I think I'm actually gonna go vote..

[mason]

Anyone else going to vote who usually don't? After watching a recap of the debates, I seriously think ALL REPUBLICAN candidates are out of their minds. This video alone makes me want to vote(aside from all the fucked up political shit going on with bush).

republican debate:
SpikedHumor.com » The Daily Show - Clusterf@#ks '08 » SpikedHumor.com

makes me fucking sick to even think they are a major political party.

I'm actually thinking about making landing pages to promote democrats heh.

 

[gdubs12345]

ive never voted before and im 30. But, ill definantely be voting this time.
The democrats want universal health care, whose gonna pay for it?
not me

 

[HellaGood]

The democrats want universal health care, whose gonna pay for it?
not me

If you've ever paid an insurance premium, or a tax bill, you're already paying for the uninsured. It's called cost-shifting.

Universal health care is coming to a neighborhood near you. Embrace the change.

 

[Miguel]

Yeah but at least I can sue Kaiser or Blue Shield when they fuck up, who are you gonna sue when the government run hospitals fuck up? Yeah good luck getting a court date before you die.

 

[geekcognito]

Anyone else going to vote who usually don't? After watching a recap of the debates, I seriously think ALL REPUBLICAN candidates are out of their minds. This video alone makes me want to vote(aside from all the fucked up political shit going on with bush).

republican debate:
SpikedHumor.com » The Daily Show - Clusterf@#ks '08 » SpikedHumor.com

makes me fucking sick to even think they are a major political party.

I'm actually thinking about making landing pages to promote democrats heh.

Don't be so quick to lump them all into the same category. Notice that even Jon Stewart didn't find anything to quip about concerning Ron Paul's statements. Here is a video of some of his answers to questions in that debate:

YouTube - The Winner of the Republican Debate


And here are highlights from the 1st GOP debate in which he entered with a 9% popular vote in the MSNBC popular poll and exited with 40%.

YouTube - Ron Paul Wins 1st GOP Debate

From Ron Paul's website:

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens” personal matters.
We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.
To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.
We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection” rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.
Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 in your local bank will generate a “suspicious activity report” to the federal government.
And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed,

• Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
• Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
• Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
• Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
• Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.


Ron Paul 2008 › Issues › Privacy and Personal Liberty


I agree that many of the Republican candidates are absolutely atrocious, but the more I learn about Ron Paul the more I want him to be the Republican Party candidate. The guy just makes sense, plain and simple.

 

[highlifelight]

If you've ever paid an insurance premium, or a tax bill, you're already paying for the uninsured. It's called cost-shifting.

Universal health care is coming to a neighborhood near you. Embrace the change.

Private health care spends more money fighting claims with lawyers than they would if they would just see to it that their patients receive the care that they pay for.

And Ford says something like $3000 of the cost of their cars is spent on health insurance for employees. If they were free of that, you'd see a whole new ballgame.

AND it's bullcrap to have to take certain jobs because they have insurance. Universal healthcare means you'll be able to go for what you're best at, regardless of their health benefits.

With that said, if they do it, it needs to be as transparent as possible.

 

[HellaGood]

Yeah but at least I can sue Kaiser or Blue Shield when they fuck up, who are you gonna sue when the government run hospitals fuck up? Yeah good luck getting a court date before you die.

Don't worry, there will be lots of people left to sue. The health care providers aren't going anywhere - only the payment structure will be changed.

I'm in on this too. When my mother went into the hospital this March for a routine hip replacement, she was perfectly healthy. Eight weeks after the hospital turned her into a wreck, she was dead. We might sue.

 

[highlifelight]

Yeah but at least I can sue Kaiser or Blue Shield when they fuck up, who are you gonna sue when the government run hospitals fuck up? Yeah good luck getting a court date before you die.

You sure you can sue your insurance company? Do you really think you'd even stand a chance?

They'd keep your case in eternal limbo, just like the picture you're painting of a single-payer system.

 

[Miguel]

You sure you can sue your insurance company? Do you really think you'd even stand a chance?

They'd keep your case in eternal limbo, just like the picture you're painting of a single-payer system.

B.S. lawyers and law firms have field days with malpractice suits asshat, people sue hospitals and doctors all the time and also win all the time. Thats one reason premiums are high is because it is so easy to sue the medical industry.

 

[highlifelight]

B.S. lawyers and law firms have field days with malpractice suits asshat, people sue hospitals and doctors all the time and also win all the time. Thats one reason premiums are high is because it is so easy to sue the medical industry.

Asshat? There is no reason to make it personal.

Malpractice premiums are high for doctors, not patients' own coverage. Patient health coverage is high because of the profit motive. As a corporation, (at least if you're a student of the Chicago school of economics, which you seem to be) their only motive and concern is producing a higher value to the owners. Does that jive with trying to keep people from getting sick or dying? Maybe a little, case by case, but on the aggregate, no.

Lawyers can be weasels, but they have a role to play. If I got sewn up with a scalpel in me, I'd want everything they had too. Reckless negligence comes with a price.

 

[geekcognito]

Private health care spends more money fighting claims with lawyers than they would if they would just see to it that their patients receive the care that they pay for.

And Ford says something like $3000 of the cost of their cars is spent on health insurance for employees. If they were free of that, you'd see a whole new ballgame.

AND it's bullcrap to have to take certain jobs because they have insurance. Universal healthcare means you'll be able to go for what you're best at, regardless of their health benefits.

With that said, if they do it, it needs to be as transparent as possible.

I'd rather not have my doctor's visits be the equivalent of waiting at the DMV and that is the exact analogy that many Canadians have made concerning their "free" universal healthcare system.

 

[Miguel]

Agreed, and actually malpractice isn't always a doctor a lot of things are nursing negligence and the hospitals and healtcare providers foot that bill.

And your right asshat was harsh.

Just don't fall for the KoolAid man, I lived in europe for 5 years and universal healthcare is nothing to write home about. Going to the hospital is worse than going to the DMV.

 

[highlifelight]

Agreed, and actually malpractice isn't always a doctor a lot of things are nursing negligence and the hospitals and healtcare providers foot that bill.

And your right asshat was harsh.

Just don't fall for the KoolAid man, I lived in europe for 5 years and universal healthcare is nothing to write home about. Going to the hospital is worse than going to the DMV.

Side note: A lot of nurses have to pay for malpractice insurance now because the hospitals will only cover them up to a point. Doesn't make my fiancee too happy.

Trust me, I'm leery of all of it. However, remember that private insurance will **never** go away. If you have the cash, somebody will see you. And since you're on this forum, chances are that you can go that route

The key is preventative care. A lot of folks without insurance get sick, and can't go to see anyone. They get worse, until finally it's a full-blown emergency and the hospital has to help them, putting them (and us) into serious, serious financial trouble. If the person could have sat at the "DMV" (as could be the case, it could be like that) and gotten in after a couple hours when they first started getting sick, the doctor could have prescribed some antibiotics or something and prevented all that money getting wasted.

I don't like government intrusion, but goddamn. I don't know. I get the feeling we're on the same page, just coming from different angles.

 

[geekcognito]

Oh, I see your point. I really do. It actually frustrates me that some people automatically think I'm a heartless ass when I say that I'm against universal health care. But I'm not. I just see that the implications of it are unrealistic.

Money is a necessary evil in healthcare. Without the allure of money, pharmeceutical companies wouldn't pay the millions for the research needed for the FDA to approve medication. The average is somewhere around $250 million per drug. If there was no promise for those companies to make that back, why would they ever do it? If you look around, many of the major medical advances are achieved in the United States, many from doctors that originated from other countries. Why? Money.

Yeah, as much as doctors would perform research, test, and implement new ideas just for the warm n' fuzzy feeling that they get in a perfect world, this world ain't perfect and it ain't ever going to be perfect.

As for lower-income preventative care, I agree. There must be some kind of subsidy in place. A subsidy is NOT universal health care. It should be a state-funded subsidy that comes directly from state taxes. State taxes that could be comfortably raised if federal taxes were rolled back to sane levels for the middle class. Taxpayers, though paying increased state taxes, would be happier because their overall taxes would decrease.


Less federal government and more states' rights = happy Constitution = happy Geekcognito.

 

[highlifelight]

Oh, I see your point. I really do. It actually frustrates me that some people automatically think I'm a heartless ass when I say that I'm against universal health care. But I'm not. I just see that the implications of it are unrealistic.

Money is a necessary evil in healthcare. Without the allure of money, pharmeceutical companies wouldn't pay the millions for the research needed for the FDA to approve medication. The average is somewhere around $250 million per drug. If there was no promise for those companies to make that back, why would they ever do it? If you look around, many of the major medical advances are achieved in the United States, many from doctors that originated from other countries. Why? Money.

Yeah, as much as doctors would perform research, test, and implement new ideas just for the warm n' fuzzy feeling that they get in a perfect world, this world ain't perfect and it ain't ever going to be perfect.

As for lower-income preventative care, I agree. There must be some kind of subsidy in place. A subsidy is NOT universal health care. It should be a state-funded subsidy that comes directly from state taxes. State taxes that could be comfortably raised if federal taxes were rolled back to sane levels for the middle class. Taxpayers, though paying increased state taxes, would be happier because their overall taxes would decrease.


Less federal government and more states' rights = happy Constitution = happy Geekcognito.

One thing though. The United States funds the research for new drugs for the entire rest of the world (some exceptions, but few). The rest of the world can negotiate prices with this internationals, we cannot. That alone poses a huge financial burden on us that should be shared.

The few drugs that are researched and developed overseas often never make it to us because of patent issues and research restrictions of the FDA. It becomes economically inefficient for say, Eli Lilly to buy the rights to some already-generic drug because the FDA would have to test it for X years, then they could only sell it for $5 or whatever.

It is apt and right for the free market to play a role in healthcare (as you said, the intrinsic value alone is not enough), but I really believe that finding ways to contructively regulate the markets to protect both doctors and patients could offer a positive solution.

The subsidy idea is a good start, and I would support it. I would prefer it go further, but that idea alone would significantly cut costs, and allow any sick person to get some medicine and advice before they become a huge financial liability, die, or run around making everyone else sick.

 

[geekcognito]

One thing though. The United States funds the research for new drugs for the entire rest of the world (some exceptions, but few). The rest of the world can negotiate prices with this internationals, we cannot. That alone poses a huge financial burden on us that should be shared.

Not really, as it's the drug companies that fund the research. Not the U.S. taxpayers. And they keep their patents for 10 years, if I'm not mistaken. Trust me, they make their money.

The few drugs that are researched and developed overseas often never make it to us because of patent issues and research restrictions of the FDA. It becomes economically inefficient for say, Eli Lilly to buy the rights to some already-generic drug because the FDA would have to test it for X years, then they could only sell it for $5 or whatever.

In most cases, I actually prefer this. But it's a personal preference. I got into IM through writing for a large health-related website and did extensive research on foreign-made generics and downright fake medications. Soooo many cases of pills have been caught at our borders (meaning that even more have slipped through) that not only contained little or no legitimate medication but even dangerous ingredients seemingly included for spite. There is little that U.S. customs can do to distinguish legitimate medication from "real" medication much of the time. The cost to test even small samples of medications would be unreal. Additionally, many cases of medication halted at the border contain a mixture of "real" medication and "fake" stuff. Google around and you will find dozens, if not hundreds of examples.

I'm getting off the point, but I felt I had to throw that in there.

It is apt and right for the free market to play a role in healthcare (as you said, the intrinsic value alone is not enough), but I really believe that finding ways to contructively regulate the markets to protect both doctors and patients could offer a positive solution.

If you want to see a constructive medium ground at which patients and doctors can come together, then any regulation would have to start at the lawyers that spur frivolous lawsuits and the bullying tactics of the insurance companies. There's your evil entities, if there is such a thing.

The subsidy idea is a good start, and I would support it. I would prefer it go further, but that idea alone would significantly cut costs, and allow any sick person to get some medicine and advice before they become a huge financial liability, die, or run around making everyone else sick.

Thanks. I came up with it myself, as far as I know. Now if only I could get someone in Washington to listen...

 

[am1r]

The few drugs that are researched and developed overseas often never make it to us because of patent issues and research restrictions of the FDA. It becomes economically inefficient for say, Eli Lilly to buy the rights to some already-generic drug because the FDA would have to test it for X years, then they could only sell it for $5 or whatever.

That's a problem with the FDA though. It should just be disbanded or completely reduced in size, power and complexity.

It takes, say, 10 years for a new drug to appear on the American market as it has to jump through all the FDA hoops. In the mean time, people are suffering and dying. I am sure many of these people would rather take the risk and use an FDA-unapproved drug and that is why there is a booming trade in medical tourism to China and elsewhere to use new treatments and medicines.

 

[lesbiandude]

you guys seriously take jon stewarts rambling as a serious source of political information?
he is a registered democrat and so is colbert...no shit they are going to find the worse possible things with republicans

 

[am1r]

Jon Stewart isn't a great source of political information (for me, anyway) but Ron Paul (a Republican) certainly is. And as he says, the contemporary Republican party has completely lost the plot and needs to return to small government fiscal conservatism.

 

[feros]

Yea I can't believe they extensively test drugs while people are suffering *now*!

I mean just 100 years ago cigarettes cured cancer but only when used with high doses of radiation, and nothing bad came of that. No testing needed, I say.

That's a problem with the FDA though. It should just be disbanded or completely reduced in size, power and complexity.

It takes, say, 10 years for a new drug to appear on the American market as it has to jump through all the FDA hoops. In the mean time, people are suffering and dying. I am sure many of these people would rather take the risk and use an FDA-unapproved drug and that is why there is a booming trade in medical tourism to China and elsewhere to use new treatments and medicines.