So many options. I would like to see Romney's decision tree.

Romney’s Wife Says Woman Being Eyed For Ticket « CBS DC

Obama is going to have to play the cards he's dealt with. If I was Romney, I would focus more on economy than on heathcare.

June jobs report: Hiring weak, unemployment unchanged - Jul. 6, 2012

I think Obama has overcome worse odds ... but no president since WWII has been relected with unemployment greater than 7.4%

The most important chart of the 2012 election - The Washington Post

I love this meme of "I can't hire because I don't know the tax rate". It's one of those if-you-repeat-it-enough-maybe-it-will-be-true. If you have demand, you hire. If you don't have demand, you don't hire. It's not suddenly going to go from 25% to 75% magically overnight and a tax rate going from 25% to 28% isn't going to give you pause when you need to hire someone to actually fulfill demand.

SI

I think it's just a polite way of saying that if the 2014 health care legislation goes through the cost of employing will rise so much that layoffs will be required. Therefore, let's not hire anyone to keep our potential severance costs lower.

You're right that the saying itself has become meaningless. As is most "code" intended to be politically correct.

Are there any places that you can get health insurance quote without giving up too much personal information? The cost of a family plan thru my wife's employer is greater than 65% of her monthly take home. I'm not super concerned about a high co-pay, as I would pay 100% of whatever is necessary now anyways.

That pretends to mean more than it does. From a rough reading of an unemployment chart, nobody has run for reelection with an unemployment rate of 8%.

This. Find me one person that could sell 100k more product, but won't because taxes may go up a few percentage points.

In the media these days, people who feel this way are called "freeloaders" and worse. The fact of the matter is that insurance with a low co-pay is much more expensive than the high-deductible plans. Most people have no idea how much most employer-paid insurance actually costs.

I made the same analysis when I decided to start this company 15 years ago. For a few years, I enjoyed the best of both worlds since I was married to someone who worked at a major corporation. When we had our son and she decided to stay at home full-time, I made a lot of phone calls and finally "woke up" to the fact that what we call "good" health insurance is extremely expensive, even for relatively healthy people.

What's available now varies from state to state. In Michigan, I'm pretty much limited to BCBS, and pay $160 a month for a $10k yearly deductible with no co-pay (it was $90 two years ago). I think it would approach $1,000 a month for a plan like what I'd have if I worked for a corporation. Keep in mind that these high-deductible plans will be illegal in 2014.

To answer your first question, insurance companies will ask a lot of personal questions. I would never advise lying to anyone, but I do believe some of the questions are a little unnecessary.

This is the question I've always wanted to ask about that - thanks for pointing out the answer!!!

HOLY FUCKBALLS BATMAN!!!

Exhibit #300million that healthcare costs in this country are fucking OUT OF CONTROL

Well, to be fair, she doesn't make that much money.

And that's why we need single payer.

High deductible plans do nothing for the problem of proactive vs. reactive care that we are facing, as they'd only be useful for people that ran into very serious conditions and not at all useful for middle to lower class people to get checkups or other preventative care which could help prevent said serious conditions.

Yup, then we can all have below average insurance with no options.

If you're ever guaranteed to sell 100k more product, it's a no-brainer to hire more even if your taxes go up 75%, but isn't hiring an employee the same as any other investment in your business, like a new location, or a new pizza oven? You have to pick the right time and balance projected sales, risks, etc. I don't think a modest tax increases would make any significant difference in that decision, just like a sight increase in the cost of a pizza oven wouldn't make a difference, but clearly the more expensive the oven/employee, the more careful you have to be, and the longer you have to wait to pull the trigger on a hire/buy.....I don't think a modest tax increase would impact much, but I do worry about the impact of new health care requirements.

Honestly, do you have any idea what you're talking about, or are you just a blithering fool? Took me less than 5 minutes to find this - it was like the 2nd google result.



World’s Best Medical Care? - New York Times

I wonder, do any of those 36 countries ahead of us in the health system rankings have anything that looks like Obamacare, with the influence of corporations and health insurance companies on government polices and the drafting of the healthcare legislation that we have here? I'm guessing most of the countries ahead of us have more nationalized, socialized, single-payer type systems...which isn't Obamacare....Obamacare may turn out to be a step backwards from those types of systems, in reality, and also because if it doesn't work as advertised, it will turn this country away from that type of system for generations.

Apparently you and those you have taken that information from do not believe in "American Exceptionalism."

Why is it the left is the side that believes that the USA can do anything when it puts things together, the right is always there to bitch that we shouldn't and can't do anything, yet the right is the side that then says that the left doesn't believe in "American Exceptionalism?"

Or does "American Exceptionalism" actually have nothing to do with what we do as a nation, but is merely a catch phrase of superiority? You know, something we can look at the rest of the world and say "Fuck you, you little pissant countries! We're better than you because we are AMERICA! Now make the shit we will buy so that our billionaires can make even bigger profits on that cheap shit. We need it to be cheap because we don't have the jobs here to buy products that are actually made here.

There surely is no correlation between massive profits, cheap products and a lack of jobs. Nope. None. We'll just have to cut taxes again on the wealthiest out there, because they create jobs. Maybe they didn't create jobs the last 18 times we cut their taxes, but the next time they will. And if not then, the next time... because they are the job creators and the only way they can create jobs is with lower taxes.

[Insert a why do you hate successful people? redstate/freerepublic meme here.]

Maybe someday in America we'll have liberals who actually believe in enacting polices rather than just bragging about them hypothetically. It's just so old. You have all the answers, we get it. The problems are complex, but you've figured them all out. You guys are brilliant and those with any different ideas are dumb. (and worse, anyone who disagrees with you on anything actually hates poor people and wants to protect the rich)

I think the liberals in power don't truly want the ideas to be tested, because it'd kill the cash cow. I think the power and control comes in maintaining the status quo (and then just blaming everyone else for "being stuck" in the status quo).

Obamacare is something modestly different and a good test, but, I still figure if it doesn't work it will just be someone else's fault, and it'll be something the liberals never"really" wanted. It's game for those in power to keep the aspirations always just out of reach of reality

So, molson, you start off with 'liberals are all talk, no action', then amazingly segue straight into Obamacare. So, which is it? If liberals in power don't truly want ideas to be tested, then why on Earth did they spend so much political capital getting the ACA passed?

Like I've said, I'm glad Obamacare's out there, I hope it gets a fair chance, I hope it succeeds. It's just the arrogance and morality plays that annoy me and I should know better than to get involved in it again and again. Healthcare and the economy are incredibly complicated, and people way smarter than all of us disagree on the best approaches, and it's cool and educational for us to disagree too - I just get a little worked up where people work in the morality stuff - if you think one thing or have one view it's just because you're brainwashed or hate poor people (same as if you have "x" view you hate success) Really, you're a better person simply for having a particular view about the nuts and bolts of an issue! That's the product that's sold and that's where political donations take off.

Obamacare has a billion built-in excuses, it's not an all-in thing. I remember a couple liberal posters here proclaiming they weren't going to support Obama in the '2012 Democratic primaries because of THIS plan, the one that is now apparently awesome. If it fails, we'll hear that again, how it was never really what they wanted.

Lots of lefties wanted single-payer. But that wasn't going to happen, so they decided doing something was better than doing nothing. I guess we'll find out whether or not that's actually true and whether health care will be like the Bowl Alliance with people wanting to go back to it, except with far greater/larger implications.

I'm still not clear on how you claim that 'Maybe someday in America we'll have liberals who actually believe in enacting polices rather than just bragging about them hypothetically.' If that was true, then how on earth does the ACA exist? It is pretty fucking far from hypothetical at this point.

Dola, if you want an example of bragging about something hypothetically, take a look at trickle-down economics. 30 years ago that was touted as the be-all end-all cure for economic issues. 30 years later, there has been the largest transfer of wealth from the common people to the gilded elite in the history of the world. And, incredibly, people are STILL buying into it, saying that if the policies aren't continued, then we all are facing economic ruin. Now it is not being sold in terms of trickle down benefiting everyone, it is in terms of killing off 'wealth creators'.

That's kind of what made me react, the liberal bragging seems to be about stuff at a higher level than the ACA, like how awesome a single-payer system would be. The REAL solution is always portrayed as being just out of reach and something more than what is actually possible. To keep reality from being tested. That rhetoric can survive any failed legislation. Maybe that's just unavoidable because obviously no party or viewpoint can get everything they want.

I like your view though and hope it's more like that - ACA as a definitive, specific, jumping off point for something real and different, that a party really believes in and that gets its fair opportunity to improve a bad system.

I'm not sure trickle-down economics is the sole (or primary) cause of the national deficit or the health care catastrophe, but I would be open-minded about someone presenting that theory as long as they could keep personal morals out of it. That's where my own rationality falls off a cliff - once someone tells me that one way or another is based on compassion or caring and/or another side is based on immoral greed (or that any political party is inherently correct in any situation, and the other side is just brainwashed, or liars), then I think they're full of shit and I want to explore the other view.

Edit: That's what I was responding to in M GO BLUE's post, looking back....that if you don't think "this way" you must be insincere and have some other motives, and a few pages before that if you don't think "this way" you must be brainwashed.

Even when (to put it in a term your profession uses) the preponderance of evidence points to something you think is full of shit?

No, I don't believe that there's a preponderance of evidence that any one economic philosophy is inherently correct (or more moral) in any given situation. I think in a lot of cases, execution is more important than the vision. (If we assume liberal is "correct", I'll take a well-administered conservative plan over a crapily run liberal plan any day).

But if you're being more specific about a narrow issue, maybe that's different. But for stuff like taxes, ACA, "trickle-down economics" (which can mean a million different things), nah, I don't think any of them can be proven good or bad by anyone on this board, we can only have opinions.

I don't consider myself a die-hard lefty but guess I am on this issue. This is me. Something is better than nothing.

I believe there are times when Fed/State government needs to come into play, "force an issue" and change the dynamics significantly to create a paradigm shift ... vs waiting on a (supposedly efficient) free market to cause that change.

I'm used to thinking of Healthcare as provider, payer and medical products. I think medical products is the most efficient, the other two much less so.

I do not think Obamacare is perfect, I'm not saying there are not better ideas out there, but this was the best that could be done all things considered.

I'm still waiting for a unified GOP stance on "repeal and replace" beyond the $2,500 tax credit that McCain proposed 4 years ago. The GOP have been very reactive, slow on healthcare issue and would not have done much without Obama's stance.

About morality of one stance vs another. I am interested in the conversation because I do believe there is a morality aspect to this.

I get this can take us down into a neverending rat hole of what if this or that etc. and agree it is unlikely to change beliefs (and piss people off) so there is no need to continue with this.

However, IMO there are clearly morality aspects to the healthcare debate.

But it's fine to say liberals are brainwashed and/or liars.

I'll throw this out there, and quickly duck...

Am I the only Socialist on the board?

The part is always left out of providing everything for your citizens, what happens when the money runs out and you can no longer provide? I am sure all of the European countries provided a blueprint that showed the money would always be there too.

You should probably throw pharma in as another big category. And, as far as medical products being the most efficient, if you mean DME, there are huge inefficiencies in that realm.

I've come to the point where I feel that single payer is probably the best long-term option for delivering equitable healthcare in this country. The real question becomes whether that equitable care is of high quality or not. If we model or base that single payer system off of the current Medicare/Medicaid system though, we're asking for long-term disaster. If we want to do this right, we need to tear the whole system down and rebuild it from square one. Too many inefficiencies and money-grabs exist in the current Medicare/Medicaid system (which admittedly also exist in the private insurance system). All you potentially accomplish by extending that "quality" of healthcare to more individuals is more revenue for those that are already taking advantage of the system. Sure you have more people getting medical care, but I think we should be shooting for better quality in addition to quantity.

Thats a little like saying that a purely 'private' health insurance scheme setup can't work by pointing at a specific country with a poor system as an example (say Ethiopia).

The failure (or otherwise) of specific countries economies has little to do with healthcare within Europe, if you look at the strongest economies in Europe it might interest you to know that they also have similar healthcare systems etc.

Greece isn't a problem because of healthcare and if we spent the OECD per capita average on healthcae it would largely eliminate our deficit problem.

Are there riots in Canada? How about we just copy them?

Taxes have almost no impact on hiring. I've never heard it brought up a single time in shareholder conference calls and I used to have to transcribe those things. So if it is an issue for all these companies, they are keeping it a secret from their shareholders.

Hiring is based on demand or perceived demand. You can create incentives such as tax credits for hiring which lower the overall cost and increase margins and lower potential risk. But one's own income tax rate has absolutely no impact on hiring, just demand. If you raised the CEO of Apple's income tax rate, he isn't firing a soul over it as long as people keep buying his products.

Like I said, for a problem they like to tout, it's never once come up in their conference calls.

No.

It appears it's all but a given that Missouri will opt-out of Obamacare. Support to opt-out is running 55-60% in polling.

It also appears that Claire McCaskill's Senate seat will go to the Republicans, mostly due to her support of Obamacare. All three Republican candidates are polling 50+% against her now no matter who wins the primary.

I think socialism means different things to different people. I support public education, some social programs and ACA.

However, it means being socialist vs capitalist, I would not consider myself socialist.

If taxes aren't an issue, then why do corporations keep their overseas profits overseas?

LePage Rails Against ‘Obamacare,’ Calls IRS ‘New Gestapo’ | TPMDC

I can't believe we elected this guy.

It's not an issue in hiring, it is in profits. You hire based on whether you feel the individual will provide a net positive to your company or not. No tax rate changes that.

Yeah, there are certain things that I think need to be socialized. Police force, roads, and so on. Everyone here is likely a socialist in some form or another. The extent though differs.

I'm a big fan of the free market and competition. Just don't think it's possible to do in areas like healthcare. There is no one competing for the business of someone with pre-existing conditions or someone who comes down with cancer. If you want a free market in healthcare, you have to allow those people and anyone else who doesn't have health insurance to die. Not many people are for that.

Gov Brewer's plans are so fantastic down in Arizona...

96 Year-Old Latino Former Arizona Governor Detained By Border Patrol In 100 Degree Heat | ThinkProgress

I believe in the free market.

I believe in free education and health care, first and foremost.

Federal Judge Richard Posner: The GOP Has Made Me Less Conservative : It's All Politics : NPR


He's not the only one. When the canard you believed in gets exposed as a hill of beans, you start to have second and third thoughts about your political ideology. Especially if it simply doesn't work.

I don't think there's any question that the conservative electorate has shifted to a more moderate position. I also don't think that's a bad thing either. The politicians will have to shift as well if they want to keep that more moderate electorate happy, which could eventually lead to a much better position for the party/agenda as a whole.

Every poll I've seen shows the opposite. Conservatives are far more conservative than they were ten years ago and their positions generally poll poorly with moderates.

I'm talking about the voters being more moderate, not the politicians. My comments align with what you're saying. I don't disagree in all. We'll have to see if the politicians are smart enough to move to where the voters are sliding.

I have met all three U.S. Senate candidates in the Missouri race this year. Had an experience that mirrors what we're discussing here. I'm of the more moderate variety of conservative. One of the candidates is Todd Akin. I met his wife at an Republican event one afternoon. Wonderful, older lady who would remind anyone of their favorite grandmother. Had a 2-3 minute talk with her and really enjoyed it.

Later that night, I was in line for the buffet at the event. All three candidates were chatting it up with people while they waited in line. Bruenner and Steelman (Akin's opponents) were very easy going and approachable. Akin approached me last and we shook hands. I told him I had met his wife and how fantastic it was to talk with her and get to know more about her.

At this point, I'm expecting him to come back with comments somewhere along the line of 'yes, she's such a wonderful person and I'm lucky to have her' or 'so glad you were able to meet her and learn more about what we're trying to do in our campaign'. His response?

"Great........and did you know I was voted as having the most conservative voting record during my time in office?????"

F'n idiot. I should have responded, "Great, and did you know you just lost a vote by feeding this moderate Republican a BS car salesman line rather than offering a heartfelt response????"

What an absolute turn-off. Is it so difficult for some of these people (on both sides) to be a bit more personable when trying to fish for votes, rather than going for the cheesy sell?

Do they really think that's what we want to hear?

I'm talking about the voters. From policies, to disdain for compromise, to believing Obama is a Muslim, strong majorities of conservatives are, if anything, further to the right than their elected officials and certainly further to the right than they were in 2000.

In a GOP primary in Missouri he'd be a fool to say anything else.

This. And any attempt to argue to the contrary is MOST LIKELY (not saying there aren't ANY moderate Republicans, just that they're a small number) simply part and parcel of an attempt to continue to move the Overton window further to the right.

I'd be interested to see the polling you're talking about, especially related to Missouri.


It's not bearing out that way at this point. His numbers have been the ones in decline since he started doing regular speaking engagements. Bruener is the one trending upward, and he's clearly the most moderate of the three candidates in that race.

I just hope I don't have to choose between Akin and McCaskill in the election. That would be a nightmare scenario IMO.

As far as the senate race, the last poll that I can find was at the end of May, and that had all three candidates within the margin of error. I'd bet those numbers aren't the same now that the primary is close, but who knows.

As for issue polling, I don't have any links this morning, but Gallup, NYTimes/CBS, WSJ, etc. have all run issue questions where large majorities of GOP and/or conservatives favor far right positions that are not favored by independents.

Not really. But like anything else on a scale, define Socialist. Technically the "Get your government hands off my Medicare" lady is somewhat socialist and she'd be shocked and insulted to hear it.

SI

Tax rates shouldn't effect decisions upstream like hiring in any healthy company, if adding employee X increases revenues more than expenses (even marginally) it is a good hire. Factor in a degree of risk for caution and it still comes down to that decision fundamentally, does this person generate a return to the bottom line with a significant probability.

What taxes do impact is the pot of money you have after all of your economic activity, the shell game lets them dangle a number in front of their shareholders that looks nice (boosting the short term price) and a different number in front of the government so they hand over less cash. There is some advantage to these games, at least in a world driven by short term stock prices and the executive bonus. In the long run theoretically they have to pay a tax (which is why the Republicans love the concept of tax holidays, essentially providing a black hole to unbalance the equation and take the money out of the system).

Cash is cash, the games are going to happen as long as they can get an advantage from it. The best answer is a simpler tax code enforced in such a way that if they game it too much they lose access to the extremely lucrative US market (this is possible, the government goons just don't have the incentive to do this).

Our reluctance to try to fix these imbalances is stoked up by the corrupt politicians pretending everything is in absolute terms on every downside (if you raise taxes one percent every investor will flee to the Cayman Islands) and washing out any of the potential gains as irrelevant (if you raise taxes one percent the rich people are so smart they will always avoid it entirely). Sometimes a simpler code will help more because it decreases the avenues they have for avoiding the taxes. Transparency is the ultimate enemy of corruption, that is why you see so many initiatives to restrict access to information and allow giant opaque walls to exist in business and government.

Dig for facts, run some numbers, not every idea has to be a battle between blowhard demagogues.

There is enormous amounts of data on tax rates, tax revenues, GDP, unemployment... yes it is a complex picture but some basic data mining can at least get you a concept of what factors are correlated at the macro level. Microeconomic analysis can be used on particular scenarios to see if a 'supply-side' solution makes sense and estimate its impact, and then apply that model to a number of companies and see how well it fits.

You start by analyzing the data you can and keep asking questions to develop your model. You avoid trying to advocate a position and you let the numbers lead you where they will, sometimes it will shock you out of your beliefs which you realize were more religion than reality anyway.

For health care, there are a lot of statistics of single payer states versus our mish-mash private system. The simple facts are for some reason, maybe not related to single payer, we pay more per every unit of healthcare than just about everyone.

I'm starting to think that people use the term "Socialist" just to troll the Republicans. (And I can't say I oppose any attempt to troll the Republicans.)

But really, saying "I am a Socialist" carries a lot of weight. It's a word that has lots of different, specific economic models under it. Anywhere from planned economy to market socialism. But, they all share a few common traits. Public control over the means of production being one. That means we'd have a economic system where the government directly decided (either through the government or through government owned corporations) what cars got made, what food was grown, all the way down to which games and toys were made.

We certainly wouldn't have FOF under a socialist system. Jim would be working in a cubical farm on whatever program that government felt they or the public needed. Probably accounting software (...the horror....)

Believing the government should offer some tax funded services does not make you a Socialist. People are confusing "Capitalism vs. Socialism" with "Anarchy vs. Government" (or they're not confusing them, just building a strawman, but no one ever does that!). There is "Anarcho-Capitalsim" and "Anarcho-Communism", but that's a whole different discussion. When someone says the are a Capitalist, they are not saying they oppose the government doing anything, and the terms "Capitalism" and "Socialism" are broad enough that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive (See: State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Here is a NY Times analysis on the states in play for the Presidential and Senate. No predictions but analysis.

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com
Senate Ratings - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Republicans in office also use the term as a ploy to get their own constituents to try and vote against / look unfavorably on Obama.

I laugh hard anytime someone invokes the phrase "Obama is a Socialist."

Or perhaps you're just confusing Communism with Socialism?

While it's very possible that some people are confusing what the terms mean or have just been listening to too much of the U.S. political dialogue which insists on confusing what these terms even remotely mean; it doesn't mean that just because someone says "I'm a socialist" or "I'm an anarchist with adjectives" or "I'm a free market socialist" or whatever else (mutualism? left-libertarianism?) , that they're somehow wrong. Not that anyone in this thread did that outright.

But going so far as to say that in a socialist society someone wouldn't be able to make a game and sell it on the free market, means one probably needs to go back and do a bit more reading before starting a (well-intentioned, probably) lecture on what it means to be a socialist.

The one thing that bugs me, at least in reference to Europe/Canada is that it seems that a large majority of advances in health care, drugs, etc. come out of the US compared to those countries and it's almost like we as Americans are paying for the advancement of medical science and then every other country waits for our companies to come over and say "Hey, that's great. We'll give you X for that" and they end up recovering their remaining profit from the US, which is the only place they can. Thus, we're paying out the ass compared to Canada/Europe.

Is this somewhat true or am I ignorant on the topic? :confused:

I believe there is alot of truth to this. However, note there was an article several years back that said pharmas spend more money on marketing/advertising than research (not sure if true anymore) so its not the entire story.

FWIW, many of the big pharma companies are based in Europe. (e.g. Glaxo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, et. al.)

It's the patents that allow companies to charge hundred to thousands of % markup on their drugs. Also, big pharma is only doing research on the cancers and such that are likely to make the most profit, the smaller, lesser known diseases don't get as much love simply because there's no financial motive (or as large of one) to solve those mysteries.


Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France - The Washington Post

[rhetorical]
And what moral system will be judging such actions? And how would such actions help/hurt you? If oen believes that we are judged personally, how can anything collective (non-participatory) be of value? Or are you implying some self-governed, sliding-scale morality system?
[/rhetorical]

Which would also go along with why college tuition and the resulting student loans have skyrocketed in prices.

So I take it that you don't drive on public roads, don't believe in public policing, or public fire departments, or public utilities?

One's moral system is somewhat relative. My Catholic background is the basis of my morality (although I am non-practicing).

I'm not sure I understand the context to the remaing questions. However, I would suggest we start a new thread as it does not relate to Obama.

One of the better Bill Maher New Rules rants from about a month ago ("If he's a Socialist, he's a lousy one.")

Those aren't "moral" issues either but man's needs, organizations and politics. To elevate man's laws into some collective morality is rather self-centered.

Healthcare isn't a need?

Are you not comprehending? I'll repeat. Those are "man's needs, organizations and politics." It's arrogant to elevate them to a morality issue when you will fall very short.

So preserving life in the womb is a crucial moral issue but once someone's out, preserving that life is not important?

Proper diet and exercise is a need.

Pro-Life isn't about abortion or morality though, it's about shaming women.

To use an old cliche (and basically my point) is that you cannot legislate morality. Abortion is an act that one should not do or advise (unless under extenuating circumstances, imo) regardless of the laws that man's government feels it needs to do. Passing the responsibility to a system that is rife with corruption, greed and arrogance is not something moral.

If you truly want to do something "moral", go down to your local ecumenical services and pay for a few prescriptions for those that cannot afford it. Relying on a corrupt, greedy system (as shown in the prices of health care) to do the work instead (sometime in the future), will not help.

I suggest we level-set and make sure we understand each other's definition of morality ... otherwise this discussion is doom to failure and misinterpretations.

Rather than relying on a corrupt, greedy for-profit system of hospitals and pharmaceuticals? Or corrupt, greedy people?

We all fall sort of perfection. To only claim the government is corrupt and greedy is the height of arrogance.

Of course. The system between the government and the health care industry is very inter-related and feeds off of each other. I have not said otherwise.

As was said earlier, many of the best pharma companies are based in Europe and Japan. Tons of our research also comes from Europe, Japan, and to a growing amount China. In fact, most of the early stem cell trials (not embryonic but adult) were conducted in Germany, Italy, Japan (damn the axis powers). That's not to say there's not a ton of innovation coming from the states, but a lot of it comes from people who are imported from India, China, and Europe. If you look at the top bioengineering schools in the world (my domain), the top 10 has 3 from England, another from Switzerland and the top 20 has a few from Canada, China, and others. The top life sciences schools have about 10 of the top 20 overseas.

I think notions like equality under the law allows for societies to mute their otherwise selfish and destructive rule of jungle behaviors.

So we're back on the end the tax cut for the wealthy thing as the main focus for the 15th time?

I'm not generally a big Maher fan, but this is fantastic.

Actual quotes from Romney fundraiser in the Hamptons this weekend:

MSNBC Stages 'Re-enactment' Of Romney Fundraiser | TPM TV

David Dreier, GOP Rep., Says Patient With 'Massive Tumor' Shouldn't Have Health Insurance Provided (VIDEO)

Sigh.

You can be upset all you want, but it's a situation that doesn't have a real good resolution at this point. If someone gets a massive tumor and opts out of medical insurance, should the insurance system suddenly shoulder the load of $1-2M in treatment and that person is only required to pay the relatively small premium?

But he is going to get a lot of expensive treatment through the emergency room. That's a big part of the problem. We aren't, thank God, going to let people die in the streets, so we need to come up with some system that allows us to cover those people in a more affordable manner.

"opts out."

Yeah, that's precisely what not getting coverage for pre-existing conditions is like. It's like opting out.

Except, nothing like it at all.

Yes.

The article had nothing to do with opting out of any coverage.

This particular mythical person with a large brain tumor is someone who we can say was repeatedly turned down for coverage by insurance providers because of their pre-existing condition. I think it's wrong and pretty close to cruel to say they won't be treated because an insurance company doesn't want to cover the expensive treatments needed. (Yes I know that they are running a business, etc, so don't throw that back at me.)

I'd rather have an insurance company covering his treatment while he pays a small premium, rather than him having to go to the ER uninsured, effectively being part of the massive problem that raises everybody's costs across the board.

But then again, I'm completely in support of a single payer health care system.

How can you be so compassionate in the "Disney" thread when talking about how you don't mind people being let ahead in the line if they have downs syndrome/autism/whatever (fyi i agree 100%), and yet be so inhumane here when talking about a hypothetical person with a brain tumor and them receiving healthcare?

Massively hypocritical IMO, no? I'd love for you to explain how it's not, because I honestly don't see how it isn't.

Sounds like something a 'death panel' would decide on to me.