HIV "cure" could make UK first to be rid of virus

[jonny5]

THE TRUTH IS IN THE MIDDLE



You are showing (once again) the Wrong Data to make the wrong point about Defense Budgeting. If one looks at both the total of Discretionary plus Non-discretionary Spending then, yes, the DoD budget is only 3% of the total.

But that information is comparatively "not newsworthy" because Non-discretionary Spending is mostly the National Debt!

What is relevant and newsworthy is its relation to Discretionary Budgeting (meaning that which constitutes policy as decided by the PotUS and approved by Congress after negotiations), and with such scrutiny the Defense Budget as a percentage of total is more like 52%.

Typical misrepresentation of the facts by the Rabidly Right - not that different from the Looney Left - which is why the truth is more likely somewhere in the Middle.

But given all the media "hoopla", the truth worth knowing is always found in murky policy detail - which is a place neither politicians nor news reporters like to go. And why?

Because they are driven by "sensation" - and "relevancy" is never very interesting to the general public ...
_________________

Im comparing apples to apples. Cost to GDP. In real dollars its much worse. We spend 4x as much on social services as we do defense, and thats just at the federal level. But we get a lot of bang for our buck luckily. Half the tax rate of Belgium, spent on 25x the population.

 

[zyzygy]

Im comparing apples to apples. Cost to GDP. In real dollars its much worse. We spend 4x as much on social services as we do defense, and thats just at the federal level. But we get a lot of bang for our buck luckily. Half the tax rate of Belgium, spent on 25x the population.

Yet the health service here is much better.

World Health Organization?s Ranking of the World?s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com

 

[Lafayette]

Im comparing apples to apples. Cost to GDP. In real dollars its much worse. We spend 4x as much on social services as we do defense, and thats just at the federal level. But we get a lot of bang for our buck luckily. Half the tax rate of Belgium, spent on 25x the population.

No we do not spend four times as much on "social services" as we do defense.

This is how the numbers are derived in Infographics and as developed by the web-site National Priorities, located here.

First, there is a distinction between Discretionary Spending and non-Discretionary Spending:

Then, of ONLY the Discretionary Part, the budget allocations look like this:

It is therefore clear that 54% of the total Discretionary budget is pure military.

My Point: If you don't like those numbers, if you think they that the National Priorities Project has "cooked the data" - then please do explain how. I am waiting with Great Anticipation ...
_____________

 

[jonny5]

No we do not spend four times as much on "social services" as we do defense.

This is how the numbers are derived in Infographics and as developed by the web-site National Priorities, located here.

First, there is a distinction between Discretionary Spending and non-Discretionary Spending:
[g[/IMG]

Then, of ONLY the Discretionary Part, the budget allocations look like this:
ng[/IMG]

It is therefore clear that 54% of the total Discretionary budget is pure military.

My Point: If you don't like those numbers, if you think they that the National Priorities Project has "cooked the data" - then please do explain how. I am waiting with Great Anticipation ...
_____________

Yes, we do. No need for colorful charts

National Defense 604,452
Human resources 2,870,907

Sorry, its actually 4.5 times as much.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Table 3.1

 

[jonny5]

Yet the health service here is much better.

World Health Organization?s Ranking of the World?s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com

Not so. The US has the best possible healthcare. Thats why people from around the world come here, and not belgium. We have the best medical schools, doctors, research, and facilities. We export those resources to other countries.

 

[zyzygy]

Not so. The US has the best possible healthcare. Thats why people from around the world come here, and not belgium. We have the best medical schools, doctors, research, and facilities. We export those resources to other countries.

Is that why a friend of mine is coming to Belgium next week for an operation that she cannot afford in the States? I'll go with the WHO rankings and not your unsupported opinion.

 

[Lafayette]

Yes, we do. No need for colorful charts

National Defense 604,452
Human resources 2,870,907

Sorry, its actually 4.5 times as much.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Table 3.1

You insist on making the same mistake. Human resources what (including retirement and unemployment)? Cheap shot, that.

For whatever the reason, you are comparing apples and walnuts - both "fruit" but clearly not the same ...
_________________

 

[truthatallcost]

Not so. The US has the best possible healthcare. Thats why people from around the world come here, and not belgium. We have the best medical schools, doctors, research, and facilities. We export those resources to other countries.

You might want to rethink that jonny.

Medical Errors Are No. 3 Cause Of U.S Deaths, Researchers Say
Only Heart Disease And Cancer Exceed Medical Errors As Causes Of Death : Shots - Health News : NPR

The US should have the best healthcare system in the world. We don't.

Due to overpopulation, overburdened doctors, low reimbursement, etc., the quality of our healthcare has deteriorated over the past several decades. Doctors now spend very little time with patients, as they're forced to see too many people during their work day.
They're literally killing people with mistakes.

 

[jonny5]

You insist on making the same mistake. Human resources what (including retirement and unemployment)? Cheap shot, that.

For whatever the reason, you are comparing apples and walnuts - both "fruit" but clearly not the same ...
_________________

I said social services. Thats what SOCIAL security and unemployment benefits are. Why do you insist on being rude?

 

[jonny5]

You might want to rethink that jonny.

Medical Errors Are No. 3 Cause Of U.S Deaths, Researchers Say
Only Heart Disease And Cancer Exceed Medical Errors As Causes Of Death : Shots - Health News : NPR

The US should have the best healthcare system in the world. We don't.

Due to overpopulation, overburdened doctors, low reimbursement, etc., the quality of our healthcare has deteriorated over the past several decades. Doctors now spend very little time with patients, as they're forced to see too many people during their work day.
They're literally killing people with mistakes.

I said best possible healthcare. Certainly the average person doesnt get that because they dont want to pay for it. People spend more on every other major function than healthcare. This probably is has to do with this culture of govt dependence and insurance model.

CONSUMER EXPENDITURES--2015

CONSUMER EXPENDITURES--2015

 

[blackjack50]

Still only research tests and the tests on the patient will continue but this looks very positive for all sufferers around the world. (Not to mention profits for sales in treatment)

Great news - now, should the drug be free or sold for profit? (Being from a country with Universal Healthcare I am very pro-free access to critical life saving treatments)

Lol

Dude.

It will be sold for profit. The question is who foots the bill? You as the tax payer? Or you as the insured.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lafayette]

I said social services. Thats what SOCIAL security and unemployment benefits are. Why do you insist on being rude?

They are none-the-less non-discretionary expenditures. Meaning that they are mandatory by law and not the discretion of the PotUS and the voting of Congress. Otherwise, they would be discretionary and indicate "public policy decisions".

There is a difference, and it is important politically - especially when discretionary spending is between one HUGE amount (54% for Defense) and piddling amounts for others that truly affect the lives of people - like education.

You comparisons in include non-discretionary expenditures (to serve your own purposes of reducing the size of DoD comparatively), and I am calling you out on them.

You have a curious sense of "rudeness" in debate ...
__________________

 

[jonny5]

They are none-the-less non-discretionary expenditures. Meaning that they are mandatory by law and not the discretion of the PotUS and the voting of Congress. Otherwise, they would be discretionary and indicate "public policy decisions".

There is a difference, and it is important politically - especially when discretionary spending is between one HUGE amount (54% for Defense) and piddling amounts for others that truly affect the lives of people - like education.

You comparisons in include non-discretionary expenditures (to serve your own purposes of reducing the size of DoD comparatively), and I am calling you out on them.

You have a curious sense of "rudeness" in debate ...
__________________

Cheap shot

I am waiting with Great Anticipation ...

Oh come off it! You are making ludicrous

Typical misrepresentation of the facts by the Rabidly Right

You are obsessed by unemployment

?

and my favorite:

Don't get flustered by the dork.

It amuses him ...

If you want to keep debating, then leave the derogatory tone out of it.

 

[Lafayette]

?If you want to keep debating, then leave the derogatory tone out of it.

Debate can be derogatory if the facts are there to justify the derogation (the verb of which means to "detract from").

I always put up the factual evidence behind my arguments. If they detract from yours, is that my problem? I am being disrespectful?

Methinks not ...
________________

 

[jonny5]

Debate can be derogatory if the facts are there to justify the derogation (the verb of which means to "detract from").

I always put up the factual evidence behind my arguments. If they detract from yours, is that my problem? I am being disrespectful?

Methinks not ...
________________

derogatory: showing a critical or disrespectful attitude

Apparently you dont want to debate in a civil manner, so Ill move on.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Lol

Dude.

It will be sold for profit. The question is who foots the bill? You as the tax payer? Or you as the insured.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Accepted - there is however the question of unregulated profit.

 

[truthatallcost]

Accepted - there is however the question of unregulated profit.

It's so disgusting what these pharmaceutical CEOs do for profit. Two recent examples being the EpiPen scandal and Martin Shrkeli, who famously increased the price of a medication used in the treatment of AIDS from $13.50 a pill, to $750 a pill.

Our elected officials are in bed with greedy pharmaceutical companies, as big pharma spends $130 million a year on lobbying efforts, or legalized bribery, depending on how you see it.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

It's so disgusting what these pharmaceutical CEOs do for profit. Two recent examples being the EpiPen scandal and Martin Shrkeli, who famously increased the price of a medication used in the treatment of AIDS from $13.50 a pill, to $750 a pill.

Our elected officials are in bed with greedy pharmaceutical companies, as big pharma spends $130 million a year on lobbying efforts, or legalized bribery, depending on how you see it.

Horrible. I remember reading that the guy who raised the price of Epipens was a speculator simply looking to make money?

 

[truthatallcost]

Horrible. I remember reading that the guy who raised the price of Epipens was a speculator simply looking to make money?

It was actually a woman in the EpiPen case. I believe that she was the CEO of the company. Shkreli at one point was a speculator, and his track record in the profession should have barred him from running a pharmaceutical company. I believe Shkreli may be facing prison time atm.

 

[jonny5]

It's so disgusting what these pharmaceutical CEOs do for profit. Two recent examples being the EpiPen scandal and Martin Shrkeli, who famously increased the price of a medication used in the treatment of AIDS from $13.50 a pill, to $750 a pill.

Our elected officials are in bed with greedy pharmaceutical companies, as big pharma spends $130 million a year on lobbying efforts, or legalized bribery, depending on how you see it.

Only because of your emotional connection to the product. Printer Ink has a higher mark up and I dont see any congressional hearings. Healthcare is no different. Its a product and a person should sell it for as much as someone will pay.

 

[truthatallcost]

Only because of your emotional connection to the product. Printer Ink has a higher mark up and I dont see any congressional hearings. Healthcare is no different. Its a product and a person should sell it for as much as someone will pay.

People who are already rich shouldn't be able to deny life saving medication to Americans. Business needs some regulation, because people like Shkreli prove that greed is a problem in this country. You can talk all you want about the free market, but when American car companies and banks were on the verge of collapse, due in part to their own bad decisions, they weren't relegated to death, as you probably think people who can't afford a $750 pill should be. The government stepped in and bailed the banks and car companies out, so you don't really have a legitimate argument.

 

[joG]

People who are already rich shouldn't be able to deny life saving medication to Americans. Business needs some regulation, because people like Shkreli prove that greed is a problem in this country. You can talk all you want about the free market, but when American car companies and banks were on the verge of collapse, due in part to their own bad decisions, they weren't relegated to death, as you probably think people who can't afford a $750 pill should be. The government stepped in and bailed the banks and car companies out, so you don't really have a legitimate argument.

If you are insured well, your insurance will pay $ 750 a pill. But there is no reason at all, why the owner of the patent should grant a sub optimum price to people that cannot pay. We don't feed the starving of treat the back streets of Jakarta at prices they can afford. So why should the poor of Alabama be an exception?

PS: Saving the economy from depressiin is a totally different story.

 

[truthatallcost]

If you are insured well, your insurance will pay $ 750 a pill. But there is no reason at all, why the owner of the patent should grant a sub optimum price to people that cannot pay. We don't feed the starving of treat the back streets of Jakarta at prices they can afford. So why should the poor of Alabama be an exception?

PS: Saving the economy from depressiin is a totally different story.

We should tell sick, uninsured people that they have to go die because some greedy ***hole wants a new private jet? Sorry, I think America can and should do better.
We actually do help feed people from other countries, as has been the case in Africa, China, etc. We also pay for HIV and Ebola medications to be given for free to sick individuals in Africa. Why should we treat sick people who live on another continent, while letting Americans die?

American banks sent millions of Americans into their own Great Depression, forcing eviction and bankruptcy on scores of families. Many of those families still haven't recovered nearly 10 years later. Some remain homeless.
Meanwhile, Citigroup received a staggering $45 billion in bailout money, and used $5 billion to reward a handful of already wealthy employees with bonuses.

 

[Auvergnat]

Only because of your emotional connection to the product. Printer Ink has a higher mark up and I dont see any congressional hearings. Healthcare is no different. Its a product and a person should sell it for as much as someone will pay.

Did you ever hear of Turing Pharmaceutical, which bought back rights on existing life-critical drugs and then increased one's price by 5000% ("almost all profit"), therefore throwing many patients who depended on it in life-threatening situations? Life-critical drugs are not a product like any other (nor are food and energy in poor countries).

Even if you are indifferent to the human costs and consider fair to kill people throughout speculative operations, at least approach it from an economic perspective: pharma companies enjoy monopolies as a result of their intellectual properties. While property (IP or not) is good, we have to acknowledge that exclusive rights distort the market, usually in a benign or balanced way, but sometimes very detrimentally. The latter must be curbed.


I have absolutely nothing against profit, capitalism or pharma companies. Even the very expensive drugs are usually priced that way to offset R&D costs, and profits are overall reasonable (and I would not mind them being higher). But count me out when it comes to deliberately kill people for profit, which a few companies and traders do regularly. Famines deliberately created a few years ago by purely financial agents in cereal markets are another example.

 

[jonny5]

People who are already rich shouldn't be able to deny life saving medication to Americans. Business needs some regulation, because people like Shkreli prove that greed is a problem in this country. You can talk all you want about the free market, but when American car companies and banks were on the verge of collapse, due in part to their own bad decisions, they weren't relegated to death, as you probably think people who can't afford a $750 pill should be. The government stepped in and bailed the banks and car companies out, so you don't really have a legitimate argument.

People who are rich should be entitled to do with their property what they want, same as a poor person. Im against bailouts of banks and car companies, so I DO have a legitimate argument. Im for liberty and equal treatment under the law. You appear to be saying poor people are more equal than the rich.