Glenn Beck and a call for religious rebirth

[Saru Inc]

At the graph comment I was more interesting in it going back up around 1936 or so. But here's the thing where we may disagree, and agree. While I'm a bit more liberal than I am conservative (Probably about 60-40), I really dislike Republicans. However, I do appreciate not [developmentally delayed]ed conservatives, which you are correct, are a lot more rare than people make it out to be. The main reason I'm a conservative is mainly, because I just don't really like being told what to do from the gov't, so I like a smaller government, and I think that may be the defining quality. However *though unrelated* most liberal policies I agree with the ideology of them, but not the real world application of them. Like Universal health care(and before you crucify me, I'm aware socialism is for extreme liberals, but since most conservatives lump them together I will just for effect), and socialism I like both in thought, I mean I do agree healthcare should be free. But... I just don't trust the government's handling of the system. And for socialism, again while even for "extreme" liberals, I agree in a sense of a community in harmony where everyone is paid the same, and no one owes anyone anything.But Im my opinion, those both assume the good in people, while I tend to assume the bad in people who would abuse both systems.

[Satenza]

There is no reason to be afraid of Government handling healthcare. The US system is so bad it is put to shame by third world countries like Cuba.

[Saru Inc]

I can tell you're putting your education to good use.

[das1330]

The top is Ireland, the bottom is Spain. Spain hasn't embraced austerity to the degree of Ireland, yet Ireland is doing considerably worse in the bond market. Clearly, the bond market fears economic stagnation and deflation far more than runaway inflation.

 

This argument simply makes no sense whatsoever as you fail to account for the numerous other factors that influence debt finance. Looking at these two specific countries without considering their current financial position, prospects for future growth, credit lines and operating deficit, among other things, leads to flawed comparisons. Further, before Ireland's austerity measures, it was one of the greatest debt risks in Europe, alongside Greece - in short, right from the beginning Spain was in a better position and thus your comparison fails.

 

 

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.

 

 

There is no reason to be afraid of Government handling healthcare.

 

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.

 

 

The US system is so bad it is put to shame by third world countries like Cuba.

 

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.

[Wizz]

I remember my Journalism teacher threw a fit about this and said that we are in need of a real wake up call.

She mention something about him being in an Interview by Fortune magazine a few weeks ago in which he said "I do not care about politics. I am an Entertainer, I'm doing this for the Money."

Although she did tell us this is the censored version of the quote...

[Saru Inc]

I remember my Journalism teacher threw a fit about this and said that we are in need of a real wake up call.

She mention something about him being in an Interview by Fortune magazine a few weeks ago in which he said "I do not care about politics. I am an Entertainer, I'm doing this for the Money."

Although she did tell us this is the censored version of the quote...

 

 

Wait, who said that, Glenn Beck? Censored? Lmao what did they censor?

 

 

The dudes funny to watch, I enjoy watching his show, if only because in my opinion (maybe not yours) he's a tad crazy. But I think he does it for a good laugh.

[magekillr]

The top is Ireland, the bottom is Spain. Spain hasn't embraced austerity to the degree of Ireland, yet Ireland is doing considerably worse in the bond market. Clearly, the bond market fears economic stagnation and deflation far more than runaway inflation.

 

This argument simply makes no sense whatsoever as you fail to account for the numerous other factors that influence debt finance. Looking at these two specific countries without considering their current financial position, prospects for future growth, credit lines and operating deficit, among other things, leads to flawed comparisons. Further, before Ireland's austerity measures, it was one of the greatest debt risks in Europe, alongside Greece - in short, right from the beginning Spain was in a better position and thus your comparison fails.

 

Prospects for future growth is the exact reason they're not biting, snipersas. As Stiglitz says:

 

“Cutting back willy-nilly on high-return investments just to make the picture of the deficit look better is really foolish,” Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor, told Dublin-based RTE Radio in an interview broadcast today.

 

Euro-area governments stepped up efforts to cut their deficits to below the European Union limit of 3 percent of gross domestic product after the Greek crisis earlier this year eroded investor confidence in the 16-member currency union. While the economy expanded at the fastest pace in four years in the second quarter, the recovery is showing signs of weakening.

 

“Because so many in Europe are focusing on the 3 percent artificial number, which has no reality and is just looking at one side of a balance sheet, Europe is at risk of going into a double-dip,” Stiglitz said.

 

Stiglitz Says European Economy at Risk of Double-Dip Recession

 

The whole point of austerity is to "reassure the markets." Well, they're not being reassured because austerity threatens growth, and Ireland is becoming a huge risk. The only reason the comparison falls slightly flat is because Ireland's bubble was worse.

 

So it doesn't really fail. The point austerians are making is that it will reassure the markets. It hasn't, and it won't, especially in the Euro-zone. Why? The currency has to devalue. Ireland's currency is the Euro, which has devalued some, but not nearly as much as it "should" for the benefit of Ireland, Greece, Spain, etc. The bond vigilantes don't like economic policies which turn your economy to [cabbage]. This is very surprising!!

 

 

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.

 

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

 

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/2009/07/how-medical-breakthroughs-happen-a-response-to-megan-mcardle/

 

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.

 

Every, other, developed, country, kicks, our, ass, on, this, front.

 

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.

 

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

[Saru Inc]

Medicare is not great. Holy [cabbage]. I witness everyday people just abusing it abusing it. All over the goddamn country. And actually I don't masturbate to it at night, if only because masturbation is a sin, and God won't have that.

[magekillr]

Medicare is not great. Holy [cabbage]. I witness everyday people just abusing it abusing it. All over the goddamn country. And actually I don't masturbate to it at night, if only because masturbation is a sin, and God won't have that.

 

You do? You witness people everyday abusing it? What do you do that you can see people abusing it? See your grandmother selling her pills to teenagers?

[Saru Inc]

Or, I work in a call center, where roughly 80% of our clients, out of a client base of 9,000+ are doctors, you hear a lot.

 

Besides, I've already said this once, I'll say it again. Cuba beats no one in anything >.> and Canada wouldn't survive without US imports, the UK has prozac in the water, France has Islamic riots constantly, and I have no beef with germany.

 

 

So I'm quite happy the way things are.

[magekillr]

Or, I work in a call center, where roughly 80% of our clients, out of a client base of 9,000+ are doctors, you hear a lot.

 

Call center for what? I worked at a call center once, and I quit two days later when the [wagon] soliciting donations were legalized conartists.

 

What do they say? You're not arguing your point, as Myweponsg00d stated. This is all too vague; how can I even address it?

 

Besides, I've already said this once, I'll say it again. Cuba beats no one in anything >.> and Canada wouldn't survive without US imports, the UK has prozac in the water, France has Islamic riots constantly, and I have no beef with germany.

 

So the world economy is globalized...I see. Why are you saying "remove us and everyone dies!!! hahaha!!! we win we win!" It's pointless nationalism that doesn't really serve any purpose. We're good at some stuff, others are better at 80% of it. The lesson I take isn't to brag about what we do better, but to look to them for lessons about where we suck.

 

So I'm quite happy the way things are.

 

Of course you are; you are privileged in this society. Just wait until you get burned by an insurance company, if you ever will that is. It's not fun not having any insurance. I've given myself stitches. It sucks.

[Saru Inc]

Ok.

 

1) ok you're being too vague, so. An answering service, one of the bigger in the country client wise.

 

2) Nationalism? Hardly. However, once again, just because I'm not a "goddamn why cant i be born in europe person" like your self, doesn't mean i'm a nationalist. Quit with the extremes.

 

3) Ok. Privileged? Beside the fact that I piss people off, by making non comedic jokes on topics deemed super serious; you don't really know anything about me. I'm white, ok. And a male. That's it. You are too.

 

I have my own health care that I pay for every month, 2 years ago, I had no health care. Had to pay $1,500 out of pocket for hospital fees. Oh well, life's tough. It prolonged my plans for a while, and kept me from taking a semester of college, since I get 0 financial aid from that damn government, oh well. Life's tough. I moved on. And I've also been burned by insurance companies, I pay $300 a month for insurance, due to 3 accidents all not my fault, however all 3 times they Cop said I was at fault. Why? No idea, since in all 3 cases I could have sworn they were insurance traps (all 3 times the people slammed on their brakes in the middle of the open road. Sometimes so hard I'm luckily I didn't total their cars, as I always use the 3 second rule.)

 

Though I understand why you may assume I'm privileged, I'm really not. However, I work very hard, and excel at what I do, due to my talent andi intelligence that I utilize, so that helps me out a lot.

 

 

Going back to my original point, I agree with universal health care in THEORY. Not practicality.

[magekillr]

Ok. 1) ok you're being too vague, so. An answering service, one of the bigger in the country client wise.

 

I wasn't being erm, condescending when I described my own call service as in saying your call service is illegitimate. Just saying I've done it before.

 

2) Nationalism? Hardly. However, once again, just because I'm not a "goddamn why cant i be born in europe person" like your self, doesn't mean i'm a nationalist.

 

Then why point out pointless things that don't really have anything to do with the conversation other than to say "Yeah we might suck there but look!!!!!"

 

3) Ok. Privileged? Beside the fact that I piss people off, by making non comedic jokes on topics deemed super serious; you don't really know anything about me. I'm white, ok. And a male. That's it. You are too.

 

Yep, and I'm privileged because of it. I've had health care for most of my life, and I have it now.

 

I have my own health care that I pay for every month, 2 years ago, I had no health care. Had to pay $1,500 out of pocket for hospital fees. Oh well, life's tough. It prolonged my plans for a while, and kept me from taking a semester of college, since I get 0 financial aid from that damn government, oh well. Life's tough. I moved on. And I've also been burned by insurance companies, I pay $300 a month for insurance, due to 3 accidents all not my fault, however all 3 times they Cop said I was at fault. Why? No idea, since in all 3 cases I could have sworn they were insurance traps (all 3 times the people slammed on their brakes in the middle of the open road. Sometimes so hard I'm luckily I didn't total their cars, as I always use the 3 second rule.)

 

Though I understand why you may assume I'm privileged, I'm really not. However, I work very hard, and excel at what I do, due to my talent andi intelligence that I utilize, so that helps me out a lot.

 

Yes you are. I don't know your specific situation; e.g. you could be a poor white person. Class divides us far more than race and sex do. However, unfortunately, race and sex are all intricately connected to class due to the history of the world.

 

This quote details privilege through and through: "I did it, why can't anyone else?" That is the entire attitude of someone with privilege.

 

However, I understand what you're articulating. It's what a lot of Tea Partiers are articulating: they're hurting, they're being oppressed, and they can't articulate their suffering. Thus, demagogues such as Beck provide scapegoats and answers.

 

Webb included similar sentiments here:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html

 

Of course I disagree with nearly all of it, but I can understand his point. Poor whites in Tennessee don't see what this 'white privilege' crap is all about, and to them it is a myth (even though research says that it's not).

 

Also, everyone gets financial aid from the government, so I suspect either:

 

a.) You're lying

b.) You didn't fill out the paperwork

 

And even if you turned it in late, you can still get a guaranteed federal loan. If you're single and not financially dependent on your parents (legally), then you can qualify for a [cabbage] ton more. Everyone is guaranteed aid, not everyone is guaranteed grants.

 

Which only points out that our education system also sucks, and college/university should be far cheaper. Spain? Nearly nothing for school. Germany? Basically free. Sweden? Free.

 

Coincidentally, education correlates with GDP, and it's definitely worth the investment.

 

Also, about me longing for Europe: I could easily emigrate there because my degree is quite rare and high in demand (it's consistently listed as the second most earning degree in the nation, second always to petroleum engineering). I choose to stay here because I want to improve the lives of people here. Not to mention that my life ultimately wouldn't be much different, as I'm upper-middle class. Although I may be going into the Peace Corps this upcoming summer.

 

Going back to my original point, I agree with universal health care in THEORY. Not practicality.

 

So how is our system working any better? We spend twice as much for worse outcomes. If you think it works bad in practice, ours must be Hell on Earth. Our problems won't be solved without Medicare for all or cost controls; and we sure as hell aren't getting rid of Medicare, so the only choice I see is Medicare-for-all. If you want to keep private insurance, fine, but then we'll need to go the Netherlands route: strict, heavy regulation (mandate that you get insurance, national standards with people in large pools, high community rating, prohibiting price discrimination due to health/age/gender, national price setting).

 

This is all funny because if there wasn't so much resistance to integrating the hospitals during FDR/Truman, we'd have national health care for all as part of Social Security.

[Satenza]

 

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.

 

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!

 

 

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. Unfortunately the second part of your argument regarding the international community doesn't really stand the test of time either, since Cuba has often existed as an annoyance to the Western political powers and especially to the one located 90 miles to its North. I don't think Castro necessarily gives a damn about how the US view Cuba, or anyone else for that matter.

[Saru Inc]

What. Magekillr. I Hate the tea party...? No [bleep]ing way am I that crazy. And about the call center quote, I know you weren't calling me illegitimate, I just meant we have a very wide client base. And I want to estimate about 5 to 10 times a day someone calls in seeing if they can get another rx through medicare, since they needed money and sold their last one.

 

And this is in a sense unrelated, but still related as well I guess... The amount of people who call looking for jobs, and are just slackers "yo.... u guys hirin?" "may I have your name?" "[cabbage]ttttt you dont need that" Happens way too much >.> Good grief people, if you're calling a place to look for a job, try and show that you care >.>

 

And I see where you're coming from on the privileged thing... Maybe. I think you need to define your view of what being priviledged is, since I think we are thinking of two different things.

 

Oh, yea, about the financial aid part. I got $900 for two semesters. Thats about %30 a semester for tuition alone, not counting the books. But after I had that hospital crap (I fell and split my head open) that $450 served no purpose >.>

 

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.

 

And about the last paragraph thats the thing, and I guess we just differ over an opinion, so it might be pointless to debate, but I think almost the exact opposite. That if we don't have price controls, and let the pharmacuetical companies do what they do best; a) make money b) make medicine, then it should work fine. And while again I don't know too much about the healthcare in other countries (except for the fact that Cuba isn't better than ours), I do know people who come to America for treatment. And I guess that speaks louder than statistics, and wikipedia.

 

Sorry for the discombobulated post, I'm heading off to work but wanted to make sure I got this in, if I had more time it'd be shorter.

[Satenza]

 

And about the last paragraph thats the thing, and I guess we just differ over an opinion, so it might be pointless to debate, but I think almost the exact opposite. That if we don't have price controls, and let the pharmacuetical companies do what they do best; a) make money b) make medicine, then it should work fine. And while again I don't know too much about the healthcare in other countries (except for the fact that Cuba isn't better than ours), I do know people who come to America for treatment. And I guess that speaks louder than statistics, and wikipedia.

 

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. The Pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the best example as to why there needs to be regulations on some industries.

 

Regarding Cuba, as that was obviously addressed at me, I agree with you that people from Cuba sometimes go to America for treatment. I also agree that the medical care in America is superior to that of Cuba. The problem is two-fold, firstly people go to America from Cuba because Cuba runs its health system on a shoe string because it has very little money being a third world country - the longest enduring embargo against it from America doesn't help much either. The second issue is that even though the American system may provide better healthcare this healthcare is very expensive. When it comes to the basics, a child born in Cuba has a greater life expectancy than a child born in Washington. All people in Cuba can receive equal treatment that isn't dependent upon how much money you happen to have in you back pocket. The reason why it puts America's healthcare system to shame is because Cuba is incredibly more efficient and does very well with what is has, in comparison to America, the richest country in the world, that haemorrhages money from every possible facet whilst still not providing medical care to every citizen.

[magekillr]

What. Magekillr. I Hate the tea party...? No [bleep]ing way am I that crazy.

 

Are you saying you hate the tea party? Anyway, I wasn't implying you were a tea party member, just that what you're articulating is what I hear from a lot of them; not from their words, but just their anger. They can't articulate why they're angry. And a lot of what they say is resonated in Webb's Op-ed.

 

Oh, yea, about the financial aid part. I got $900 for two semesters. Thats about %30 a semester for tuition alone, not counting the books. But after I had that hospital crap (I fell and split my head open) that $450 served no purpose >.>

 

This is still wrong, though, especially if you're independent. See here:

 

How much can I borrow under a Stafford Loan?

 

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).

 

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. 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.

 

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).

 

And about the last paragraph thats the thing, and I guess we just differ over an opinion, so it might be pointless to debate, but I think almost the exact opposite. That if we don't have price controls, and let the pharmacuetical companies do what they do best; a) make money b) make medicine, then it should work fine.

 

But it's not, as our system clearly documents. The evidence is staring you in the face, but you can't bring yourself to accept it. Every country, man, every single one has gone to price controls, and all of them are reaping the results of a great health care system. Snipersas comment about innovation was also laughable, because private investment into health care is never about cures, but treatments and little "kinks" in already had drugs. For example, if Big Pharma makes drug A and it works at treating someone, they have a patent of around 12 years if it's heart related. They will then tweak that drug just ever so slightly, and get a new patent for another 12 years. Thus, they have a monopoly on a "new" drug when the only thing new about it is one small thing that doesn't affect anything. 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. 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. It doesn't happen, and the cost to get approval from the FDA is tremendous; but they keep us from being killed, so I say that's a good cost to pay. This is what we call "socializing the cost but privatizing the profits." It's deplorable, but it works better than nationalizing industries (true socialism)...which is why you take back some of those profits through taxation to give to people, as seen in the European "socialist" model (which isn't socialism in its classical sense).

 

Singapore is often a libertarian's wet dream in the health care sector because they have private savings accounts...but unfortunately for them they ignore that the government is massively involved with price controls, and with guaranteed government health care if your savings account runs out.

[magekillr]

To add insult to injury, this press-release just came out today:

 

As employers struggle with rising healthcare costs and a sour economy, U.S. workers for the first time in at least a decade are being asked to shoulder the entire increase in the cost of health benefits on their own.

 

The average worker with a family plan was hit with 14% premium increase this year, pushing the bill to nearly $4,000 a year, according to a survey by the nonprofit Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.

 

That is the largest annual increase since the survey began in 1999 and a marked change from previous years, when employers generally split the rise in the cost of premiums with their employees.

 

The average employer contribution to a family plan did not go up at all this year, meaning the entire increase was borne by workers.

 

At the same time, nearly a third of employers reported that they either reduced the scope of benefits they are offering this year or increased the amount that workers must pay out of pocket for their medical care.

 

Workers saw average copayments for routine office visits increase 10% and deductibles continue their surge upward.

 

In 2010, more than a quarter of American workers with employer-provided health coverage were in plans with deductibles of at least $1,000.

 

"It's really bad news for everybody," said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, an organization of large employers that provide coverage to about 50 million workers, retirees and dependents.

 

Overall, premium growth slowed slightly this year to 3%, with the average annual cost of a family health plan reaching $13,770. Workers picked up 30% of that bill. The average plan for an individual cost $5,049.

 

U.S. employers push increase in cost of healthcare onto workers

[Saru Inc]

Oh well I'm not taking government loans, only grants. I'm not taking loans until I get my associates, as I'm not sure of my major, so I go to a premo community college, that guarantees admission to any college in the state, no matter how prestigious. I may get loans then, but I hate paying back loans. And apparently I'm not allowed to declare myself an independent until 25, so since my parents make $85k a year (not one dollar I get, I even pay for my own food in the house)I get no pell grant, and then I get a tiny little grant. They did offer 1k in loans per semester for me, but again, I'm not doing loans.

 

And I agree whole heartedly about our college, and education systems, and lack of parental involvement is a huge factor.

 

But, in your opinion (disregarding the facts) why can't we just keep the college system the way it is, and if you want it for free/cheaper then travel abroad?

 

And really there's no way to force parental involvement to stimulate our children's brains, so I don't know what else to do there either.

 

Now back to Healthcare, I agree with what you say (as I alluded to in my post) that rarely if ever will miracles/advances be taken when huge profits are in the way. They'll go for the most efficient safe way to make money, than to take risks, which is completely understandable for a business. And I realize the facts are staring me in the face, I'm staring right back. :o However, while I'm not disregarding it (and I know I'm going to sound like a privileged douchebag for saying this) but health care is a business. =\ And unfortunately I think it should stay that way, if they want to make money, let them make money. The country was founded on the idea to pursue what you want to pursue, so if they want to pursue money, why not stop them? Do you stop stock market investors for causing other people to lose their money? And while I'm aware many people believe that you shouldn't be able to in a sense control people's health, ummmm... I agree. And like I said, if people were inherently good (as in not take advantage of systems like Medicare), and took care of their bodies, I would be ok with price controls and in a sense "socialized" health care, because I know if someone needs Medicare its' because all else failed. Not because they ate big macs and ice cream their whole life, and now want $4,000 for a stomach operation, which I can only imagine will come out of my taxes. And thats the issue, in a sense I'm selfish with my money, I donate to charity all the time, even those "donate $1 at the check out places" but I can't stand my hard earned money going towards someones liposuction because they can't inhibit their cravings.

 

@Satenza: It does matter how much money is in your back pocket, they just don't tell you that. My dad is very very good friends with someone who used to be a total commie *pardon the generalization* in Cuba, and luckily got moved over here. He's still decently liberal in my opinion (and still a total commie in my dad's opinion), but he always tells us of how much he hated Cuba. How like in most Communistic societies, the rich get it all, and the poor (or even middle class) are tricked and lied to into thinking they get it all, when they actually get nothing. Will the dirt poor get free healthcare? Sure, if there's any room in the hospital, just make sure the syringes are clean, the bed sheets were changed after the poor soul who was there earlier vomited all over them, make sure the nurses don't ignore you because after all, they are barely gettng paid [cabbage] to wipe your mouth. It's a nightmare, and have I personally experienced it? No. Could he be making it up? Yes. But this is not an isolated incidence, this has even happened in Canada a few times. *I say a few meaning a few personal cases*.

 

 

Edit:

 

I hate the tea party. While I agree on some economic factors, I really can't stand how [bleep]y they are. (My mom is the leader of one of the biggest ones in Virginia) They think all liberals are [bleep]ing crazy, and I can't stand that. I mean I don't think you, Satenza, or Myweaponsg00d are crazy, or even unintelligent. You just have differing opinions of how the world should be run, and it's (lol) stupid (imo) to think otherwise.

[OldJoe]

Now back to Healthcare, I agree with what you say (as I alluded to in my post) that rarely if ever will miracles/advances be taken when huge profits are in the way. They'll go for the most efficient safe way to make money, than to take risks, which is completely understandable for a business. And I realize the facts are staring me in the face, I'm staring right back. :o However, while I'm not disregarding it (and I know I'm going to sound like a privileged douchebag for saying this) but health care is a business. =\ And unfortunately I think it should stay that way, if they want to make money, let them make money. The country was founded on the idea to pursue what you want to pursue, so if they want to pursue money, why not stop them? Do you stop stock market investors for causing other people to lose their money? And while I'm aware many people believe that you shouldn't be able to in a sense control people's health, ummmm... I agree. And like I said, if people were inherently good (as in not take advantage of systems like Medicare), and took care of their bodies, I would be ok with price controls and in a sense "socialized" health care, because I know if someone needs Medicare its' because all else failed. Not because they ate big macs and ice cream their whole life, and now want $4,000 for a stomach operation, which I can only imagine will come out of my taxes. And thats the issue, in a sense I'm selfish with my money, I donate to charity all the time, even those "donate $1 at the check out places" but I can't stand my hard earned money going towards someones liposuction because they can't inhibit their cravings.

 

I had this experience very recently. Someone i know got a stomach operation where you clamp the intestines, in june i think it was. I don't see any reason to as why i should have to pay for it, if you eat crap food and don't exercise it's your problem. It's a persons own responsibility to take care of him/herself.

[Satenza]

These are all superficial problems of a state-ran healthcare system. The fact people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford medication would get treated far outweighs the few who may get treated for self-induced problems. Then again these people would have paid for it anyway, though taxation, should be able to receive the healthcare they require.

[sees_all1]

These are all superficial problems of a state-ran healthcare system. The fact people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford medication would get treated far outweighs the few who may get treated for self-induced problems. Then again these people would have paid for it anyway, though taxation, should be able to receive the healthcare they require.

 

Uh, no. In 2009, nearly half of all working Americans paid no federal income tax, and some of them actually received tax credits for taxes they didn't pay (in essence, welfare).

But that doesn't really matter, because it was the rich who were always footing the bill for the poor in the medical system anyway.

It is unethical for hospitals to deny necessary treatment to sick individuals. Because they can't pay, the hospitals raise their prices on everyone else. It is essentially how stores raise the prices on their goods based on their estimate for how much will be shoplifted.

 

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

[Wizz]

I remember my Journalism teacher threw a fit about this and said that we are in need of a real wake up call.

She mention something about him being in an Interview by Fortune magazine a few weeks ago in which he said "I do not care about politics. I am an Entertainer, I'm doing this for the Money."

Although she did tell us this is the censored version of the quote...

 

 

Wait, who said that, Glenn Beck? Censored? Lmao what did they censor?

 

 

The dudes funny to watch, I enjoy watching his show, if only because in my opinion (maybe not yours) he's a tad crazy. But I think he does it for a good laugh.

 

I could give a flying crap about the political process. Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. Were an entertainment company, Beck says.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-forbes-cover-boy-made-32-million-last-year/

[Saru Inc]

No I'm aware Glenn says that. I'm also aware he has a sense of sarcasm about him.

[Zygimantas]

No I'm aware Glenn says that. I'm also aware he has a sense of sarcasm about him.

And then people still think he is serious :wall: