Also, magekillr, I wanted to know - how does a raise in premiums help your liberal base's platform any more? I thought the biggest reason that you guys wanted to pass gov't healthcare was so that insurance companies couldn't raise their rates - you know, make healthcare cheaper for everyone.

 

We didn't pass government health care. We passed a Republican plan from 1994. Most of it also doesn't go into effect until 2014.

 

Seems like you guys missed that in the boondoggle of 1000+ pages of legislation.

 

Talking about page numbers is such an old and pointless talking point.

 

And don't give me any excuses about how it was the political right that prevented it from happening - you had a super majority in both the house, the senate. If you guys had your act together you could have passed anything. Don't worry though. Come November 2nd, America will show you exactly how pissed off it is with the leftist/progressive agenda.

 

Not really. See, that's the problem with the GOP: they have been purged of any moderate or liberal Republicans, and now there are only the far-right. Not even Bob Bennet was far enough to the right for your reactionary [wagon]. The Democrats, on the other hand, have like a bunch of pro-lifers, a bunch of corporate Blue Dogs, and a larger tent. And it's because you purged them all into the Democratic party, moving the Democratic party to the right. So half of our members would have been Republicans like...20-30 years ago.

 

And again, not really. They're upset about the economy, not really about anything Obama's passed.

 

You're such a hack. If this was 1994 and it were the GOP who passed it, you'd be praising this health care bill. That's the difference between you and I: I thought the bill was [cabbage] because it was a Republican, conservative health care bill written by the Heritage Foundation. However, if it was all that could be done to help the 38,000,000 without insurance, then I had no choice but to get behind it. I criticize my leaders, I criticize Obama everyday. You defy your politicians and treat them like gods. Perhaps it's a winning strategy, but a government not criticized when your team is in power is exactly why Bush doubled the debt, led us into two wars, left Katrina flooded, and dropped a financial crisis on us.

 

Your post actually tries to feel bad for rich people; the people who brought us into this crisis, and the people who are making more money today than they were in 2008 and 2009. Meanwhile, 10% of America is unemployed (far higher than that, too).

 

This is what you're defending:

 

 

 

 

So please, spare your "oh the poor widdle rich people are paying taxes while someone making $25,000 doesn't pay ANYTHING!!! Waaaahhh waaahhh!!!" People are poorer today than they were in 1999. The rich pay lower percentage in taxes than your average American because of deductions and loopholes.

 

edit, and then there's this research:

 

David A. Moss, an economic and policy historian at the Harvard Business School, has spent years studying income inequality. While he has long believed that the growing disparity between the rich and poor was harmful to the people on the bottom, he says he hadn’t seen the risks to the world of finance, where many of the richest earn their great fortunes.

 

Now, as he studies the financial crisis of 2008, Mr. Moss says that even Wall Street may have something serious to fear from inequality — namely, another crisis.

 

The possible connection between economic inequality and financial crises came to Mr. Moss about a year ago, when he was at his research center in Cambridge, Mass. A colleague suggested that he overlay two different graphs — one plotting financial regulation and bank failures, and the other charting trends in income inequality.

 

Mr. Moss says he was surprised by what he saw. The timelines danced in sync with each other. Income disparities between rich and poor widened as government regulations eased and bank failures rose.

Income Inequality and Financial Crises

I'm no economist and frankly have no diea what I'm talking about, hence why I avoid this thread, but....

 

Your "Growing Income Gap" graph seems to show a period of high taxes directly before the great depression.

 

Just saying.

Bush doubled the debt? After 4 years Obama's gonna quintuple it.

I'm no economist and frankly have no diea what I'm talking about, hence why I avoid this thread, but....

 

Your "Growing Income Gap" graph seems to show a period of high taxes directly before the great depression.

 

Just saying.

 

Well before the Great Depression, there was no real regulation on the financial sector. There was no real macroeconomic theory, either. Economics was just a budding discipline then, with Hayek and Keynes battling it out. Hayek had the consensus of what to do in times of recession back then: raise taxes and balance the budget. This is what Hoover did. Woops. Not only did it make it worse, but it made the debt/deficit worse (something like 299% debt-gdp ratio). Why? Because there is no growth.

 

This is why austerity is stupid as hell. You stifle growth, you lose a lot of tax revenue and your economy doesn't grow faster than the debt. It's counterintuitive, I know. From 1929 to 1933, everyone was trying to pay down debt — and the debt/GDP ratio skyrocketed thanks to contraction and deflation. During and immediately after WWII, there was massive borrowing — but GDP grew faster than debt, and the debt burden ended up falling.

 

 

Plus, we were on the gold standard back then. And the gold standard is the stupidest idea ever.

Wait, Magekillr, how can you criticize Fox News, and then post Nytimes? The [bleep]? Nytimes is the fox news for liberals.

Wait, Magekillr, how can you criticize Fox News, and then post Nytimes? The [bleep]? Nytimes is the fox news for liberals.

 

Please tell me you're joking. Not that I like the NYT; most US media is a bunch of [cabbage]. But seriously? If you have this view, then there's really no helping you, man. The NY Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post are the only newspapers left in America worth posting from their news section.

 

Al Jazeera and the BBC are significantly better than any US source.

 

As I told someone around here earlier: there is no left equivalent to what the right wing is today.

Removed quote ~ Jimmy_Jim

NYT isn't really liberal. They won't even use the word torture when talking about Bush's torture program. Which reporters who write for them are liberal? Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich. That's it. David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Tom Friedman, Roger Cohen and Charles Blow are all conservative.

 

It's not about really conservative and really liberal, my friend. It's about truth vs. lies. Fox News isn't news. They actively lie, distort facts, and peddle falsehoods. They are an arm of the Republican party. What is the point of news? To educate. Fox Viewers are the least knowledgeable, by far, and there's a reason for that: Fox lies:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqS7jK6E6h8

 

My parents are far-right Evangelical Christians who believe in a world wide flood, vaccines cause autism, evolution isn't true, gay people are the end of society, and the universe is 6,000 years old. And weed doesn't kill brain cells.

Edited September 5, 201015 yr by jimmy_jim

I'm quite aware. I was making a humorous comparison. I called you a bowl smoking tree hugging stereotype, but I really don't know anything about you. However, you gladly accuse me of being a fox news breeding conservative? Who gave you that authority. :lol:

 

 

Back to my earlier point: You're a close minded bigoted liberal hiding behind a facade of openmindedness, you don't come here to debate, you come here to smash all opposing opinions to the ground from whence they dare come. You'll say you're here to debate, that you just haven't been convinced, but you've never been a good liar.

And how could I possibly forget Gail Collins and her indulging idiocy:

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/what-the-tea-party-really-wants/?ref=opinion

Magekillr, how many hours a day do you spend going over political data and slandering articles to pass off to everyone that half of Americans are soulless morons, and that the European method, which has done so well economically, is the only right and true way?

 

Im pretty sure you're going to take this as some kind of avoidance of the truth or something, so I probably won't bother responding. All I can is this: wait for November.

Seems like you guys missed that in the boondoggle of 1000+ pages of legislation.

 

Talking about page numbers is such an old and pointless talking point.

That bill didn't need to be 1000 pages long. In fact, no law needs to be 1000 pages long. The only reason a law needs to be 1000 pages long is to include every special interest in Washington, trying to get their piece. And for something that's "comprehensive," you sure missed a ton.

 

And don't give me any excuses about how it was the political right that prevented it from happening - you had a super majority in both the house, the senate. If you guys had your act together you could have passed anything. Don't worry though. Come November 2nd, America will show you exactly how pissed off it is with the leftist/progressive agenda.

Not really. See, that's the problem with the GOP: they have been purged of any moderate or liberal Republicans, and now there are only the far-right. Not even Bob Bennet was far enough to the right for your reactionary [wagon]. The Democrats, on the other hand, have like a bunch of pro-lifers, a bunch of corporate Blue Dogs, and a larger tent. And it's because you purged them all into the Democratic party, moving the Democratic party to the right. So half of our members would have been Republicans like...20-30 years ago.

Name all the Democrats who are pro-life, and I'll show you a list of people that have sold their souls. When it comes down to voting, the only thing that matters is the D or the R next to their name. People rarely break from their party on votes. A case in point is Stupak - he was bought off with some money to improve a Michigan airport.

 

And again, not really. They're upset about the economy, not really about anything Obama's passed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% favor repeal of the new national health care law while 36% are opposed. These figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 28% who are Strongly Opposed.

This was Aug-30.

 

You're such a hack. If this was 1994 and it were the GOP who passed it' date=' you'd be praising this health care bill. That's the difference between you and I: I thought the bill was [cabbage'] because it was a Republican, conservative health care bill written by the Heritage Foundation. However, if it was all that could be done to help the 38,000,000 without insurance, then I had no choice but to get behind it. I criticize my leaders, I criticize Obama everyday. You defy your politicians and treat them like gods. Perhaps it's a winning strategy, but a government not criticized when your team is in power is exactly why Bush doubled the debt, led us into two wars, left Katrina flooded, and dropped a financial crisis on us.

The way it was written? no way. And the way the bailout bill was written? Free money for banks, no strings attached. This will make sure they'll start lending, right? Its funny how you love to criticize Bush for the debt he incurred in the last few months in office, when your boy Barry has racked up the same amount or more. Also, let's not forget that it was your boy Barney Frank's financial crisis, forcing banks to lend money to those who couldn't pay it back.

 

Your post actually tries to feel bad for rich people; the people who brought us into this crisis, and the people who are making more money today than they were in 2008 and 2009. Meanwhile, 10% of America is unemployed (far higher than that, too).

B.O. has had two years to push his agenda. You'd think that dropping a couple trillion dollars would "stimulate" the economy, but it appears that Keynesian economic theory has thoroughly been debunked. In the 1920s there was a severe recession. This was believed to be caused primarily by deflation. Anyhow, the response to the decrease in GDP was to slash taxes and to slash government spending. The reason its never taught in history books is because of how brief it was.

 

So please, spare your "oh the poor widdle rich people are paying taxes while someone making $25,000 doesn't pay ANYTHING!!! Waaaahhh waaahhh!!!" People are poorer today than they were in 1999. The rich pay lower percentage in taxes than your average American because of deductions and loopholes.

Part of limited government is writing simple legislation that has no loop-holes. A simplified tax code would work wonders to help businesses. Big questions right now for small businesses are, "If I were to hire this person, how much overhead would I have to pay?" No one has any idea what the current laws are or how it'll affect them. Uncertainty certainly does not help an economy.

The other thing that Obama appears to hate is success. People that "make enough money already."

 

 

Right now, the Democrats are predicted to lose the house, and possibly the Senate. If that isn't a referendum on current policies, I don't know what is.

Why Congress won't get this I'll never understand, but even if they did, the Republicans will do everything they can to stifle recovery, even if it means a double dip recession.

 

You don't honestly believe this, do you? The Republicans are attempting to fix an unprecedented problem in the American economy, just as everyone else is. That they took a different position from the democrats is not necessarily wrong - nobody is truly able to accurately predict the limits of the United States' sovereign debt, so austerity may be necessary.

 

Then why do they oppose ideas that were theirs when they're voted on? Yes, I do believe it. From the health care bill, to cap and trade, to just about every other measure, they have shown that they're willing to do 180's and cartwheels if it means a No to a Democratic victory. They are that cynical, they are that ruthless, they are that far-right wing nutso, and if you can't see through that, then you're too blinded in your hatred for the Democrats as well. You might say I hate the Republicans and I'm blinded, but I have evidence to back up what I'm saying. I doubt you can do the same.

 

Times change, as does the economy. Spending billions of dollars on a program with no significant benefit like Cap & Trade makes no sense in today's economic climate; nor, for that matter, does new, expensive entitlements. While (once again) the benefits of deferring such legislation is debatable, it does not automatically mean all republicans are the devil incarnate.

 

As to me blindly hating Democrats; I am currently employed as a partisan employee to a Democrat in congress. I like my employer.

 

 

 

No, austerity will not be necessary, we need more stimulus.

 

I never claimed otherwise.

 

 

 

Even libertarian and conservative economists agree on the fact that we need more stimulus. People talking about austerity are after one thing: social security. These funds were raided by Reagan and his criminal gang to front the cost of the tax cuts he gave to his friends. Well it was their end of the bargain to pay-back those tax cuts later. Now they don't want to, and instead they'd rather rob from the poor to give to the rich.

 

How is it possible to rob from the poor when The bottom 47% of Americans pays no income tax in the first place? It's rather hard to steal something that does not exist.

 

 

 

Government control of healthcare is problematic for two reasons. First, the government (or any other central planner) is simply not efficient at allocating resources to needs - this is essentially the same reason why communism does not work. Second, price controls (a common element of most socialized healthcare plans) serve to limit innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, as companies cannot recoup the development costs for drugs with anything less then a massive potential audience. Like any binding price ceiling, this leads to a shortage in the market IE people dying unnessesaraly due to the price controls. This already happens today, with the United States subsidizing drug development costs for places with controlled markets, like Europe.

 

This is so wrong. Do you even know how health care "breakthroughs" happen? Go read one of the founders of Red State (no, it's not a communist blog, it's a far right wing blog co-founded by Erick Erickson). Hint, it's not because of some fabled free-market you masturbate to at night, it's with government grants through the NIH, funded by the taxpayer:

http://newledger.com...-megan-mcardle/

 

 

This (non partisan) Congressional Budget Office Study explains exactly why the government does not pay to develop new drugs. In short, NIH grants fund basic biology research without direct applications to the marketplace - in fact, that is why the government has to fund it in the first place - if the research yielded new drugs, drug companies would do it themselves as they would profit from it. Government funding =/= new drugs free to drug companies.

 

 

 

About government being inefficient at allocating resources to needs, it depends on the need. Demand for health care is extremely inelastic, making the market quite inefficient at "allocating resources to needs" in this sector.

 

Since you brought up inelastic demand and made a claim that government regulation in the market was superior to a free system, I thought now would be a good time for a lesson in Economics 101. Below is a beautiful graph I created in MS paint demonstrating the effects of government control on a market with perfectly inelastic demand, such as the drug market. Notice that the demand "curve" is vertical - this is due to the fact that consumers in this case must have their drugs, so they are willing to pay for as many drugs as possible. The supply curve on the other hand slopes upward, because drug companies usually begin with the "low-hanging fruit" - drugs that are cheap to develop and help many people. Drugs for less common diseases however have smaller markets, so to recoup the development costs for them each individual patient must pay more. In a free market, as you can see, supply meets demand at the intersection of the red and green lines.

 

 

Now Uncle Sam walks in, creating the blue line on the graph; a price ceiling. Also known as "price regulation" the government sets a limit as to what manufacturers may charge for their products. The result? Demand is the same as before, but drug companies only produce medications up to the intersection between the blue and red line, the point where they can sustain creating new drugs.As you can see, this point is at a lower level then demand, so a shortage exists. What is lost here? Businesses like Genzyme, which produces lifesaving drugs for rare genetic conditions. At upwards of $200,000 per year, per patient the drugs Genzyme produces are not cheap, but they save peoples' lives. Such high prices are necessary because each condition effects so few people - with government controlled drug prices the business simply could not recoup the cost of production, so they wouldn't develop it in the first place.

 

 

 

 

In fact, the US has the largest socialized health care system in the world. It's called Medicare, and it's great. The reason that spending is a problem isn't from Medicare, but from health care costs due to there being no cost controls. There's no cost control here; there are four or five systems competing simultaneously. To get cost controls, we're going to have to have one system of payments for everybody.

 

See my other responses for the particulars of price controls. Eliminating competition is covered in another Ec. 101 lesson - monopoly. I would be happy to summarize that as well if it would enlighten you.

 

 

We fail on every front, and you'd rather whack off to some ideology about freedom that serves no purpose in politics.

 

My only priority is efficiency. Single controllers are not efficient - nor are irrelevant personal attacks.

 

 

My politics are what best serves humanity, and in this case, clearly health care and education for all, for free or very low cost, are to be essential to any civilized society. You know, it's 50,000 dollars for tuition at NYU and it's zero at Humboldt University in Berlin. So NYU adds catastrophic amounts of GDP per capita and Humboldt adds nothing. Between you and me, I'd rather go to school at Humboldt.

 

Tuition is also zero at Harvard - unless you can pay for it. If you want a cheap or free education, state universities and community colleges provide a similar education to all but the best European Universities. If you want only the best, plenty of top American universities will have you, and in many cases their endowments will make the school quite cheap (or free).

(Never mind the fact that the tuition is still paid for in taxes in Germany; nothing is truly free)

 

Why you are wrong on your GDP per capita statement is a bit of a long story, so I suggest you google "national income accounting" and read about how exactly it is done. Hint: it's still counted, regardless of when it's paid for.

 

 

 

Government control of healthcare is problematic for two reasons. First, the government (or any other central planner) is simply not efficient at allocating resources to needs - this is essentially the same reason why communism does not work. Second, price controls (a common element of most socialized healthcare plans) serve to limit innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, as companies cannot recoup the development costs for drugs with anything less then a massive potential audience. Like any binding price ceiling, this leads to a shortage in the market IE people dying unnecessarily due to the price controls. This already happens today, with the United States subsidizing drug development costs for places with controlled markets, like Europe.

 

If that was true then studies like the one done by the World Health Organisation would have placed private healthcare systems above government healthcare systems. As it stands most, if not all, of the top healthcare systems in the world are state ran. Regarding pharmaceutical companies, that is the first time I think I have ever seen an argument that suggests pharmaceutical companies don't recuperate money. If you're being a cunning realist and are serious on this point i'd like to know more information regarding the role that the US plays in subsidising R&D costs if you happen to have any interesting places where I can read about it. Cheers!

 

 

With pleasure.

 

This study uses the effects of already-existing implicit price controls in the American drug marketplce (such as medicare) to extrapolate a direct causational link between those price controls and decreased drug R&D spending. Their estimate was that the (relatively minor) price controls that exist in the American market today have cost the United States about $260 billion in R&D spending and 200 million life-years over the past 30 years.

 

This summary of a study corroborates the above using a more recent attempt at drug price regulation, what is commonly referred to as "ClintonCare" to achieve the same result.

 

This study investigated the effect of Italy's reducing patent rights for drugs (which effectively controls costs) on development of new pharmaceuticals there. The findings? Italian businesses ruthlessly copied foreign-developed drugs, which cut prices there to a fraction of those in the rest of the world, and essentially stopped Italian R&D on new drugs. In short, they were free-riding off of those who paid the fair market value for drugs.

 

If you want more, just say so - I know several people with a working paper on this topic.

 

 

 

Cuba, like most oppressive communist states, is known to pad nationwide statistics (which are self reported) in order to look good for the international community.

 

And there is the swift blow to Cuba's system, praised by Kofi Annan, held in esteem by the majority of the world as a lesson in third world healthcare management and exported across the Caribbean Sea to South American countries. We'll ignore the "like most oppressive communist states" comment politically and move forward with accusations of padding nationwide statistics. To begin with, it is laughable that you say nationwide statistics in these "oppressive communist states" are often manipulated, as if it was almost something that doesn't happen in Western democracies. Nevertheless, it also ignores the many independent reports into Cuban healthcare and the stone cold fact that a lot of the continued support for Castro finds its source in the fantastically socialised services he brought to Cuba - the top one being healthcare. To draw back on your previous point above, Cuba is far and away more efficient than the US system and far more efficient than the UK system.

 

Of course Cuban healthcare is provided more cheaply then in Western Countries - such things happen when you pay doctors 15 Dollars Per month, which is not unusual for countries which prohibit immigration - by obtaining your most expensive input (skilled personnel) cheaply, total cost is bound to go down. Once again, this mechanism only works in an oppressive state - if immigration were allowed, those personnel would vote with their feet, leaving the country until a competitive market rate was paid for their skills. As to statistics padding, ABC News wraps up the basics in a nutshell.

 

 

 

It doesn't work fine. Which is why diseases like Malaria which are easy and relatively cheap to treat aren't dealt with because Pharmaceutical companies don't bother on drugs that can't turn them huge profits. Which is another reason why they concentrate on drugs that deal with the illnesses that come hand-in-hand with money, such as heart disease et cetera. Price controls don't work at the moment because Pharmaceutical companies are transnational and can't be contained by the laws and regulations of any country which is why they have the upper hand. The industry is truly globalised and with that comes the difficulties in the vastness of the market and any one county's ability to pressure these companies that act solely for profit at the expense of humanitarianism.

 

Businesses are in business to make money. The money they make creating lifesaving drugs is reinvested to create more lifesaving drugs, to make more money. If they did not make money, they would not be able to create any drugs at all. For the particular economics of this fact, see above.

(continued from last post, hit length limit)

 

 

 

And about the education comment, I'm quite sure America's school system is deplorable, simply from my experience, but I don't know really anything about Europe's systems to make any form of judgement.

 

Pre-college schooling in America isn't bad, it depends on your region. New Jersey's public schools--overall--can compete with South Korean schools. Same with Massachusetts. Mississippi's schools, however, can't even compete with Mexico. The problem isn't just funding, but it's a lack of parental involvement. It's also part funding, though, as the two are linked. You see, education is funded by property taxes; this is why I laugh at people who say undocumented workers don't pay taxes to send their kids to school. So if you're in a better, more-educated area, the property taxes are higher and the schools are properly funded, and the parents are more likely than not to be involved with their child's education. Schools in the ghetto, however, are both poorly funded because people are poor, but also because both parents need to work to make ends-meet (or because there is not two parents, there's only one).

 

Here you are half right. Socioeconomic factors do have a massive impact on school performance, funding does not. Low performing inner-city schools Invariably spend more per pupil then do high performing suburban schools.

 

 

 

College education, America has the best. However, this is the same thing as health care: ok, we have the best, but do we get the most out of our dollars? The answer is no. Private colleges are sapping the hell out of federally guaranteed loans, increasing demand and thus increasing price.

 

Fortunately for your conscience, federally guaranteed loans have price controls attached - they do not meet demand, but remain cheap.

 

 

 

In fact, public college tuition has been rising fairly slowly, whereas private has skyrocketed. Something needs to be done about this, I don't know exactly what, as education is the area I know the least about. If Germany can provide world-class education for free (you just have to pay for your rent I think), then I see no reason why we can't, either.

 

We already do. As I mentioned above, many excellent state schools and famous private schools are quite cheap when financial aid is accounted for.

 

 

 

This is another correlation to our health care costs, and probably why the doctors you talk to don't like Medicare. Medicare pays them less than private insurers, which is why it's cheaper. Doctors aren't evil, per se, but they've racked up a lot of debt. I think it costs something like $500,000 now just to be a doctor in America. It's free in Sweden. Our love for some mangled idea of "freedom" is literally killing us when it comes to competing for an educated populace and higher standards of living (for all, not just on average).

 

You still fail to account for taxes. Remember, nothing is free - you still pay for it in Sweeden through high tax rates.

 

 

 

 

Actual medical break throughs happen through public investment because there is a high risk in this sector: chances are you won't find a miracle if you're after profit. This is also why R&D into alternative energy is important.

 

Once again, see my above response to Stanzeas' post for the explination of why you are incorrect here. In short, miracles are profitable.

 

 

 

There's no profit motive until the technology becomes available through public investment. No private investor will invest if he/she has 50/50 shot at profits.

 

Let me invest $1 for a 50/50 shot at $3 and I will take you up every time. Huge risks and huge rewards are the name of the game for pharmaceutical research

Marry me Sniper, no homo.

Marry me Sniper, no homo.

It's funny because you are.

 

And I've found lurking these threads is really informative. Maybe one day I'll be able to post on them and actually contribute.

HEY HEY HEY NO NEED FOR LABELS..

 

 

I prefer the term female-intolerant. Much like lactose intolerant, just not as cheesy.

 

 

:lol:

Marry me Sniper, no homo.

 

Siggified.

Times change, as does the economy. Spending billions of dollars on a program with no significant benefit like Cap & Trade makes no sense in today's economic climate

 

Orly? What changed between November 2008 and January 2009:

 

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/mccain-flip-flopper

 

He flipped on immigration, gun control, DADT, climate change, and a myriad of other issues, and all you have to explain it is "the times and economy change...in a mere few months!" Please, don't tell me you're that naive and petty. Pols are pols and they do what they do. The Republicans--and Democrats--flip on issues if it's in their political interest; in this case it's less of a flip and more of a "prevent Democrats from doing anything unless it's word for word our agenda...and even then prevent them!" Harry Reid in 1993 opposed jus soli citizenship, and now he's calling Sharron Angle insane for opposing it in the present. If by "times change" you mean "far right-wing nutjobs will throw me out if I continue supporting this," then yes, times certainly do change. In this case, the Tea Party is literally throwing out every single incumbent if they work to pass legislation, any legislation. They did it to Bob Bennet for crying out loud. Bob Bennet...of Utah (not exactly a moderate state to begin with).

 

Anyway, no significant benefit? Dude, are you a global warming denier, too?

 

Also, from just today, as I'm sure you're aware of as you're supposedly in the hallways of Congress. For it before they were against it:

 

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/375

 

So if they're against all of this stuff, and you said "they just have their own ideas," what are those ideas? All I hear is "extend Bush's tax cuts." "Tax cuts." "Tax cuts for the rich!"

 

An act to create the Small Business Lending Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, and for other purposes

 

Oh yes, the defenders of small businesses and tax cuts....oppose the measure in unified opposition. BUT THE TIMES ARE DIFFERENT!!!11!!!

 

Please.

 

No, austerity will not be necessary, we need more stimulus.

 

I never claimed otherwise.

 

You said austerity might be necessary.

 

How is it possible to rob from the poor when The bottom 47% of Americans pays no income tax in the first place? It's rather hard to steal something that does not exist.

 

They're stealing the poor's Social Security income to pay for their federal tax cuts; this is what is typically known as stealing from the poor to give to the rich. They paid into SS, they deserve their money without cuts. You might want to add a qualifier to "no income tax," namely "no FEDERAL income tax." (most of which goes to defense, which overwhelmingly favors the rich..as Medicare and SS have their own taxes).

 

This (non partisan) Congressional Budget Office Study explains exactly why the government does not pay to develop new drugs. In short, NIH grants fund basic biology research without direct applications to the marketplace - in fact, that is why the government has to fund it in the first place - if the research yielded new drugs, drug companies would do it themselves as they would profit from it. Government funding =/= new drugs free to drug companies.

 

New drugs that they can profit from aren't medical breakthroughs. Moreover, they would not fund it themselves because basic R&D is never funded by private enterprises because there is no profit motive; ie, the chances of actually discovering something to make up for their losses are quite low.

 

Product development medical research tends to concentrate in countries, which have elaborate systems for regulating medical products, like pharmaceuticals. The U.S. has the world's strongest pharmaceutical industry because of the FDA. I'm not convinced the case has been made that it is the difference in health care systems that has caused the agglomeration of research facilities in the U.S. Even if the U.S. were a single-payer system, drug companies, etc. would still do research and it is likely that much of it would be carried out in the U.S. just as it is now.

 

In addition, as noted in Tyler Cowen's article below--just as I said--much of the research that is done here is funded directly or indirectly by the government:

 

Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation

 

Tyler's making your point, but disagreeing with the funding from the government part of it. He's also a libertarian economist.

 

Since you brought up inelastic demand and made a claim that government regulation in the market was superior to a free system, I thought now would be a good time for a lesson in Economics 101. Below is a beautiful graph I created in MS paint demonstrating the effects of government control on a market with perfectly inelastic demand, such as the drug market. Notice that the demand "curve" is vertical - this is due to the fact that consumers in this case must have their drugs, so they are willing to pay for as many drugs as possible. The supply curve on the other hand slopes upward, because drug companies usually begin with the "low-hanging fruit" - drugs that are cheap to develop and help many people. Drugs for less common diseases however have smaller markets, so to recoup the development costs for them each individual patient must pay more. In a free market, as you can see, supply meets demand at the intersection of the red and green lines.

 

Now Uncle Sam walks in, creating the blue line on the graph; a price ceiling. Also known as "price regulation" the government sets a limit as to what manufacturers may charge for their products. The result? Demand is the same as before, but drug companies only produce medications up to the intersection between the blue and red line, the point where they can sustain creating new drugs.As you can see, this point is at a lower level then demand, so a shortage exists. What is lost here? Businesses like Genzyme, which produces lifesaving drugs for rare genetic conditions. At upwards of $200,000 per year, per patient the drugs Genzyme produces are not cheap, but they save peoples' lives. Such high prices are necessary because each condition effects so few people - with government controlled drug prices the business simply could not recoup the cost of production, so they wouldn't develop it in the first place.

 

If demand for your product is inelastic, what should you do with your price? For example, suppose right now you're charging $2. If your sole goal is profit, should you raise your price, keep it the same, or lower it? The answer is you should raise it.

 

This is why Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Singapore, Australia, South Korea, Britain, Ireland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Japan all pay less for the same god damn drugs that we sell here. If you seriously think we can sustain this graph without price controls on drugs and medical procedures, then you're delusional (although the red line is thanks to the [cabbage]ty health care reform bill).

 

 

It is the only way possible unless Medicare is scrapped completely; and before Medicare, a good percentage of seniors were living in poverty. Far more lives will be saved through my methods than yours, so if your goal is to save lives, you should abandon your position. Unless of course you have some idea to reform health care that works; I've heard two solutions from your side, which is "interstate competition" (which will do nothing if not increase the prices due to racing to the bottom) or tort reform (enacted in 38 states already). Other libertarian ideas involve absolving the FDA to avoid that icky costly drug approval process; getting rid of insurance completely except for live saving measures such as surgery (even though people are already struggling to make co-payments and health care is inelastic); getting rid of certifications for some professions (I'm sympathetic to this idea, but not their solution. Doctors do have a guild called the AMA which makes it expensive to become a doctor, so reforming this could prove worthwhile); health savings accounts (wouldn't mind it if and only if there was a government fall back like in Singapore).

 

See my other responses for the particulars of price controls. Eliminating competition is covered in another Ec. 101 lesson - monopoly. I would be happy to summarize that as well if it would enlighten you.

 

The health care sector is different than almost any other market. Another that's particularly different when it comes to these things is the finance industry, although I haven't yet heard a plausible explanation as to why that's the case.

 

My only priority is efficiency. Single controllers are not efficient.

 

Yes they are, which is why their overhead costs are cheaper. If your priority was efficiency, you would support Singapore's model (and a lot of libertarians do). Or, the Veteran's Administration, which gets better bang for its buck than Medicare (and it can negotiate drugs and set prices...).

 

Tuition is also zero at Harvard - unless you can pay for it. If you want a cheap or free education, state universities and community colleges provide a similar education to all but the best European Universities. If you want only the best, plenty of top American universities will have you, and in many cases their endowments will make the school quite cheap (or free).

(Never mind the fact that the tuition is still paid for in taxes in Germany; nothing is truly free)

 

Depends how you define afford. It's not cheap by any stretch, dude. Your white privilege is speaking again. Define cheap. I could afford $15,000 per year, but I could only do it because my family had good credit and I was able to take out a private loan. Now, what would have I been able to do if my family didn't have good credit, or if I had no one who was willing to cosign a loan? That's a problem for a lot of poor and middle class families. They'd be SOL. You can only get half of that money from the federal government in your senior and junior years, and a lot less your freshmen and sophomore years.

 

Of course it's never "free," but it's providing them with a net-plus for the economy with a highly educated workforce. Something we could learn from.

 

Why you are wrong on your GDP per capita statement is a bit of a long story, so I suggest you google "national income accounting" and read about how exactly it is done. Hint: it's still counted, regardless of when it's paid for.

 

GDP will measure final expenditure on produced goods and services, or final income earned by all economic actors, or value added at each stage of production. Taking it from the expenditure perspective, the tuition wouldn't be counted, but what the tuition is spent on ultimately (classes taught, books bought for the library, electricians fixing the god damned lights in the god damned union) will be. And all that happens at both Humboldt and NYU. Alternatively, they *could* count tuition as consumption or investment expenditure - however, assuming it costs the same amount to run Humboldt as NYU, higher government spending on education in Germany would mean the a national income identity adds up to the same GDP but with different distribution among its components.

Here's what real family values are about:

 

For nearly 18 months, I woke up at 4 a.m. with my all-too-alert toddler son. Three hours later, when my Swedish wife left for the day, I would set out a second breakfast and then dress the boy and his 4-year-old sister and walk them to her state-subsidized preschool. Then my boy and I would go build sand castles in one of five nearby neighborhood parks. I packed snack bags, changed diapers, and pretended to be a grumpy old troll. I sang "Itsy Bitsy Spider" more times than I want to think about.

 

I am not unemployed, and I am not a stay-at-home dad. I've got a "real" job; I just haven't gone to the office since last December. In total, I've spent 18 of the past 36 months on paternity leave here in Sweden, my adopted country, "off" work to care for my two kids. And, yes, I still get paid.

 

Over the past 15 years, the streets of Stockholm have filled up with men pushing strollers. In 1995, dads took only 6 percent of Sweden's allotted 480 days of parental leave per child. Then the Swedish government set aside 30 leave days for fathers only. In 2002 the state doubled the "daddy only" days to 60 and later added an "equality bonus" for couples that split their leave. Now more than 80 percent of fathers take some leave, adding up to almost a quarter of all leave days. So in the middle of, say, a Monday afternoon in March, the daddies and their strollers come at you both singly and in waves, the men usually either striding fast and stone-faced or pushing the stroller nonchalantly with one hand, cell phone glued to their ear.

 

The bliss of an 18-month, paid, Swedish paternity leave.

Here's what real family values are about:

 

For nearly 18 months, I woke up at 4 a.m. with my all-too-alert toddler son. Three hours later, when my Swedish wife left for the day, I would set out a second breakfast and then dress the boy and his 4-year-old sister and walk them to her state-subsidized preschool. Then my boy and I would go build sand castles in one of five nearby neighborhood parks. I packed snack bags, changed diapers, and pretended to be a grumpy old troll. I sang "Itsy Bitsy Spider" more times than I want to think about.

 

I am not unemployed, and I am not a stay-at-home dad. I've got a "real" job; I just haven't gone to the office since last December. In total, I've spent 18 of the past 36 months on paternity leave here in Sweden, my adopted country, "off" work to care for my two kids. And, yes, I still get paid.

 

Over the past 15 years, the streets of Stockholm have filled up with men pushing strollers. In 1995, dads took only 6 percent of Sweden's allotted 480 days of parental leave per child. Then the Swedish government set aside 30 leave days for fathers only. In 2002 the state doubled the "daddy only" days to 60 and later added an "equality bonus" for couples that split their leave. Now more than 80 percent of fathers take some leave, adding up to almost a quarter of all leave days. So in the middle of, say, a Monday afternoon in March, the daddies and their strollers come at you both singly and in waves, the men usually either striding fast and stone-faced or pushing the stroller nonchalantly with one hand, cell phone glued to their ear.

 

The bliss of an 18-month, paid, Swedish paternity leave.

 

That's really good...I wish we had something like that here. I don't know if I'd want to take off 18 months though..

 

I basically agree with what you're saying in the above posts, at least in regards to healthcare. Canada's system isn't perfect, but knowing that you'll always have people helping you stay healthy even if you live on the street...well, that's worth any price.

 

Also - it is cheaper. Take the profit out of an organization, and everything becomes more affordable.

 

I've always found it very morbid that doctors in the states charge you money to keep you alive....

I've always found it very morbid that doctors in the states charge you money to keep you alive....

 

Its awful that grocery stores charge money for food that keeps you alive...

I've always found it very morbid that doctors in the states charge you money to keep you alive....

 

Its awful that grocery stores charge money for food that keeps you alive...

It's a little different. I just find it upsetting that you can need to go to a hospital because you've been in an accident, and you can't be treated because you can't afford it.

I've always found it very morbid that doctors in the states charge you money to keep you alive....

 

Its awful that grocery stores charge money for food that keeps you alive...

It's a little different. I just find it upsetting that you can need to go to a hospital because you've been in an accident, and you can't be treated because you can't afford it.

 

Hospitals treat any emergency ailments regardless of ability to pay - if you get in a car crash they will still fix you up.

I've always found it very morbid that doctors in the states charge you money to keep you alive....

 

Its awful that grocery stores charge money for food that keeps you alive...

It's a little different. I just find it upsetting that you can need to go to a hospital because you've been in an accident, and you can't be treated because you can't afford it.

 

Hospitals treat any emergency ailments regardless of ability to pay - if you get in a car crash they will still fix you up.

 

True. However, if you don't have the money to pay for the astronomical bill that you're going to get, then you can be rendered bankrupt pretty quick. And no, insurance doesn't help THAT much. Keep in mind how much they're wanting to fight you on this; they are a business, they're in it for pure profit. And therein lies part of my whole problem with capitalizing health care; this can literally mean the life or death of thousands, if not millions of people in a given week. Why should greed be allowed to play any part in something like this?

I've always found it very morbid that doctors in the states charge you money to keep you alive....

 

Its awful that grocery stores charge money for food that keeps you alive...

It's a little different. I just find it upsetting that you can need to go to a hospital because you've been in an accident, and you can't be treated because you can't afford it.

 

Hospitals treat any emergency ailments regardless of ability to pay - if you get in a car crash they will still fix you up.

And then charge you $450k for your stay. (actually happened to a family friend, thank god he was well off)