So let me get this straight;

Obama is a socialist. BAD
Obama is a muslim. BAD
Obama is a Nazi. BAD
Bush is a Nazi. Not "acceptable", but at least on the right track.

anyways, that's a pretty massive threadjack that if we want to continue discussing it could certainly be in its own thread. i just find it a fascinating subject

also interesting. and yes i'll make fun of the birthers because there's no basis in fact there. there's basis in fact in these other things.

I think this thread is now so all-encompassing that it is incapable of being threadjacked. All hail the Omnibus Political Thread!

There's no basis in fact that Bush is a Nazi.

Oh wait though, you've actually contended that there is.

i meant in the family ties bit.

anyways, i'm sincerely sorry for the threadjack, let's put this thread back on topic and if we want to start another thread to discuss the nazi ties of prescott bush, joe kennedy, bayer asprin, etc then let's do that

hence why the Health Care Townhalls also become much moch more of a debate about all of these things and very little is left about debating the actual pros or cons of the bill(s) being politiced.

Too bad you didn't take the bait more, I fall for this tactic all the time. I almost had you defending the existence of Bush's Nazi ties. It was kind of an experiment. Let's make the conversation about whether or not Bush is a Nazi. I like my chances there! It's like when I get tricked into downplaying the conservative fringe.

Now let's get back to the real issues critical to the debate - Sara Palin's facebook postings and what some hick yelled at Arlen Spector. After all, they speak for all those concerned with Obama's healthcare plan.

I thought this was interesting, and a very creative way to get a message across:

I am one who thinks we need an overhaul of our current insurance-based model for healthcare, but my concerns about the debated national policies are summed up nicely in there. I have family in Massachusetts, including some who work inside the healthcare industry, and while Massachusetts is doing a good job of providing emergency care to everyone, the healthcare system as a whole is doing a horrible job, with costs soaring and the state trying to figure out how to pay for it all. I just don't see that as a model we want to be following right now.

Please make your rebuttal argument in video form using Weeblos, k thx.

It's good to see JesseEwiak is back. Errr

In an attempt to get the discussion somewhat back on track - let me ask a question:

What exact problem(s) will a national health care plan resolve and how will it go about doing that? I still am fuzzy on what the actual goal of this plan is.

I believe in God and evolution also. I believe in Intelligent Design.
When you can come to me and explain how life started with science to back up your claims, until then I say you are the fool.

And those are all quotes from Obama. Im not real sure how they were taken out of context. This is what the man said.

briefly

there are millions of people who cannot get insurance.

millions of people that will be on their way out of affordable health insurance if they lose their jobs.

millions of people who cannot get affordable insurance due to a vague interpretation of pre-existing conditions.

millions of people who are dropped when they actually need their insurance.

millions of people who are one sickness in the family away from bankruptcy.

-these are just a few issues, not ALL the issues involved in the problem and certainly not representative of the 'problems' as both sides might see them.

So, it's basically to improve the "net of coverage"? If that's the case, why not identify who the millions are who don't have coverage and setup a targeted plan to provide them tax credits for coverage (or even a "poverty plan" of sorts). If this is the main set of concerns, 4 of the 5 would be addressed by:

1. Extend unemployment insurance from 2-3 months to 6-8 months (item 2).
2. Work with private carriers to provide a government sponsored "safety net" plan for people making less than a certain amount. There are plans like this in many states, but just setup a federal tax subsidy to cover the premiums for those who qualify (puts a dent in many of the other items).
3. Provide tax credits for small business owners to purchase into a private plan.

Those 3 items would cost significantly less than this 1000-page house plan and would put a fairly significant dent into the above issues. I really don't see how the house plan would do much more than the above to solve the issues listed, and it's significantly more expensive. Plus, we can work on bringing up our infrastructure while this first phase goes on.

Im not sure of a perfect answer. Right now I think there are multiple bills being talked about and those are only a few issues that popped into my head about the Health Insurance issues and costs we face. Im sure others can chime in on other real issues as well.

However, the problem that youve done a great job of focusing on is not what most people, the most loud and spectacular ones, are debating. Many are blending the health care debate with a bigger umbrella of issues thus not only making it hard to do anything in regards to solving anything it mitigates the points being made by the moderate majority on both sides.

When MBBF comes on here and makes a comment, like he did a few pages ago, insinuating that the politicians are pussies for canceling town halls it is simply continuing his and their spin. When someone like Tarcone blends the issue with his misguided belief that Obama has Muslim tendencies (whatever that means) it continues to muddy the point at hand. When someone blends the issue at hand with Fascism it isnt doing any good for either side as well.

If FOFC is a microcosm it stands to reason that you can extrapolate some conclusions with statistical ranges of error with what we see on TV and in the news (especially headlines).

So, it is what it is. MBBF, instead of compromise wants the democrats to shove it through. Why? It's a gamble that the GOP can gain seats some day on the back of this tactic. Ok. When the Democrats refuse to listen to the other side in trying to come to something that makes the middle of both sides happy it ends in getting the car sideways. All in all, I dont think either of the fringe, including MBBF sincerely care about this particular point at hand but a greater picture of 'winning at all costs' which is a shame.

That being said, until a bill comes out that can be looked out and debated Im not sure what the hell is going on, how to solve the real problems our country faces in health care (your options being something to debate too), and have seen the underbelly of the fringe.

I would like to know if they are going to protect funds going into the healthcare plan (think 'lock box') or is it going to go into the general fund like Social Security. When Congress sees all those funds, how can they not be tempted into using them for other expenditures?

I always thought there should be a "medical bankruptcy". It seems silly to lump in people who bought houses and cars they can't afford with people who got sick. Maybe have some kind of government guarantee to pay the bills if a person goes through the medical bankruptcy process.

My biggest problem is the mass of the bill and how nobody can be sure what's going to happen with such a dramatic overnight change.

If I'm reading this thing right, the Obama plan would only be free or low cost if you're poor. You get no help if you make $43k as an individual. You can still get the government plan, I guess, but you have to pay for it. They claim that this "government plan" will be self sufficient, but if the middle class has to subsidize the poor with its premiums, it's going to be pretty pricey.

And there's a huge tax penalty if you choose not to carry insurance. It's a reasonable fear that less employers will offer private healthcare as a benefit, as it will likely be more expensive with the imposed regulations. So if employers drop health care, then a middle class individual has to pay the whole thing out of pocket. And it will be the sub-standard government plan, probably of less quality then they have currently.

Or I guess to sum up the concern more generally, everybody seems to be focussed on the goals. They're fine goals, nobody's against the goals. There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about the practical risks. What if there's a huge recesssion and everyone loses their jobs, or what if the private health industry can't handle the competition? Can the government plan infrastructure handle wildly varying coverage needs and unpredictable demand? What would we do about a doctor/clinic shortage? I don't think care will be rationed for financial reasons, as this administration will just keep printing money. But what if there's not enough infrastructure for the demand? If you're GUARANTEEING everyone care, isn't rationing a necessary potential evil?

This country already spends, by far, more money per capita on health care than any country in the world, including those with universal care. We already have a national health care plan that everyone seems to agree is a disaster, but have gleeful confidence in a rushed (though not as rushed as Obama wanted it to be originally) plan that's bigger, more ambitious, more risky, and more unpredictable.

there's better evidence for life starting with science than intelligent design. See Miller-Urey, or any of the other abiogenesis experiments.

This is absolutely happening now, under the current system, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. As previously discussed, doctors have to have to be good businesspeople (as well as doctors) to see the fruit from their "labor of love." Costs of overhead (paying salaries and benefits for staff and malpractice insurance), business placement/location, and insurance/medicare/medicaid reductions make it difficult to survive or thrive for a lot of specialists.

I think it is just as easy to make the argument that doctors in big practices, big clinics, or research/university hospitals (most of whom are salaried and have a much less stressful lifestyle, as they aren't worried about their business) are under less stress to get patients in and out in a hurry, to see large numbers of patients in order to "cover costs," and/or wonder which of their patients will be able to pay.

As I mentioned earlier, my wife just completed her training a year ago and had the choice between a private clinic that required her to see 20-30 patients a day (do the math on that over 8 or 9 hours a day and consider the last time you had a conversation with a child or elderly person about their health) or working at a major university/research hospital that pays significantly less, but offers a much better lifestyle and gives her time enough time to work with patients (as opposed to letting a nurse or social worker do the work, with her ducking her head in so that the insurance pays and being a glorified Rx writer).

Yes, but some might argue that if you (figuratively) had lived even more within your means(if one can define "within your means") you may have been able to afford the medical bills. I think you're probably referring to poor people that get hammered with medical bills, so I'd agree but figured it worth noting the counter to it as an "across the board" type of thing.


A few things on this general thought and primarily the bolded:

1) I think it is reasonable to expect a good many employers to drop private in favor of public (and I think the Obama Admin is counting on it in order to guarantee coverage...unless there is a mandate in the bill that doctors/hospitals MUST accept the public plan...which would just further divert from private to public more quickly)

2) If you take my (1) as reasonable logic, then we are going to be employing (maybe tens of?) thousands of government employees to handle this workload. All with government pensions (correct me if wrong please) & no incentive to reduce costs for their "company". So...in an ideal scenario (throwing away my speculation on incentive even)...they divert money from the private sector to the government sector and they either reduce the cost/person by forcing doctors to take less money per unit (leading to cramming more patients in...i.e. longer waits) or they pay the same and take more taxes.

3) Economies of scale can make sense here but not if the government is acting like "another insurance company". So the real goal (if one believes the best of intentions) would have to be to squeeze out private business so as to realize those economies of scale. Sounds great, eh? Well...like many industries...having a monopoly (even government monopolies) never end well. They become bloated, protectionist, and continue the transfer of power to people "we" cannot vote out (i.e. federal government) all the while soaking up benefits the rest of us are not going to be afforded.

4) IMO, if socialized medicine is worth doing & can be done...it should be done on a single-payer system at the state level. The power, authority, and voting constituency can keep the people running it in check that way(i.e. I don't have to live with Massachussetts incompetence just because they can't make it work).

I believe in God and evolution also. I also believe in tolerance towards others who do not share my beliefs to the letter.

I'm not sure that anyone has any beef with the quotes you posted. But, when you come to conclusions like this:


Blanket statements and conclusions like these do nothing to promote Christianity, make you sound intolerant of others who have not shared in your cultural and/or religious experiences, and simply make others less tolerant of Christians who do are not as judgemental as you.

Or you could just continue pouting.

I actually think that's a good long term goal. For some reason the single-payer system scares me less than a complicated attempt to attempt to co-exist with the private sector.

Ideally, the way to see that happen would be 50 states trying out something, and then we learn from each other's mistakes, and eventually, have a fed plan that has some track record of success at the state level. But when all we have is failure at the state level right now, it's hard to be too confident.

The only problem of course, is that a single-payer system would mark the end of medical and technological developments in this country. As long as you have a richer, capitalist company and their corporations to leach off of (like everyone else in the world has with the U.S.), it's a great system. But who can we leech off of?

I do believe this is happening now as well, but do you think (know?) to what degree? Are we talking about 2-4 doctor offices consolidating to 10-15? Or are we talking about 2-3 being gobbled up into 50-100 doctor conglomerates?

I can see the former being inevitable due to liability, insurance, complexity of compliances, etc. But the latter is what I see as not necessarily unavoidable (though I'm sure there is an arguement for it as a benefit).

The fool thing was your anti-muslim BS and the quotes are pieced together and editorialized. I don't know how life started, the only scientific theory that has been tested is abiogenesis. I think life happened because of a higher power, but I also believe in the possibility it didn't. What I said was that I don't believe in one being presented as science in schools. Intelligent design is not science, even though I don't think anything in science rules it out.

Yeah, I had that thought as well though I do not have enough of a handle of the dynamics involved with R&D to know how this would affect it.

Ideally, it would be nice to keep R&D (mostly) private & for-profit in order to attract the best & brightest as to me, that is the potential fallout of such plans which are diffcult to project the repurcussions of financially.

Yeah, too bad there haven't been any technological advances in military or space programs, since the government is the single payer there as well.

I wish more people (on both sides) would be open to the idea that science and religion do not have to oppose one another. It is cringeworthy to see someone who is certain that God doesn't exist debate with someone who is certain that He does.

Not disagreeing but asking - why aren't there cutting edge medical technologies and drugs coming from European states (or are they)? Why is it all American companies?

Cuba has kick-ass healthcare. But they're definitely not developing anything.

The private sector is going to be a HUGE part of space travel in the next few decades. Letting them in is to going to greatly accelerate progress.

You can't really compare military, because you can't have anything but a single-payer system there. But obviously the U.S. government relies heavily on private companies for technology.

I can't speak for NASA but since when are General Dynamics, Lockhead Martin, Boeing, etc not private companies??? One could argue they live off the tit of the government's massive military budget but they are definitely not the government.

There are some, and the number is growing. Up until about 10 years ago, each country ran their own independent R&D groups. Now they are starting to work together under the E.U. umbrella, and getting more funds. They are staying at home, instead of coming to the U.S, because they are finally getting the needed resources without having to come to the US.

You actually make an unintended argument against Obama's plan in your military analogy. What if the government decided it needed to take over the defensive industry due to out of control costs and spending? Would a bureaucrat (with a government wage and government yearly pay increases) be able to design the next fighter jet or missile with the same vigor and focus as a group of private engineers (that probably get million dollar bonuses if the government chooses their fighter)?

The only thing that's pretty clear is you are truly the first person I've seen on this forum that I thought was batshit fucking insane. I actually thought you were just trolling at first.

I also think it's fair to say you make up the intolerant group of Christians that give the rest a bad name and lead those that don't believe in god or aren't christian to assume the rest are the same.

Who gives a flying fuck what religion our president represents anyway? If I were to make a list of important qualities for a president which god (if any) he prays to would be damn close to the bottom the list and would definitely rank below which sports teams he cheers for or what his favorite shows are. Should everyone share that view? No. But if you have a problem with a person's ability to lead simply based on his religious beliefs then I do question the foundation of your belief system.




Keep on respecting other people's beliefs. In the meantime I suggest not being an ignorant hypocrite in the meantime.



I apologize to everyone that was just trying to let this stuff slide by and die down. This is my first and last post that has anything to do with religion on this forum. I just can't believe there's people like this that can't see there's some serious conflicts with their beliefs and the way they act. Carry on.

Exactly, they are not the government. It is the same scenario under a single payer system. Doctors and hospitals that are independent businesses do the work, and are paid from the goverment budget. That's why I don't see why medical R&D would suddenly stop with a single payer system when in space and military it flourishes.

Except that the plans being discussed now are not about taking over the health care industry. None of the proposed plans are nationalizing doctors and hospitals, and making them direct federal government employees and institutions. That is how it works in the UK with the NIH, but not what is being considered here.

You can certainly have innovation but it doesnt typically come very efficiently (or cost-effectively). In relation to public health care, the concern is more that you don't get as much innovation due to the costs involved (or you go broke trying to maintain).

This is not true on any level.

Could you elaborate? Take say, the last significant 50 drugs that were developed in world. How many were developed by American companies? My perception could be all wrong, maybe all 50 were developed by the government of Spain. That's why I'm asking the questions.

Four of the top 10 most profitable pharmaceutical companies are American. Pfizer is the only one in the top four, though.


Edit:

Here is a wiki link with a couple easy-to-read charts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmac...rms_of_revenue

Here are the top five by sales:


Probably need a lot more info to glean much from that, but a lot of those companies have government sponsered healthcare in the nation they are headquartered in, obviously do a lot of development, and several have development labs in the U.S. (I know Glaxo has a big outfit in the Raleigh-Durham area).

One example is the EORTC (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer). They have trialed and made available quite a few of the more successful cancer treatments to have emerged over the past few years.

Well, most stem cell trials for heart and other diseases are performed in Europe, Japan, and South Korea (with some others in Southeast Asia). Also, just because Pfizer develops the drug doesn't mean all research was done there. A significant amount of research is done in Europe and Asia, with tons of new bipolymers stuff. I'm tired and the wife is feeding the baby (and scowling at my freedom) but that's just off the top of my head. Oh, and I'm not talking about embryonic stem cells either.

Interesting - but I wonder how a Swedish/Swiss/British pharm company makes that kind of money. Selling to Americans, right? They sell a pill to Sweden for $4 and America for $500. Do they need to be subsidized by us to develop?

(This sentence isn't intended to be sarcastic, even though it kind of gives off that tone).

Oh yeah, Novartis is a huge drug maker as is AstraZeneca. In fact, I think most top drug companies are foreign.

It does account for a lot, but many of the trials were done in Europe. The 4H trial was huge (Scotland). But you are correct I believe as the unhealthy US population requires a lot of drugs. And I think with the way the prices are regulated, they stand to make a lot more over here.

You would probably be more familiar with patent law than me, but I am pretty sure the U.S. requires a longer period of time before generic companies (which are a huge industry, as well) can re-produce and market them. Not sure how it works in other industialized nations.

BTW, here are the top 100 bestselling drugs in 2008: List of bestselling drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The location of the drug company is immaterial. As many have stated, the lack of price control in the US combined with the current private insurance system allows for much more of a profit in the US than anywhere else.

Now, some may say that's a bad thing (and many have). But, there's no way to avoid the fact that US price controls/rationing would throw a serious monkey wrench into R&D money for pharm companies (US and abroad).

I present a fact on what the radical muslim religion is all about. And dont think the radical muslim element wont influence the world. Iran is based on this. A radical muslim religion.
So, yes, a President in a Judeo-Christian country that leans towards that religion is very bothersome.
You are the crazy one for not realizing the importance that religion plays in the world. If you have any questions, please look towards the Middle east.

I am very tolerant of people. But not a President that says he wants to make a "Kingdom on Earth". That is "Anti-Christ" talk. Now Im sure you will call me another name in your tolerant way that you do so well. But this is a very ominous quote.

And Im not really sure how i am being aan "ignorant hypocrite"?
I see a world that is based on religion. I see a President that leans towards a sworn enemies religion. I really dont see how this is ignorant or hypocritical.