their lot in life is purdy much a choice.
 
You responded to the post that said "Hurray no healthcare for millions of americans." with "That's their choice".

The majority of those individuals that don't have health care cannot afford health care so are are saying they choose to live within this "poor" income level.

Hell when I was in my early twenties making a little over $30k I could barley afford health care. I think I was paying about $550/month.

But you could afford it. Many (most?) of us struggled in our early 20's to afford health care. That's life. Some of my co-workers chose not to purchase health insurance. That was their choice and their gamble. I didn't think it was the brightest choice but so what? I'm not sure I can get behind this plan to force them to buy something they don't want to buy.

I responded the way I did, btw, because it was obvious that the original poster, like you, was ignoring Medicaid's existance. How convenient. For people who make more money than Medicaid allows it often is a choice. I want to talk about THEM for a change.
 
A thirty point swing in attitude from November 2008, in the most flamingly socialist state in the nation?

That it's a continuation of a trend away from the Democrats already shown in two other states?

That's a big deal.

How can they be the most flamingly (whatever that means) state if they just elected a Republican to the Senate.

I think many people have a huge misunderstanding of North East politics. They are a very independent bunch.

The reason Kennedy was there for so long is because of the power of incumbents. Especially in the Senate!

And the trend in Virginia is ALWAYS to elect a governor that is from the opposite party of the President. We've been doing that here for decades. I think it's what people call CYA. :)
 
I see it... and that's the problem isn't it? The lobbyists are simply pandering to whomever is in charge and the politicians- no matter the party - takes the money. That has to stop.

You'll get no argument there. It's disgusting.
 
Oh, so what you mean is that I can't get something that I can't afford, but some basic level of housing is available to me if I am below a certain standard of living? That sounds pretty much like our current healthcare system.

If we were to analogize the healthcare proposal, it would be like saying we're going to give out government subsidies to people who can only afford to rent, because we think everyone should have the chance to own a house. We tried that. It failed miserably.

Owning a house and renting a house is different then having health care and not having health care. One is a necessity to live, the other is not.


And I wouldn't have a problem with a bill that sought to do just that. If anyone proposes it, let me know.
Which is one of the reasons why I am completely against this bill.


That would have been 20-22% of your income. What do you think is the appropriate percentage of income we can expect people to pay?

I don't know I'm not an economics expert. I also know that a loaf of bread and water shouldn't be 20-22% of my income. I don't know what percentage it should be though. It should be left of to the consumer market (another reason I don't approve of government run health care).
 
How can they be the most flamingly (whatever that means) state if they just elected a Republican to the Senate.

I think many people have a huge misunderstanding of North East politics. They are a very independent bunch.

They're a very independent bunch that has voted for Democratic Senators for 82 of the last 100 Senate-years, for Democratic Presidents for 42 of the last 50 years, and for Democratic Congressmen for 172 of the last 180 House-years.
 
Last time I checked the poor are not in danger of becoming the majority....Well,it won't happen unless the Health Deform bill and Crap and Tax are passed.

They will when they are given another burden keeping them from increasing their income to spend ratio.

Of course you could take the morbid stance and say not providing health care to those that cannot afford it will actually lessen the population of the poor. Since they can't afford health care to survive any sickness.
 
Some people make that choice.

Some people do. Which is a whole other topic of allowing dependency of out welfare system. Another government program I am against.

Those that can benefit from the help should be able to get it. The program should be designed so that it is in their benefit to get health care without government aid though.
 
But you could afford it. Many (most?) of us struggled in our early 20's to afford health care. That's life. Some of my co-workers chose not to purchase health insurance. That was their choice and their gamble. I didn't think it was the brightest choice but so what? I'm not sure I can get behind this plan to force them to buy something they don't want to buy.

So you are for a government sponsored program if it is opt-in?


I responded the way I did, btw, because it was obvious that the original poster, like you, was ignoring Medicaid's existance. How convenient. For people who make more money than Medicaid allows it often is a choice. I want to talk about THEM for a change.

Medicaid does not cover everyone. There are only specific categories of people that are covered and less and less doctors accepting Medicaid insurance every year.
 
Owning a house and renting a house is different then having health care and not having health care. One is a necessity to live, the other is not.

Having a place to live is a necessity, just like basic medical care. If you are impoverished, there are government programs that can help you with each (Section 8, Medicaid). If you are financially stable, you can do whatever you want (Buy a house, buy great health insurance). If you're neither financially stable nor strictly impoverished, government largely leaves you to fend for yourself. When we tried a program to help those people get houses, it blew up miserably and caused a near-economic meltdown. I'm not eager to repeat that with healthcare unless we are very sure that the program will be designed so as to avoid that risk.

I don't know I'm not an economics expert. I also know that a loaf of bread and water shouldn't be 20-22% of my income. I don't know what percentage it should be though. It should be left of to the consumer market (another reason I don't approve of government run health care).

I don't know what the percentages are either, but what I do know is that they should be higher than the average person thinks they should have to pay. In the Senate's most recent bill, which is quite generous in the caps it provides, liberal advocacy groups are up in arms over the fact that it would require people to pay up to (horror of horrors) 17% of their total household income on health insurance. When I look at where the average household spends its money:

wheredidthemoneygo.jpg


I'm really not that concerned (Note that the abnormally low cost of insurance reflects the fact that most people have employer-provided insurance).
 
There are only specific categories of people that are covered and less and less doctors accepting Medicaid insurance every year.

Fewer doctors are accepting Medicaid because the government doesn't pay them enough to cover their expenses. I can think of several solutions to this problem, but "increase the number of people on Medicaid" is not one of them.
 
They will when they are given another burden keeping them from increasing their income to spend ratio.

Ummm.....Yeah,can you say Health Care "Reform".

Of course you could take the morbid stance and say not providing health care to those that cannot afford it will actually lessen the population of the poor. Since they can't afford health care to survive any sickness.

When did this ever happen in the U.S.?Medical treatment is required by law to those that do not have insurance.
 
I must say I wasn't thrilled with what he said about his daughters at his acceptance speech.
 
I must say I wasn't thrilled with what he said about his daughters at his acceptance speech.

I didn't watch his speech....What did he say about them?
 
While it's not something people like to discuss, lives are always assigned monetary values.

No.

We do it with every aspect of our bodies - workers comp agreements have charts showing the value of each limb or finger, etc.

A human is more than the sum of its body parts.

Look at it this way:

Say there's a disease called Deathabetes that primarily affects elderly people. Sheisa Pharmaceuticals develops a drug called Death-B-Gon that, on average, extends the life of a Deathabetes sufferer for 1 year. Now, if that drug cost $10, I would assume that every one of us would agree that Medicare should pay for it. If the cost were $5,000, I think most people would still be on board. But what it it cost $50,000? $500,000? $50,000,000?

Good thing this is all theoretical, since nothing costs that much. And why would we agree that Medicare would pay for it in the first place? It should pay for it if it fits some category that it has agreed to pay for in the first place. Whether it pays for it, or how much of it it pays for, does not then vary with how much it costs.

At some point, everyone would have to agree that the drug becomes too expensive to be worth its benefit. We face this exact same dilemma with thousands and thousands of drugs and procedures today, ranging from hip replacements to cancer treatments. How the balancing point is calculated is incredibly important.

Except that whether or not something is covered by insurance is not, and should not be, entirely decided on a case-by-case basis, but agreed on early on, usually in the form of a contract.

One of the reasons why insurance costs continue to increase is because of special interest groups that lobby insurers on this exact issue. First, a breast cancer group raises a stink about an insurance company refusing to pay for a particular expensive drug. Not wanting the bad publicity, the company agrees to pay for that drug. Then a Parkinson's group does the same. Then a MS group, then a Sickle Cell group, etc. The end result is that most everything ends up getting covered and the rest of the costs get passed on to everyone else.

Why wouldn't insurance companies cover breast cancer or Parkinson's? More importantly, why hadn't they until they were lobbied to do so? There's something fishy about that.

Here is the stark reality that neither Republicans or Democrats are willing to admit: So long as we as a nation continue to place such an incredibly high value on the availability of expensive life-saving treatments, we will never bring health care spending under control. I don't see such a significant cultural shift happening any time soon.

If that's true, which I doubt it is, then I guess I don't want health care spending "under control". High as our health care spending might be, we have, among other things, the highest cancer survival rates in the world (breast cancer included). Why you want to change that, I don't know.

I find how little value you place in human life depressing.
 
The program should be designed so that it is in their benefit to get health care without government aid though.

It's easy to ensure people benefit from getting health care without government aid.

Don't provide government aid (ie, my tax dollars) for their health care in the first place.
 
Connect.

The.

Dots.

Mass has always been less Liberal than you might think. Hell, one of the Republican frontrunners in 2008 came from Mass. In fact, out of all the states considered blue, I would count Mass as one of the most conservative, and it has been that way for a while. They are only really socially liberal, and they still are (just look at what Brown had to say on social issues not to be chewed out). There are no dots to connect here.
 
They said exactly the same thing about Reagan.

She delivers a message very similar to Reagan.

Now with a forum on FOXNEWS the remainder of the people can discover she isn't the idiot some people claim she is.

.

I think Ronald Reagan just threw up in his grave. :mrgreen:
 
No.
A human is more than the sum of its body parts.

Again, the fact that this is your moral stance doesn't change that it's how our society operates. Actuaries do these exact calculations day in and day out.

Good thing this is all theoretical, since nothing costs that much.

Absolutely nothing about this is theoretical. There are a multitude of treatments out there that cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of which are covered by insurance/Medicare and some which are not.

And why would we agree that Medicare would pay for it in the first place? It should pay for it if it fits some category that it has agreed to pay for in the first place. Whether it pays for it, or how much of it it pays for, does not then vary with how much it costs.

Let's say that Medicare agrees to cover the cost of drugs dealing with Hepatitis C. The drugs currently on the market cost $5,000. Say that next year a drug company introduces a better drug that costs $10,000. The following year it's a better one costing $15,000, so on and so forth.

You can't just dodge the question by saying "oh well no drug costs $50m." This exact issue comes up constantly and is something that we as a country need to face.

Except that whether or not something is covered by insurance is not, and should not be, entirely decided on a case-by-case basis, but agreed on early on, usually in the form of a contract.

Your insurance agreement specifies whether or not it covers every single drug on the planet? Or does it simply say that it will cover all reasonable expenses? How do you think that insurance companies determine what to cover and what not to cover?

Why wouldn't insurance companies cover breast cancer or Parkinson's? More importantly, why hadn't they until they were lobbied to do so? There's something fishy about that.

I'm not saying they "don't cover breast cancer or Parkinson's" at all, I'm saying that as new and expensive treatments are developed, they are not automatically covered.

If that's true, which I doubt it is, then I guess I don't want health care spending "under control". High as our health care spending might be, we have, among other things, the highest cancer survival rates in the world (breast cancer included). Why you want to change that, I don't know.

I find how little value you place in human life depressing.

And with all due respect, I think you're sacrificing reason for emotionality. I know it's proper to say that we should do everything possible, but that's not really a realistic position.

I keep coming back to this exercise because if you really force yourself to answer it, I don't think you'll be able to maintain your position:

Medicare covers cancer treatment. If pharmaceutical companies develop a new type of cancer treatment that increases your life expectancy by 3 months but costs $200,000, should Medicare pay for it? What if it only costs $50,000, but only increases life expectancy by 1 month? By one day?
 
Last edited:
Mass has always been less Liberal than you might think. Hell, one of the Republican frontrunners in 2008 came from Mass. In fact, out of all the states considered blue, I would count Mass as one of the most conservative, and it has been that way for a while. They are only really socially liberal, and they still are (just look at what Brown had to say on social issues not to be chewed out). There are no dots to connect here.

Romney was a flaming libtard. Guess who signed into law Massachusett[e]s health care scam?
 
Back
Top Bottom