Jump to content

Universal Single-Payer Healthcare


bascule
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By and large, I've found the healthcare in this country to be fairly good, although due to the best efforts of the governments of recent times it is deteriorating. Largely because they involve the private sector, as it happens.

 

It could be dumb, but that's not how the health insurance care works. Preventative care would be cheaper than more expensive care later on, but using loopholes to deny coverage is cheaper still.

 

If we had a free market system

 

An unregulated market (especially if you take something like the FDA out of the equation) just creates further problems. Market corrections only come about when you get a sufficient pile of bodies.

 

Socializing medicine doesn't keep prices in check either, it just defers the cost of payment to a large group of people. While that may be a more effective method of treatment, it still winds up costing more for everyone.

 

If this were true it would be an argument for socialised medicine, but that doesn't really matter because I don't think it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An unregulated market (especially if you take something like the FDA out of the equation) just creates further problems. Market corrections only come about when you get a sufficient pile of bodies.

 

Actually, those very regulations are responsible for piling up bodies, and I have yet to see any "correction".

 

The high cost of health services regulation is

responsible for more than seven million

Americans lacking health insurance' date=' or one in six

of the average daily uninsured. [i']Moreover, 4,000

more Americans die every year from costs associated

with health services regulation (22,000) than

from lack of health insurance (18,000). [/i]The annual

net cost of health services regulation dwarfs

other costs imposed by government intervention

in the health care sector. This cost exceeds annual

consumer expenditures on gasoline and oil in

the United States and is twice the size of the

annual output of the motion picture and sound

recording industries.

 

Here's where it comes from - the 169 billion dollar hidden tax.

 

Not that there shouldn't be any regulation, but to assume more is better and is free from corruption would be false. Our healthcare system is a joke - big business for corporate america and the united states federal government. They are making out like bandits at the people's expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By and large, I've found the healthcare in this country to be fairly good, although due to the best efforts of the governments of recent times it is deteriorating. Largely because they involve the private sector, as it happens.

I've always found it good too, but I'm a white middle class suburban guy. I have no serious medical problems or medical bills who rarely goes to the doctor. But that's anecdotal anyway. In the US, millions are either uninsured or get denied treatment by the insurance companies. While I'm no fan of Michael Moore, is movie SickO wasn't wholly inaccurate about the state of healthcare in the country.

 

However, it also seems to me that, when the government tells us it's doing its best to keep something from deteriorating, you can look to the government for the cause of that deterioration. The government has failed at regulating the HMOs, because the private sector has infiltrated government too much. The politicians have no incentive to make laws to free up the market, and the companies would rather deal have more government involvement, as long as they're still in control. Because, here, government involvement don't mean protecting the consumers, it means protecting the insurance companies from performing the services the consumers think they are performing.

 

I don't know about the statistics, but we've all heard the stories about people who've had accidents or needed treatment but were denied coverage for the most ridiculous reasons... No, the current system in not working.

 

It is the fault of the private sector, but the government is only furthering this, not attempting to help it.

 

An unregulated market (especially if you take something like the FDA out of the equation) just creates further problems. Market corrections only come about when you get a sufficient pile of bodies.

 

An unregulated market can be dangerous, but in terms of health care, it would be healthy to free the market up, and get the insurance and pharmaceuticals out of government. If there was truly a free market, competition would keep prices low and services high.

 

People currently have little to no choice when it comes to health insurance providers. If their employed, they have to stick with the HMO their company provides... there is no option to shop around, as far as I know.

 

Therefore, the HMOs can use whatever loophole they want without worrying about losing business. In a market regulated economy, no health insurance companies couldn't deny coverage unless they had very good reason to, not because of government regulation, but because they would loose profit. Nobody would stay with an insurance company that didn't treat them like a human being.

 

If insurance companies had to compete for business, they would have no choice but to keep prices low and offer services to attract costumers... this is just basic economics.

 

The insurance companies don't want this, of course, because they can make more profits paying off the politicians and exploiting people. A socialized system would make it harder to deny coverage, but since everyone would be obligated to use the system, the profits would still be there.

 

 

 

If this were true it would be an argument for socialised medicine, but that doesn't really matter because I don't think it is true.

 

It's not a good argument for universal health care... because a system that is more expensive, and less effective is simply not a good system.

 

Now, of course, It's just my speculation, so it may not be true. I don't pretend to an economic genius, but it seems to me that, when you have socialized monopoly being supported, whether or not they like it, by a large group of people, it seems like prices are going to stay high. What's wrong with that reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's where it comes from - the 169 billion dollar hidden tax.

 

Have you actually read that? Have you read the things it's sourced from? Do you not see that the methodology that they use is disingenious at best?

 

Lies, damn lies and statistics; libertarian think tank research supports libertarian think tank ideals using dodgy arguments and statistics1 pulled from libertarian think tank research which supports libertarian think tank ideals. It's incestuous nonsense.

 

The current american system is terrible, and drastically inferior to the socialised healthcare models that you find around the world in both performance and efficiency. However, if it's a choice between the current system and a free market, FDA-less, one then I'd go for the inefficient white elephant which stops the selling of radium as a miracle cure every time.

 

1"Moreover, 4,000 more Americans die every year from costs associated with health services regulation (22,000) than from lack of health insurance (18,000)." is a pretty strong statement, wouldn't you agree? Do you really think that the strength of the statement is justified given that it was arrived at by dividing the "cost" of the health regulation system, found by adding together lots of bogus numbers, by "The median estimated income to avoid one death"? I really hope you do not.

 

I've always found it good too, but I'm a white middle class suburban guy

 

I'm English, not American. The private sector involvement I'm talking about is the nonsense of public-private partnerships.

 

An unregulated market can be dangerous, but in terms of health care, it would be healthy to free the market up, and get the insurance and pharmaceuticals out of government. If there was truly a free market, competition would keep prices low and services high.

 

No, it wouldn't. Bodies piling up in the streets.

 

It's not a good argument for universal health care... because a system that is more expensive, and less effective is simply not a good system.

 

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any socialised health care system I could name, with at best similar results. It also disproportionately encourages preventative care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current american system is terrible, and drastically inferior to the socialised healthcare models that you find around the world in both performance and efficiency.

For the people whose health insurance works, I have to disagree with you on that one. I point to waiting times as a big benefit to the US system.

 

However, if it's a choice between the current system and a free market, FDA-less, one then I'd go for the inefficient white elephant which stops the selling of radium as a miracle cure every time.

It's the same bureaucracy that disses the benefits of medicinal marijuana.

 

1"Moreover, 4,000 more Americans die every year from costs associated with health services regulation (22,000) than from lack of health insurance (18,000)." is a pretty strong statement, wouldn't you agree? Do you really think that the strength of the statement is justified given that it was arrived at by dividing the "cost" of the health regulation system, found by adding together lots of bogus numbers, by "The median estimated income to avoid one death"? I really hope you do not.

How is this different than how statistics usually work?

 

No, it wouldn't. Bodies piling up in the streets.

Would you care to demonstrate that the basic economic principles do not apply to health care?

 

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any socialised health care system I could name, with at best similar results. It also disproportionately encourages preventative care.

 

Again, I point to waiting times as a superior in the US system.

 

And I agree that the current system discourages preventative care, but as I have stated before, I think that decreasing control, giving people more power over their health care, would promote better preventative care.

People who don't take care of themselves will have to buy more expensive insurance later on in life... but that's what you get in a free market; personal responsibility. If the system was run properly, this person would get the best possible care, and afford it too, but someone who has always had preventative care would be at an advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I point to waiting times as a superior in the US system.

Does anyone have an actual study, a citation, or some reference to actual research that's been done on waiting times by countries with different healthcare models? This argument is used so very often, but I've yet to see proof that waiting times vary in any significant way.

 

If anyone knows of some actual data, I'd greatly appreciate you sharing it so I can view it for myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have an actual study, a citation, or some reference to actual research that's been done on waiting times by countries with different healthcare models? This argument is used so very often, but I've yet to see proof that waiting times very in any significant way.

 

If anyone knows of some actual data, I'd greatly appreciate you sharing it so I can view it for myself.

hmm.. true. I don't have the data by country, and I'm not sure such a list would be significantly useful, since is would depend largely on the type of treatment and doctor you need.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared#Wait_times

 

this is a comparison of US and Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the people whose health insurance works, I have to disagree with you on that one. I point to waiting times as a big benefit to the US system.

 

The advantages of waiting times in the United States compared to other countries is difficult to judge because of the lack of data collection. It's generally thought to be better on elective surgery, but in general the results are mixed, especially if you compare it against European countries rather than against Canada, who appear to have disproportionately long wait times in general.

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=245178

 

is a fairly representative piece. Interestingly enough this link suggests that preventative health care is of a high standard in the US, something that is worth further investigation.

 

It's the same bureaucracy that disses the benefits of medicinal marijuana.

 

I wondered when drugs would come up.

 

The FDA is not perfect, the FDA is not close to perfect. However, it's a lot better than nothing and the problems have generally come from either business or political interference, with the medicinal value of cannabis almost certainly being an example of the latter.

 

How is this different than how statistics usually work?

 

In politics, it's not, unfortunately.

 

If you don't see how "taking an estimate of the number of deaths "caused" by the FDA's lengthy drug approval process, multiplying that by the "value" of a human life and then dividing that by the median estimated income to avoid one death" is an abuse of statistics I don't know what to say.

 

Would you care to demonstrate that the basic economic principles do not apply to health care?

 

What mechanisms would be in place to stop abuse by companies if you removed the FDA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul on the FDA: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html

 

despite being a libertarian, I doubt that Ron Paul would be able to remove the FDA, if he got elected or if he would even try. Realistically, he would just change so that consumers make more informed decisions about their health care. Personally, I don't think the FDA should be removed, but it does have flaws that Paul seems to address.

 

What mechanisms would be in place to stop abuse by companies if you removed the FDA?

I was talking about economic principles as they apply to health insurance companies and health care providers, assuming the FDA remains.

From your words, it seems like you don't think market forces could control the business, even if we got rid of the corruption in government. Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dietry supplements aren't banned, they are merely banned from being advertised on the back of medical claims. Which is not surprising, because we're talking about things like homeopathy which have no medical benefits. Colloidal silver for all!

 

Realistically, he would just change so that consumers make more informed decisions about their health care.

 

No, he wants to make it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about health care. Supporting alternative medicine against the big bad FDA is not consistent with wanting people to make rational, informed decisions.

 

From your words, it seems like you don't think market forces could control the business, even if we got rid of the corruption in government. Why not?

 

Market forces can't be relied upon for the safety of the population. The Ford Pinto is probably the most famous examples, although there are many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dietary supplements are vitamins, not homopathic remedies (in the specific cases Paul is talking about). If there is sufficient evidence that these things are beneficial, for what purpose would the FDA control the market against their advertisement? And note the key phrase of "sufficient evidence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dietary supplements are vitamins, not homopathic remedies (in the specific cases Paul is talking about).

 

None of the things specifically mentioned in that article are vitamins. You may also want to look on his campaign site, where he specifically supports "alternative medicine" as medical treatment.

 

If there is sufficient evidence that these things are beneficial, for what purpose would the FDA control the market against their advertisement? And note the key phrase of "sufficient evidence."

 

There is not sufficient evidence for them being beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you actually read that? Have you read the things it's sourced from? Do you not see that the methodology that they use is disingenious at best?

 

Lies' date=' damn lies and statistics; libertarian think tank research supports libertarian think tank ideals using dodgy arguments and statistics1 pulled from libertarian think tank research which supports libertarian think tank ideals. It's incestuous nonsense.[/quote']

 

Yes, I've actually read it. Got any other sources of study on regulations and what they cost us? Something that quantifies its value? Or are you just peachy assuming regulation must be entirely wonderful without any negative consequences?

 

If it's nonsense, such nonsense as you've described, then it should be no problem for you to demonstrate. Or are you going to give us more of the same documentation from main stream think tank ideas using mainstream think tank research that supports mainstream think tank ideas?

 

The advantages of waiting times in the United States compared to other countries is difficult to judge because of the lack of data collection. It's generally thought to be better on elective surgery, but in general the results are mixed, especially if you compare it against European countries rather than against Canada, who appear to have disproportionately long wait times in general.

 

Mixed results? Lack of data collection? Please. Wait times don't even come up in healthcare discussions until you start comparing with centralized, socialized medicine.

 

No, he wants to make it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about health care. Supporting alternative medicine against the big bad FDA is not consistent with wanting people to make rational, informed decisions.

 

How is it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about health care just because you remove the government manacles that create the monopoly on drugs? Supporting alternative medicine against the big bad FDA is a statement about freedom of choice - no matter how stupid you think the choice is.

 

Freedom is a funny thing. To really enjoy its full function you have to stop worrying about how stupid you think everyone else is and how smart you think you are and using that to justify dictating your morality code onto them by force - using legislation. That's what religio-fanatics do. Instead, the price of freedom is allowing people to do stupid things and utilizing the power of persuasion and personal responsibility.

 

You misrepresent Paul's ideas because you judge his positions on face value rather than their principle. Just consider the principle of freedom and liberty and you'll see it reflected in his individual positions while those who oppose him spin those positions. There's always some kind of consequence and all you're really doing is pointing to that consequence and pretending as if that is his purpose.

 

Paul's purpose is not to keep you from making informed decisions and prop up an alternative medicine market - his purpose is to stop government interference; that it is wrong for the federal government to dictate what I choose to ingest. Like marijuana, among others. And that government regulation enables and secures monopolies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I've actually read it. Got any other sources of study on regulations and what they cost us? Something that quantifies its value? Or are you just peachy assuming regulation must be entirely wonderful without any negative consequences?

 

Part of the supposed cost is from the deaths "caused" by the FDA not giving us the beneficial drugs instantaneously multiplied by the value of a human life. You then divide this by the cost of saving a human life, which is less.

 

BUT GASP

 

If you then convert THIS number of "deaths" into money using the value of a human life and then divide by the cost of saving a human life, then even more people die!

 

BUT GASP!

 

YOU CAN DO THIS AGAIN!

 

From this, the only rational interpretation is that regulation kills an INFINITE number of people! WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOMED

 

If it's nonsense, such nonsense as you've described, then it should be no problem for you to demonstrate.

 

OK then

 

Mixed results? Lack of data collection? Please. Wait times don't even come up in healthcare discussions until you start comparing with centralized, socialized medicine.

 

Oh hey lets just ignore the rest of the argument that gives evidence that the wait times in socialised health care are not necessarily worse, noone will notice and I'll look like a player to the hot girls reading :cool:

 

How is it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about health care just because you remove the government manacles that create the monopoly on drugs?

 

Radium water. If you cannot understand why this is an issue then you don't understand one or all of 1. Why medicine is tested. 2. What companies do when you remove legislation protecting their customers. 3. What companies do when you HAVE legislation protecting their customers. 4. Why medicine is tested.

 

Supporting alternative medicine against the big bad FDA is a statement about freedom of choice - no matter how stupid you think the choice is.

 

The freedom to not drink something which may kill, blind or cripple you is quite important. Some may say more important. I would, for example.

 

Freedom is a funny thing. To really enjoy its full function you have to stop worrying about how stupid you think everyone else is and how smart you think you are and using that to justify dictating your morality code onto them by force - using legislation.

 

It's not about projecting a morality code you fool, it's about protecting companies from people who want to sell them inadequately tested medicine because it makes them a much bigger profit than something that may not be dangerous.

 

Of course, in libertarian world that's ok because I'll just spin up my home mass spectrometer to make sure it doesn't contain any thallium...

 

You misrepresent Paul's ideas because you judge his positions on face value rather than their principle. Just consider the principle of freedom and liberty and you'll see it reflected in his individual positions while those who oppose him spin those positions.

 

In 2003 he voted yes on banning partial birth abortion. Voted yes on banning it in 2000 as well.

 

Spin that please.

 

Paul's purpose is not to keep you from making informed decisions and prop up an alternative medicine market - his purpose is to stop government interference

 

Which is why he supports state rights, because a state government isn't a government!

 

that it is wrong for the federal government to dictate what I choose to ingest. Like marijuana, among others.

 

It's hilarious how it always comes back to cannabis.

 

And yes, it is wrong for the federal government to choose what you ingest. But they don't. I have no idea why you think they do.

 

And that government regulation enables and secures monopolies.

 

Lack of government regulation is pretty good at encouraging monopolies as well. Some would say better. I would, for one. History would too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From this, the only rational interpretation is that regulation kills an INFINITE number of people! WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOMED

 

Glad you're finally on board. Might be a bit zealous, though.

 

Radium water. If you cannot understand why this is an issue then you don't understand one or all of 1. Why medicine is tested. 2. What companies do when you remove legislation protecting their customers. 3. What companies do when you HAVE legislation protecting their customers. 4. Why medicine is tested.

 

So what is in the constitution that would make it ok for a company to distribute toothpaste with radium in it? Why can't that company be sued?

 

Incidentally, I'm not against government regulations as a concept, just that we go incredibly overboard and influence markets way, way too much. Ron Paul can be against the FDA all he wants, it isn't going away and I don't want it to either.

 

The freedom to not drink something which may kill, blind or cripple you is quite important. Some may say more important. I would, for example.

 

I don't see where anyone has the right to sell you poison without your knowledge, no. However, they should have the right to sell you poison.

 

It's not about projecting a morality code you fool[/b'],

 

That is absolutely out line and exposes your overly emotional investment in what should be a critically thoughtful, civil discussion.

 

it's about protecting companies from people who want to sell them inadequately tested medicine because it makes them a much bigger profit than something that may not be dangerous.

 

That's an opinion based on consequence, a valid one too, but I believe Dr. Paul's position is based on the principle of freedom from government interference. That's what I mean by misrepresentation, albeit due, perhaps to misinterpretation.

 

In 2003 he voted yes on banning partial birth abortion. Voted yes on banning it in 2000 as well.

 

Spin that please.

 

That's actually the first time I heard of him' date=' about a year ago, he stated in an interview on the matter that the constitution gaurantees [b']life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness. Clearly he believes the fetus is a citizen (which isn't consistent with his opposal to birth-right citizenship concerning immigration btw) and is enforcing its right to life - just like he'd enforce yours. I don't agree, but it's a valid point.

 

Which is why he supports state rights, because a state government isn't a government!

 

No, he supports state's rights because we have an imbalance of power in this federation - with the federal government taking a disproportionate amount of control. Some of us believe that there would be more harmony if there were more diversity throughout the various states.

 

Lack of government regulation is pretty good at encouraging monopolies as well. Some would say better. I would, for one. History would too.

 

Not nearly as effectively, nor long lasting. Nevertheless, I don't see how you can defend either one then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has come a bit of a rhetorical battle at this point, hasn't it.

 

Glad you're finally on board. Might be a bit zealous, though.

 

Hi5

 

So what is in the constitution that would make it ok for a company to distribute toothpaste with radium in it? Why can't that company be sued?

 

It doesn't make it ok, but it would happen. Radium water (and its ilk) existed before government regulation, and there are enough examples of people believing a generic person in a shiny suit to purchase it. And yes, they'd be sued, but companies would either take that into account or mysteriously go out of business when they didn't.

 

Either way, the populace still gets a heady dose of radiation, heavy metals or whatever cheap or magical product people get an impressive looking front man to sell. These are exactly the problems that bodies like the FDA were set up to prevent.

 

Incidentally, I'm not against government regulations as a concept, just that we go incredibly overboard and influence markets way, way too much. Ron Paul can be against the FDA all he wants, it isn't going away and I don't want it to either.

 

That's a fairly sensible opinion, depending on how much market influence you're worried about. Not much else to say about that.

 

I don't see where anyone has the right to sell you poison without your knowledge, no. However, they should have the right to sell you poison.

 

You can buy all forms of poison right now. I could go down to the shops and get some warfarin and be dead by dawn. Could cause fatal liver damage with paracetamol.

 

The thing is that these things aren't being sold as miracle cancer cures, and in the cases where they do have beneficial effects have been tested to ensure that, if I follow the guidelines, I'll have an extremely safe dosage.

 

That is absolutely out line and exposes your overly emotional investment in what should be a critically thoughtful, civil discussion.

 

I call people fools all the time, although I don't see a problem being emotionally invested with saving peoples' lives, even if I were.

 

That's an opinion based on consequence, a valid one too, but I believe Dr. Paul's position is based on the principle of freedom from government interference. That's what I mean by misrepresentation, albeit due, perhaps to misinterpretation.

 

Very hard to be free when you're dead. Certain loss of liberty if someone makes you blind, or deaf, or paraplegic.

 

These things can all happen naturally of course, but that's the way the world works. Doesn't mean we should encourage it.

 

That's actually the first time I heard of him, about a year ago, he stated in an interview on the matter that the constitution gaurantees life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness. Clearly he believes the fetus is a citizen (which isn't consistent with his opposal to birth-right citizenship concerning immigration btw) and is enforcing its right to life - just like he'd enforce yours. I don't agree, but it's a valid point.

 

In 2000, he voted to ban it even if it would save the mother's life. The 2003 vote may be defensible on those grounds, but the 2000 one: less so.

 

No, he supports state's rights because we have an imbalance of power in this federation - with the federal government taking a disproportionate amount of control. Some of us believe that there would be more harmony if there were more diversity throughout the various states.

 

I admit that it may be a selection bias here as they're the more obvious talking points, but so far the areas of interest seem to be banning abortion (he's definitely for that), allowing schools to select by race (he's for that too), severely reducing the seperation of church and state and letting people ban evolution in the curriculum.

 

I must also mention at this stage that I'm not an american, so the day to day social stuff passes me by.

 

On the issue of states, remember that We The People would make SCOTUS rulings not apply, so one of the most significant of the checks and balances of the federal government would be removed.

 

Not nearly as effectively, nor long lasting. Nevertheless, I don't see how you can defend either one then.

 

On the issue of monopolies, I haven't studied economics sufficiently to give an answer of what is the lesser of the two evils.

 

Overall, I think a socialist government might be better equipped to limit their effects, by controlling or price fixing certain goods and contributing to large amounts of blue sky research (the latter of which most governments seem to have given up on, which is a great pity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very hard to be free when you're dead. Certain loss of liberty if someone makes you blind, or deaf, or paraplegic.

I do think dismantling the FDA would be foolish... but even now we still have people who think alternative medicines are better than science-based. We can't force them to stop thinking this way... so why should we? People like being ignorant about these things, and there's nothing to say that, even if you smacked the research in their face, they would still choose the alternative medicine.

 

And just as a side note... I doubt that, even during a Paul presidency, would the FDA actually be shut down.

 

 

In 2000, he voted to ban it even if it would save the mother's life. The 2003 vote may be defensible on those grounds, but the 2000 one: less so.

I don't think so... you wouldn't purposefully kill a 2 month old to save a mother's life (hypothetically speaking). Paul wouldn't do that to a fetus.

 

However, I am actually pro-choice, so I don't agree with his morality. But that's why we'd make it a states issue, because not everybody has the same morals when it comes to abortion.

 

 

 

I admit that it may be a selection bias here as they're the more obvious talking points, but so far the areas of interest seem to be banning abortion (he's definitely for that), allowing schools to select by race (he's for that too), severely reducing the seperation of church and state and letting people ban evolution in the curriculum.

 

On the issue of states, remember that We The People would make SCOTUS rulings not apply, so one of the most significant of the checks and balances of the federal government would be removed.

I feel the need to remind you that this thread is supposed to be about Universal health care :cool:

 

 

 

 

Overall, I think a socialist government might be better equipped to limit their effects, by controlling or price fixing certain goods and contributing to large amounts of blue sky research (the latter of which most governments seem to have given up on, which is a great pity).

This is assuming that the socialist government cares about the greater good and that the politicians aren't just looking out for their own economic interests. Bringing it back to topic... this is one of the things that worries me with socialized health care; Who's to stop the government from, say, fixing medicine prices way too high, because the pharmaceuticals are paying off the people who make these decisions. While, in a free market, assuming multiple manufacturers are producing the medicine, competition will keep the price regulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think dismantling the FDA would be foolish... but even now we still have people who think alternative medicines are better than science-based. We can't force them to stop thinking this way... so why should we? People like being ignorant about these things, and there's nothing to say that, even if you smacked the research in their face, they would still choose the alternative medicine.

 

And they can take them if they like right now, it's just that they're labelled as dietry supplements. If they were labelled as medicines, then you'd get people taking them who wanted things that actually cured cancer, rather than things that only claim they do and have no evidence for it.

 

I don't think so... you wouldn't purposefully kill a 2 month old to save a mother's life (hypothetically speaking). Paul wouldn't do that to a fetus.

 

I can't think of a single example of a mother being endagered because you wouldn't kill a two-month old, other than the old fashioned "What if the world was going to be destroyed if you didn't torture satan himself for 30 seconds, are you in favour of torture now?" kind of jazz.

 

However, I am actually pro-choice, so I don't agree with his morality. But that's why we'd make it a states issue, because not everybody has the same morals when it comes to abortion.

 

Not everyone has the same morals when it comes to free speech, or the seperation of church and state. Doesn't mean those should become state issues.

 

Generally the religious right who oppose those things as well, oddly enough (except in the case where someone's talking about suppressing their free speech).

 

I feel the need to remind you that this thread is supposed to be about Universal health care :cool:

 

Oh I'll be sure to keep right on topic, I don't know even why I mentioned Ron Pa...

 

Ron Paul on the FDA: [url']http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html[/url]

 

Oh.

 

This is assuming that the socialist government cares about the greater good and that the politicians aren't just looking out for their own economic interests. Bringing it back to topic... this is one of the things that worries me with socialized health care; Who's to stop the government from, say, fixing medicine prices way too high, because the pharmaceuticals are paying off the people who make these decisions. While, in a free market, assuming multiple manufacturers are producing the medicine, competition will keep the price regulated.

 

Wait, so because business can subvert the regulations, business should be unregulated? It's so obvious, that's the last thing those guys would want!

 

Anyway, assuming that businessmen are all guys who go around eating babies and the socialist government is all made up of christ-like chaps, socialism is obviously better!

 

If you remove the things that make producing drugs expensive, most notably the R&D, then you remove the economic incentive for making new drugs compared to just producing any old hogswash and claiming it does anything you like. If it doesn't actually do anything, then that's ok as well - because neither does alternative medicine, so unless you want arbitrary restrictions on what's "alternative" and what's "useless" there's no way to stop that kind of nonsense.

 

If you keep the requirements but remove patents, then again: where's the economic incentive? You spend hundreds of millions of dollars creating a drug, and some other guy comes along and sells it for just above production cost because he didn't have to pay any of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't make it ok' date=' but it would happen. Radium water (and its ilk) existed before government regulation, and there are enough examples of people believing a generic person in a shiny suit to purchase it. And yes, they'd be sued, but companies would either take that into account or mysteriously go out of business when they didn't.

 

Either way, the populace still gets a heady dose of radiation, heavy metals or whatever cheap or magical product people get an impressive looking front man to sell. These are exactly the problems that bodies like the FDA were set up to prevent.[/quote']

 

So, it doesn't make it ok, and yes they can be sued - so it sounds to me like it's already illegal and they can already be punished. So what then is the point of regulation? Could it be that our examples of past inadequacies were more about a lack of enforcement rather than a lack of legislation?

 

Oh, but more regulations are the answer..yes, yes...more laws...always more laws...

 

The thing is that these things aren't being sold as miracle cancer cures, and in the cases where they do have beneficial effects have been tested to ensure that, if I follow the guidelines, I'll have an extremely safe dosage.

 

Glad you got my point. It's not legal to lie about the product you're selling.

 

I call people fools all the time, although I don't see a problem being emotionally invested with saving peoples' lives, even if I were.

 

Let's lay off the drama, you're not saving anyone's life in a chat forum... :rolleyes: And being emotionally invested to the point you utilize ad hom as a discussion tactic is childish and beneath the intellect of everyone else here.

 

Very hard to be free when you're dead. Certain loss of liberty if someone makes you blind, or deaf, or paraplegic.

 

Priceless. So, you do understand Dr. Paul's pro-life point of view after all. That protecting life is part of protecting liberty.

 

I admit that it may be a selection bias here as they're the more obvious talking points, but so far the areas of interest seem to be banning abortion (he's definitely for that), allowing schools to select by race (he's for that too), severely reducing the seperation of church and state and letting people ban evolution in the curriculum.

 

You can go ahead and add wholesale bias to your analysis here since you continue to equate consequence with intent with respect to Paul's positions. You might as well say that Dr. Paul is for racism by his advocating my personal right to allow or refuse anyone I want in my home - including if it's based on their race.

 

Clearly you fear true freedom.

 

Overall, I think a socialist government might be better equipped to limit their effects, by controlling or price fixing certain goods and contributing to large amounts of blue sky research (the latter of which most governments seem to have given up on, which is a great pity)

 

Yes, socialist governments have their advantages and disadvantages, as do capitalist federations - and we here in the united states have chosen capitalism and it's consequences. It won't always outperform socialist governments, but it is the preferred compliment to a free republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it doesn't make it ok, and yes they can be sued - so it sounds to me like it's already illegal and they can already be punished. So what then is the point of regulation? Could it be that our examples of past inadequacies were more about a lack of enforcement rather than a lack of legislation?

 

The problem here is that unless you regulate what can and can't be sold (especially as medicine), the people who sell dangerous things don't become tortfeasors until the harm is done. If people sold fish that could only be used to slap you, then you would presumeably prefer people not to be allowed to buy the fish in the first place rather than waiting for them to come up and slap you, and then getting some marginal compensation.

 

Of course, that's assuming that it's something as mild as a slap. If these fish killed you, you wouldn't really be getting anything back from the courts now, would you.

 

Oh, but more regulations are the answer..yes, yes...more laws...always more laws...

 

Yep, that's why I think we should try not to kill people. Because I want more laws.

 

Glad you got my point. It's not legal to lie about the product you're selling.

 

How do you know if they're lying or not, without clinical trials?

 

So either we have the guy suing (or his family, if the guy in question snuffed it) being forced to perform expensive clinical trials if he wants to be able to prove that the thing he took did not actually do what it said on the tin or we need some kind of government agency to do it. And it's not the first one of these options.

 

So this amazing solution of yours is to have an equivilent of the FDA only test "medicines" after they start being sold, and to let the bodies pile up in the streets till then! Hurray!

 

Market corrections occur when a product is found to be substandard. Without clinical trials, the only way to find out when a medical product is substandard is when you get a sufficiently large pile of bodies.

 

So, in summation: the changes you are supporting would either a) not change anything, except to have people die or b) give companies free reign over what they put out, and have people die.

 

Let's lay off the drama, you're not saving anyone's life in a chat forum... :rolleyes:

 

I thought when people discussed politics it was on the topic of what things they'd like, at a basic level, to happen. The way they want society to be run. I want people to stay alive, you want people to die.

 

I can understand dismissing the importance of political discussion if my chosen path ended up with the previously mentioned pile of corpses, so fair enough I suppose.

 

And being emotionally invested to the point you utilize ad hom as a discussion tactic is childish and beneath the intellect of everyone else here.

 

That's not ad hominem, you idiot.

 

Priceless. So, you do understand Dr. Paul's pro-life point of view after all. That protecting life is part of protecting liberty.

 

Lets take a week old foetus out of its mother and see how well it gets on, shall we?

 

It's a moot point anyway, legally life is defined in the US to start at birth.

 

You can go ahead and add wholesale bias to your analysis here since you continue to equate consequence with intent with respect to Paul's positions.

 

Last I checked, being an extremist was not a good thing. He does not get a pass card for wanting to increase freedom because you ignore the ways that the things he proposes decrease freedom. You might as well say that shooting a gun wildly into a crowd of people is supporting their right to live because noone gets killed until the bullets actually hit them.

 

You might as well say that Dr. Paul is for racism by his advocating my personal right to allow or refuse anyone I want in my home - including if it's based on their race.

 

I could say he was a racist for saying that the Civil Rights act has done "nothing but harm", calling black youths "fleet-footed" and saying that only 5% of blacks had sensible political opinions and then defending these statements.

 

In any case, you're allowed to refuse anyone into your home you like, with the exception of people with court orders. Unlike your claim of an ad hominem, this actually is an example of a strawman fallacy.

 

Clearly you fear true freedom.

 

The freedom to discriminate against black people is the most important freedom of all.

 

Yes, socialist governments have their advantages and disadvantages, as do capitalist federations - and we here in the united states have chosen capitalism and it's consequences. It won't always outperform socialist governments, but it is the preferred compliment to a free republic.

 

Could you please clarify how this relates to the difference between laissez-faire capitalism and a socialist government on the topic of promoting or reducing the effect of monopolies?

 

It seems a just a little bit like a non sequitur, given that this was started by you complaining about the US government encouraging monopolies, which socialism does (according to you) and laissez-faire capitalism does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not ad hominem, you idiot.

 

I know you're just being humorous there, but saying it again like that actually forces me to post this in public, because if I don't then some -- fool >:D -- wil assume we're letting you off the hook. So for the record, if you call someone an idiot again you'll receive a flame infraction.

 

If you want to discuss it further, my inbox is open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.