Why would we want you back?

Because, I'm your real dad. I love you son

It's not that health is not important it is. But we shouldn't force people to have it and let them choose plans they want. You don't want maternity leave or dental or something like that then you shouldn't have to pay for it.

@Zach, oh my fucking...

There should be a nationalised health care system, and nobody would be 'paying for plans they don't want' - you would all just collectively pay less for better quality healthcare, based on needs - and that it can be done is proven by places like the UK.

Then require mandatory (paid) maternity leave, like virtual the entire rest of the world.

Save loads of money not diverting profits to insurance companies in it for their own profit.

Simples.

Brain, enjoy your new allegiance. I'd prefer to see you go green, but since you're joining both the libertarian and republican parties, i'm sure you've got enough on your plate.

I read Zach's post thinking it was Brainbomb's and was so proud of how far he'd come, but never mind :(

@orathaic

"There should be a nationalised health care system, and nobody would be 'paying for plans they don't want' - you would all just collectively pay less for better quality healthcare, based on needs - and that it can be done is proven by places like the UK. "

1. you'd still be paying, for a plan. especially with younger generations: it'd be forcing people to pay for something, they might not otherwise want.

2. we wouldn't necessarily be paying "less" but that's a vague way of putting it. the overall expenditures might actually increase, although average expenditures might drop. the ACTUAL reason healthcare is expensive in the USA is that extreme regulation has skyrocketed the price of drugs and medical equipment, whereas in europe they have price caps. if we want price caps then that'd be fine, but that leads to point 3

3. it would NOT NOT NOT be "better quality." there is ZERO evidence for this. figures FROM THE NHS show us that British patients are 50% more likely to die from poor care than in America. they have 5X the chance of dying from pneumonia and 2X the chance of being killed by blood poisoning: and that's ALL better than most of europe. European and British STRANGLEHOLD on healthcare have actually meant that although manufacturing is DYING in the USA, Medical manufacturing is prospering. look at the top 30 hospitals and top 10 medical centers WORLDWIDE. USA absolutely DOMINATES the charts.


"Then require mandatory (paid) maternity leave, like virtual the entire rest of the world."

i read that in a book once... "How to Kill Small Businesses and Prevent Competition 101"

it's basic economics, that is EXACTLY the kind of policy that creates monopolies, and hurts consumers. furthermore, if you want paid maternity leave, it's not the government's job to *UNDER THREAT OF FORCE AND IMPRISONMENT* tell a business to provide it no matter what. if you WANT paid maternity leave, then negotiate it in your contract with your employer. if they don't offer it: try another employer. i'm sorry if that sounds bad, but that's how freedom of choice works. maybe if big gov't politicians hadn't hurt our economy so bad with new regulation and codes coming out in such large number, this wouldn't even be a problem


"Save loads of money not diverting profits to insurance companies in it for their own profit."

how much money do you think insurance companies make? i mean i'm all for a competitive market: open up boundaries on state lines and allow for new health insurers in all cities disregarding union monopolies.

but your idea that they're just raking in profit, isn't the problem. the number one problem with insurance companies is that they don't always pay out. THAT is the legitimate point of complaint


"Simples."

ideology=entrenched

I am against labor unions
I am against colleges
I am against people being against religion
And I am against anyone caring about Amendments pther than the 2nd one

yay thanks brain - i was hoping for another partisan political thread where everyone's mind is already made up and everyone else argues and eventually gets pissed until they agree to disagree.

you delivered buddy!

In my view, society as a whole is better off with a healthy, educated population, good essential infrastructure (e.g. roads, water, sewerage) and services (e.g. fire brigade, court system, the military).

Because these are things of common good, they are areas for which government (local, regional, or national) should be responsible. Whether these are delivered by government itself, or using private contractors, does not matter.

Because they are beneficial to everyone it is right that everyone pays. You might be childless but the maternity care and the education that you contribute to ensures that there are doctors and nurses for when you get old; your taxes fund the firemen who come when your house is burning down, and so on.

In short, the government's job is to provide the environment in which people can thrive.

Lol @yanik thrilled in economic growth in healthcare. Its like he thinks that growth is an example of the free market therefore messing with healthcare is out of the question.

ACA yanik. ACA made all that growth.

And here we see that the only effective way to convince someone not to be a conservative is to let them talk to Yanik.

Sorry Manwe but Conservative at heart here

No, diplomat, the job of government is to protect rich people and make everyone else suffer as much as possible

And BB you forgot "I hate Black people and gays"

I'm going to have to revive the Limited Libertarian Location. It appears we have some potential newly enlightened ones such as brainbomb and Ogion who completely 100% without a doubt no questions asked most certainly clearly understand our positions and would fit in well there.

I don't hate gays. I just hate how they push their agenda down my throat. Ok your gay, I don't care. I don't get people who aren't male or female but if your gay or a transgender I really don't care. Just stop shoving it down my throat. You have your rights stop fighting for extra.

Yes. I think the Auto bailouts combined with mass job loss in auto manufacturing indicates that the ACA was not an example of positive stimulus to the healthcare industry. The hundreds of millions of new revenue and new jobs wouldve happened anyway without any interventiion. BOOM MACROECONOMICS bitch

@JamesYanik I hate jumping into this debate as a Canadian. But the point you made about maternity leave is so rooted in patriarchy it should be in the encyclopedia next to the word. I'm so glad that as a man, you have no issues with the current lack of maternity leave, and that where you live, people are so well off that they are just passing up on job after job until one that can offer mat leave becomes available. For those who actually grow children inside them, and don't live in your amazing job rich environment, this is an important issue.

As for your NHS numbers, you are leaving out the largest statistic of all. You are infinitely more likely to die in the US for being unable to afford access to a doctor or chronic health care.

"I just hate how they push their agenda down my throat. "

For being so anti-gay you sure have an oral fixation.

@diplomat61

"n my view, society as a whole is better off with a healthy, educated population, good essential infrastructure (e.g. roads, water, sewerage) and services (e.g. fire brigade, court system, the military)."

services: i agree with you. the others actually i'm a bit more on the fence about though. i'm fine with the city planners being in charge of roads and sewage, but to pretend the government does an excellent job in either of these is also a far fetched claim. meanwhile i'm also fine with public education.

so why am i against single payer? mostly i'm against FEDERAL single payer. if a city wants to create a social safety net even up to a state level (though preferably it'd be done by municipalities) then we could actually have a focused, efficient system. the support for a federal socialized healthcare system is riddled with so many problem that are solved by simply scaling downtime focus on healthcare.


"Because these are things of common good, they are areas for which government (local, regional, or national) should be responsible."

well, this is purely an ideological claim. what "should" and "should not" MUST follow the law, and the constitution expressly granted such powers to STATES, not the federal government.


"Whether these are delivered by government itself, or using private contractors, does not matter."

whether or not the government FORCES taxpayers to pay for such systems, DOES matter


"Because they are beneficial to everyone it is right that everyone pays."

no. very simple, no. you do not get to take my money based off of (your own) claims that that taking more power and placing it into the hands of government is better for everyone. this is quite purely socialist, and entirely ignores the fundamental basis of individual responsibility and individual rights that the constitution espoused. i'm sorry if you do not like or appreciate our laws, but you can't simply disregard them. try to get an amendment passed, or do it on a state level: otherwise choose a different country.


"You might be childless but the maternity care and the education that you contribute to ensures that there are doctors and nurses for when you get old; your taxes fund the firemen who come when your house is burning down, and so on."

and why is it ALWAYS necessary for government to control these things, ESPECIALLY with retirement. think of social security, a VERY liberal idea. started under FDR, everyone pays in so you can reap the rewards later on in life, but a combination of mandatory bureaucratic costs, FDR and other government official siphoning money out of social security, and also the potentially racist implications that since black people have on average a lower life expectancy that whites this is a way of defunding black inheritance: and you have the exemplar model of liberal government policies.

good intentions pave the pathway to a liberal utopia (paraphrasing)


"In short, the government's job is to provide the environment in which people can thrive."

except, there is empirical evidence showing that the more economic freedom, the more overall prosperity

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanedk/sets/72157646459874723/

these are known as facts.



@brainbomb

"Lol @yanik thrilled in economic growth in healthcare. Its like he thinks that growth is an example of the free market therefore messing with healthcare is out of the question.

ACA yanik. ACA made all that growth."

my god. can you ACTUALLY read what i said? i never said free markets exist in the USA healthcare system. in fact the ACA has caused BIG spikes in insurance prices.

but let's actually review the facts.

the quasi-socialist healthcare systems in Europe combined with price caps on drugs and medical equipment have led to a degradation of quality of healthcare: check outcomes of patients in USA vs patients under NHS and most european systems:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/09September/Pages/death-risk-much-higher-in-English-than-US-hospitals.aspx

fact.

these systems have been in place overseas for a long time, and because of this medical manufacturing has been doing alright in the united states for decades, BEFORE Obamacare, and now with obamacare we've actually seen the medical equipment industry hurt

http://www.vault.com/industries-professions/industries/medical-equipment-manufacturing.aspx

fact.

obamacare and the government have long created monopolies in the united states for drugs, SKYROCKETING prices.

http://time.com/money/4462919/prescription-drug-prices-too-high/

fact


hmm... it's beginning to sound like government interference in healthcare is CAUSING problems now isn't it?

just ask Charlie Gard, the 11 month year old who might be saved of an otherwise certainly fatal by an experimental treatment in the USA. however, European courts said that the best thing for Charlie, was to let him stay there and die.

what, are we even surprised anymore? the USA has some treatment much more advanced than any in Europe, the family raised the millions of dollars THEMSELVES (which destroys the liberal narrative that without single-payer nobody could afford these treatments) but the court said that they're not allowed a chance to save their kid's life.

the NHS has failed this kid, and the parents are simply asking for permission to leave the country to get him help, and the governments have said that NOPE. it's not in Charlie's best interests. in the name of socialized healthcare, poor little charlie is going to be left to die, despite the parents having the time an money to potentially save his life.



@ghug

"And here we see that the only effective way to convince someone not to be a conservative is to let them talk to Yanik."

keep up with your ad hominem attacks bud. i've got facts and evidence on my side, and that'll beat your crap any day of the week

Oh okay now american hospitals are thriving but healthcare overall is terrible. Nice 180

@brainbomb
"Yes. I think the Auto bailouts combined with mass job loss in auto manufacturing indicates that the ACA was not an example of positive stimulus to the healthcare industry."

that's not even a coherent thought. the primary bail outs were entirely separate from the ACA, and the Obama stimulus package led to the slowest recovery from a recession in decades. i... don't even know what you're trying to say that's so stupid


"The hundreds of millions of new revenue and new jobs wouldve happened anyway without any interventiion. BOOM MACROECONOMICS bitch"

as someone who has studied macroeconomics, let me give you a little insight on something: when the government TAXES it's citizens and THEN creates jobs with that money, ESPECIALLY with the inefficient manner of government intervention in healthcare, it is MUCH more expensive than if markets had decided it, and each and every new job is the product of forced redistribution of wealth.

plus, that hundreds of millions of new revenue, came off of the backs of billions of dollars of taxes spent. maybe you should open a textbook before you talk about economics again



@Pluglife

"@JamesYanik I hate jumping into this debate as a Canadian. But the point you made about maternity leave is so rooted in patriarchy it should be in the encyclopedia next to the word."

1. ad hominem
2. patriarchy doesn't exist and there's just as much evidence for legal statues giving benefits to women, if not more
3. encyclopedias only publics facts
4. you also mean dictionary

"I'm so glad that as a man, you have no issues with the current lack of maternity leave,"

that's entirely unimportant whether or not i'm a man. what does matter, is that the government does not have the right to force companies to provide a service that they do not want to do. forcing paid maternity leave on all businesses CREATES monopolies. i hear the left rail on day after day about how capitalism is creating these corporate monstrosities: NO! it's your OWN policy!


"and that where you live, people are so well off that they are just passing up on job after job until one that can offer mat leave becomes available."

well now i KNOW you didn't actually read my ENTIRE comment. i said that the LACK of competition has CAUSED this problem. we need MORE competition and this will solve itself. you're addressing a problem with LEFT created.


"For those who actually grow children inside them, and don't live in your amazing job rich environment, this is an important issue."

actually, the causes of pregnancy related death generally are only exacerbated by pregnancies, such as heart disease and other diseases that anyone could pick up, and the death rates are in direct correlation with health rates among socioeconomic classes. the causes of miscarriage also usually do with chromosomal abnormality, which once again, has nothing to do with socioeconomic class. the other primary causes are drug or trauma related, or biologically related.

as for the overall well being of women, sadly feminists already destroyed this narrative. i'm old enough to remember when they said that pregnant women shouldn't be FORCED to leave their jobs because they're pregnant, because they're just as capable as men.

but now we've switched to pregnant women are so weak and must be protected... so now the government is going to demand that all businesses pay for maternity leave.

at the end of the day, the difference between you and me is that i like freedom, and you like taking other people's money. you might want that money for a good purpose, but stealing is stealing.

people always love Les Miserables and Jean Valjean as a hero, but nobody ever mentions how the bread he stole could have hurt that business, and how that business owner might have to watch his kid's go hungry.

if you want to take other people's money, you need their consent. bad news for socialists, because as it turns out people actually like the idea of working, creating something, and reaping the rewards of their own labor.


"As for your NHS numbers, you are leaving out the largest statistic of all. You are infinitely more likely to die in the US for being unable to afford access to a doctor or chronic health care."

this is patently untrue. i was talking about QUALITY of healthcare, NOT the universality of healthcare. that's a strawman argument.

@brainbomb

"Oh okay now american hospitals are thriving but healthcare overall is terrible. Nice 180"

my god brainbomb, do you not understand how a COMPARISON works?

i'm saying that our healthcare system is slowly getting worse due to excessive government intervention, and we shouldn't go down that road, because up until recently we've dominated with quality of healthcare: and i used examples with europe.

i have not 180ed ONCE. i'm showing you evidence that more economic freedom have led to higher quality healthcare, and that to get prices under control, trying to adapt a socialist model with only degrade the quality. besides, you overestimate the quality of european healthcare. take the liberal god-king NHS system: it doesn't do as much as you think

https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf

ok, I can see how you'd think that but there are some things you should know:

NHS does not provide for dental healthcare, US does: as of 2013
"Spending for dental services increased 2.8 percent in 2014 to $113.5 billion"

Nursing care is much less covered under NHS, while USA: 2014 to $155.6 billion

Another market is prescription drugs, which is an industry in the USA, rather than state funded, producing great scientific advances: growing 12.2 percent to $297.7 billion (these advances were allowed to occur due to competition for getting a better product)

Many health residential and person series are at 150 billion $ in the US, our privatized medical equipment sales are at 46 billion $ on their own,

SO WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON!!!

You're comparing two different things. The NHS budget, to ALL USA SPENDING ON HEALTHCARE.

If you take just the services NHS offers in Britain, then what do you get for the USA:
Spending on physician and clinical services increased 4.6 percent in 2014 to $603.7 billion

I'm not grouping in hospital care because the NHS offers:
accident and emergency services – but not emergency treatment once you've been admitted to hospital
family planning services – but not termination of pregnancy or infertility treatment
treatment for most infectious diseases, including sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
treatment required for a physical or mental condition caused by torture, female genital mutilation, domestic violence or sexual violence – this does not apply if you have come to England to seek this treatment

as there "free" services, that are all also basic treatments in the US. While US Hospital spending is at 971 billion, it is privatized, and in Britain, that does not fall under NHS budget guidelines.

PLUS The United States doesn't only offer treatment to our own citizens, but ethical codes allow it for anyone who comes in. In the NHS, this is not on budget, because people have to pay.

@JY, missed a bit so i will read and respond if i get a chance later. But, 1 thing. The US may have the best hospitals, but they have some of the worst life expectancy (for a developed country), you seem to be only looking at the results for people who have access to the best medicine, and ignoring all those who die early (bringing down that average lfe expectancy) or who eat unhealthily and get preventable illnesses (which pushes up average healthcare costs) - there must be something* going on which means the average americans spends more on healthcare and lives a shorter life than the average UK citizen.

But of course, you can argue you don't care about the average, and ignore that people die earlier. It is very easy to pretend these people aren't important or that becase the US has the best technology they are the best place in the world. But the usage of that technology is not fairly distributed. So people die.

And i blame your entire economic system, capitalism, just as it would be right to blame communism in the USSR for the deaths by starvation and famine due to poor distribution (and production) of food in the 30s. The party elite completely ignored the millions dying, i'm sure their history books didn't even mention it. And i assure you, something* is going on in the US which is killing your people.

*i don't know exactly what this something is, it is likely a combination of factors. Advertising and cheap availability of food has left the average American three times as heavy as the average earthling (so they require three times as much energy and three times as much water to survive each day) 3 times the consumption of other countries must be partly linked to advertising. And profit driven enterprises who want to grow their markets regardless of the health impact on their customers must be a factor.

I can't tell you all of the mechanisms, maybe drug advertising on tv has an effect, maybe doctors ordering unnecessary tests (to protect themselves from the threat of negligence charges) is a factor, i can't count the number of ways there are problems. But regulation of new medicine (whether that is in drug development or otherwise) isn't the only factor.

We have regulations in Europe aswell...

I recommend a youtube channel, 'healthcare triage' to see some of the complexities of this.

"n my view, society as a whole is better off with a healthy, educated population, good essential infrastructure (e.g. roads, water, sewerage) and services (e.g. fire brigade, court system, the military)."

You mean like how in 2015 nearly 1 million veterans were waiting to get their healthcare from the government and possibly a third died before they could get it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/09/03/nearly-1-million-veterans-have-pending-applications-for-health-care-at-the-va-and-a-third-may-already-be-dead/?utm_term=.d29295f079e2)?

Or how the city government of Flint and the state government of Michigan poisoned thousands of children in Flint through the water system? (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/flint-weighs-scope-of-harm-to-children-caused-by-lead-in-water.html?referer=https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT8yoJmVZ470APUJx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZWM3a3VoBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDVUkyRkJUM18xBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1499830057/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2016%2f01%2f30%2fus%2fflint-weighs-scope-of-harm-to-children-caused-by-lead-in-water.html/RK=1/RS=hvpn.hnE52ph8H3G_QGKr3yvU20-).

Or perhaps how the majority of states find road maintenance to be so difficult that they are converting paved roads to gravel roads?( http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/americas-infrastructure-is-so-bad-gravel-roads-are-making-a-comeback/2017/03/28/3bf1bb1e-13de-11e7-bb16-269934184168_story.html?utm_term=.317da51bcfee).

I agree, government makes everything better! If we want a healthy, well fed population that can travel around he country easily at their leisure and in safety, we must make the government in charge of accomplishing all of these tasks!

@"so why am i against single payer? mostly i'm against FEDERAL single payer. if a city wants to create a social safety net even up to a state level"

Look, it matters what scale you do these things on, but it is not necessarily a requirement that everything be on a federal level. City infrastructure, for example is perfectly fine in city planner's hands. Rather than federal, but what do you do about interstate connections?

Medical care on the other hand you run into some issues, if california decided to implement state-wide healthcare, would they be allowed restrict it to residents? Would cancer patients in texas who didn't have insurance be able to jump on a plane and move the california for treatment and then leave as soon as they were in remission?

I'm all for getting the insurance industry entirely out of this business, and getting states or other collectives to do some collective bargaining with the drugs companies - because you see some pharma companies increase the price of a drug by 700% - not that it has become any more expensive to manufacture...

Collectve bargaining is a great protection against this. The downside is replacing insurance experts with government employees making estimatibg the relative cost to benefit ratio of specific drugs or treatments (you have a finite budget and have to decide which patients can get the most increase in quantity and quality of life... And so decide where to spend that budget). Now that is not ideal, it become very utilitarian, but insurance explicitally trying to deny patients coverage for 'pre-existing conditions' or placing blame where ever they can to avoid paying out is already a problem, so in effect you're trading one issue for another.

And currently uninsured people in the US end up delaying treatment (to avoid bankruptcy) getting sicker, needing more care (more costly) and eventually costing the tax payer massively (and being bankrupted, so they don't end up paying the tax payer back) - in essence a single payer system which increases average healthcare costs, while allowing poor people get sicker than they needed to be. And reducing their ability to climb out of poverty...

All-in-all this is problem part of the worst medical system in the world.

**i think, i'm not entirely clear what happens in these cases, if i'm wrong please correct me.

@orathaic

"@JY, missed a bit so i will read and respond if i get a chance later. But, 1 thing. The US may have the best hospitals, but they have some of the worst life expectancy (for a developed country), you seem to be only looking at the results for people who have access to the best medicine,"

i already addressed this, but let me break it down more: there are 3 topics of concern

- universality
- quality
- affordability

i was talking about quality, YOU are talking about universality. out of those 3, choose 2. the free market selects for quality and affordability, and that's where i am drawn.


"and ignoring all those who die early (bringing down that average lfe expectancy) or who eat unhealthily and get preventable illnesses (which pushes up average healthcare costs) - there must be something* going on which means the average americans spends more on healthcare and lives a shorter life than the average UK citizen."

um... our obesity epidemic is a product of FREE HUMAN CHOICE. if you have a problem with individual's FREE HUMAN CHOICES then that's your problem. you have no right demand that everyone eat perfectly healthy meals, and exercise daily. sorry, but that's FREE HUMAN CHOICE. just to make that clear.

as for preventable illnesses, this is why more people need to buy insurance. now some people think "let's make an individual mandate" but i'll address this later, and how it spikes costs. i would like it if more people voluntarily bought insurance but some people make the FREE HUMAN CHOICE not to. this is their own fault.


"But of course, you can argue you don't care about the average, and ignore that people die earlier. It is very easy to pretend these people aren't important"

but we're still going to be 100% on the abortion train, correct mr. liberal? just checking in on that point, but what you're talking about are the poor. well, i got to a day center for the homeless every week and help by volunteering. it's a lot more useful that whining that people aren't going the government enough money to spend on healthcare. in fact, the very mechanism of using government demands that some government drone we have to pay a salary now to be in charge of this. there is a natural deadweight loss here.


"or that becase the US has the best technology they are the best place in the world. But the usage of that technology is not fairly distributed. So people die."

HAHAHAHAHAHA you are SO dishonest. you say "fairly distributed" FAIR ACCORDING TO WHOM???? people work for a living, and people who work and produce something, are allowed to buy things with the fruit of their labor. and for those who cannot afford healthcare, i say we create charities people can donate to, or places they can volunteer at.


"And i blame your entire economic system, capitalism, just as it would be right to blame communism in the USSR for the deaths by starvation and famine due to poor distribution (and production) of food in the 30s. The party elite completely ignored the millions dying, i'm sure their history books didn't even mention it. And i assure you, something* is going on in the US which is killing your people."

capitalism is free and consensual transactions... so do you like slavery and rape? that's disgusting.

but of course, leftists hate to admit what they're fighting against is freedom. meanwhile, it's narcissistic to say that the soviets weren't smart enough to make socialism work in the 30s, but WE could have done it. no, it's a failure of a system. on nearly every measurable scale, more economic freedom produces better results for society

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanedk/sets/72157646459874723/

this INCLUDES life expectancy and private social spending. if you're trying to criticize free markets and pure capitalism: you are NOT attacking America. America is very much a mixed economy. meanwhile let's take another look at Britain:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/11/nhs-fail-winter-without-cash-injection-hospital-doctors-tell-theresa-may

and this is ON TOP OF some of the highest tax rates in the world. and let's look at the government efficiency

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/14/avoidable-deaths-nhs-hospitals-study

oops, hurts the liberal narrative again. but what about one of the biggest causes of poverty: mental health?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/26/rise-mental-health-patient-deaths-nhs-struggling-to-cope

oof. the NHS, one of the best examples of single payer isn't actually some amazing perfect beauty, it's a disgusting disgrace of an organization that is single handedly exacerbating a debt crisis in britain, WITH some of the highest tax rates in the world.

and let's not even mention the discrimination against the elderly

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/11637179/Elderly-face-NHS-discrimination-under-new-UN-death-targets.html


"*i don't know exactly what this something is, it is likely a combination of factors. Advertising and cheap availability of food has left the average American three times as heavy as the average earthling (so they require three times as much energy and three times as much water to survive each day) 3 times the consumption of other countries must be partly linked to advertising. And profit driven enterprises who want to grow their markets regardless of the health impact on their customers must be a factor."

my god... you're insulting the fact that we're so well fed. you're delusional. and why do you hate fat people all of a sudden? it's a lifestyle choice, do you think you know how to live their lives, better than them? well too bad boy, we had individual rights, and people live the life they make for themselves.


"I can't tell you all of the mechanisms, maybe drug advertising on tv has an effect, maybe doctors ordering unnecessary tests (to protect themselves from the threat of negligence charges) is a factor, i can't count the number of ways there are problems. But regulation of new medicine (whether that is in drug development or otherwise) isn't the only factor."

i KNOW you don't understand healthcare well enough, and all of it's mechanisms... that's blatantly obvious.

"We have regulations in Europe aswell...

I recommend a youtube channel, 'healthcare triage' to see some of the complexities of this."

1. regulation in europe involve price caps, which is why you see LOW innovation and new drugs in europe. if we have a new epidemic spring up, it's going to be America that finds a cure first. those betting odds, you don't want to take.

2. i've actually seen the healthcare triage channel before, and much of their material i like, but they have a great blindspot for the economic and fiscal consequences of a single payer system, up to the point of blatant omission.


the essential problem with American healthcare now is that it takes away private choice, and this destroys basic risk assessment: a disaster waiting to happen The ACA's individual mandate essentially destroyed the entire notion of insurance, which also has hurt premium prices across the board.

forcing preexisting conditions and then making a cap on the amount they can charge, and pretending that it's still "insurance." at that point, it simply becomes a ticking time bomb until companies begin to fail, OR the gov't subsidizes them creating a pseudo-nationalized system.

there's a way to get cheap health insurance in a purely competitive market, and the ACA went exactly in the opposite direction.

our insurance companies make about a 2.2% return on revenue, they're about 35th on the most profitable businesses. meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are at number 3, with a 19.9% return, and medical products and equipment industry was right behind it, with a 16.3 percent return

In the U.S., insurers negotiate with hospitals and drug companies on their own - and they pay more as a result. In fact, because of their weak negotiating position they frequently use whatever price Medicare is paying as a baseline and then, because they lack the power to strike a similar deal, add a percentage on top.

in single payer systems in other countries, the gov't sets the price.

in our country: neither the free market NOR the gov't sets the price. this is BAAAAD for costs

so the solution? ask a Trump supporter!

a VERY common response by Trump supporters (if you don't call them nazis, racists, bigots, homophobes right off the back) is that we need to stop giving monopolies to these out of control pharmaceutical companies, while butchering insurance companies. and who do they blame? Hillary, the woman who accepted millions in campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies #ClintonFoundationFunFacts look at how much money was pulled out after she lost.

If we lower costs enough, then we won't have to restrict people's freedom, and we'll be better off with healthcare costs than countries with smaller, more homogeneous populations.

of course, this only addresses symptoms of problems. it costs up to 2.6 billion dollars to get a new drug onto the market!

http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/tufts_csdd_rd_cost_study_now_published

clearly we need to address the fact that this is not just inflation driven, and regulations are making these investments expensive.

most pharma-companies are massive internationals and patent laws on drugs don’t apply overseas, PLUS they get smaller profits due to lower prices as set by foreign governments.

The USA with a 20% return is why investing in pharmaceuticals is so lucrative. but imagine if the USA also capped prices, and your 1.2 billion dollar investment (out of pocket cost) only yields 2% return instead of 20%? who is taking that risk???

nobody smart: i.e. the gov’t. the gov’t MUST subsidize, and eventually, nationalize. this is because of massive overregulation.

it used to be “buyer beware” but now it’s “we’re from the gov’t and we’re here to help” (Reagan rolling over in his grave).

Of course this wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for bankruptcy loopholes and the like to get out of lawsuits. I propose two markets, and FDA regulated, and a completely unregulated, free, buyer beware market. now you can still sue if a family member dies, and they can’t weasel out of money (we’ll have to change some statutes) but this way, drugs get put out on the market quickly and cheaply.

furthermore (i like that word a lot) nationalization stops competition, which will stifle creativity in drug creation.

with these 2 markets, i think we’ll very quickly see which one starts succeeding: turns out “freedom” is a pretty good thing. who knew?

except, i don’t have to do this, because we already HAVE one such market: and it produces better quality drugs AND has lower costs

let’s also not forget that the FDA has to pull every 1 of 3 drugs it APPROVES. this is taxpayer money wasted. we need to make mor off label markets, put the burden of proving death suits on the COMPANIES, and deregulate.

read this:

http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php


this is a comprehensive analysis using a MULTITUDE of economic studies about how the FDA and government interference in healthcare have massively hurt the industry

there's also a great study done in 2000 addressing the off-label prescription market

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_1_tabarrok.pdf

i'm not sure what else i can give you, but this is a comprehensive analysis of USA healthcare. if it doesn't convince you, i don't know what will

@JamesYanick

I tried to phrase my post in a non-US specific way to avoid any State vs Federal discussion.

Note that I said nothing about who collects the taxes/other income; I believe it is right that should be at a level at which voters have a say, through the ballot box, about their level and use. If residents of a city are prepared to pay higher tax so that they can have flowers hanging from every lamppost, so be it.

Nor did I say anything about old-age care. Personally I am comfortable with a minimum safety net arrangement, but I accept this is a choice for each society.

I am not assuming that government is the best provider of, say, sewerage services. That is why I think the use of third parties to provide services should be an option. Imagine the chaos of a city with no centralised sewerage system.

As for forcing someone to pay tax: that's the law, you have to pay the taxes that your fellow citizens have collectively agreed to.

@diplomat61

"@JamesYanick

I tried to phrase my post in a non-US specific way to avoid any State vs Federal discussion."

sorry about that, but it's a discussion that's near-impossible to avoid with our Republic.


"Note that I said nothing about who collects the taxes/other income; I believe it is right that should be at a level at which voters have a say, through the ballot box, about their level and use. If residents of a city are prepared to pay higher tax so that they can have flowers hanging from every lamppost, so be it."

Nor did I say anything about old-age care. Personally I am comfortable with a minimum safety net arrangement, but I accept this is a choice for each society."

but when people by and large vote AGAINST more socialized measures, is the response by the mainstream left vitriolic saying conservatives hate the poor: or are they calm and composed and say "well i guess this is what society wants." answer that honestly.


"I am not assuming that government is the best provider of, say, sewerage services. That is why I think the use of third parties to provide services should be an option. Imagine the chaos of a city with no centralised sewerage system."

yes but here is the problem, you're making this out to be "rights." now i'm not sure where you come from, but the USA has a set constitution, and we have rights to life liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. anything else is simply a power that the people have temporarily bestowed upon government.

if you have a natural, unalienable RIGHT to sewage, then someone MUST build sewage lines. thus you have a RIGHT to someone's labor. this is where the founding fathers saw inconsistencies in logic, as no man should have a right to another man's labor.

furthermore, rights in America are not to be voted upon. you're not allowed to suspend the 1st amendment in a public area, by vote of the people (private property being a separate issue altogether). the right to life is also not subject to a vote (the death penalty being only exercised when you yourself have already taken a life - except Texas is weird and kills WAY too many people, i'm more left on that issue)


"As for forcing someone to pay tax: that's the law, you have to pay the taxes that your fellow citizens have collectively agreed to."

this is where we come back to the idea of a social contract. it amazes me that most kids i know in college can recite Rousseau, but never have heard of Hume. David Hume proposed (with a stronger empirical viewpoint) that the order of society was not a collective will, but rather the utility of there being a society outweighed the act of resistance. thus people could disagree with society and be fully justified in overthrowing it: such as France or the USA in the 1700s, BUT by not perpetually acting in resistance, this should not be seen as being a part of a collective will in that country.

we have laws that are below 50% favorability in this country right now. but because they're there: do we "collectively" agree to them? No! humans are NOT hive mind creatures, we are individuals, who should be judged as such. "collective" agreements are only as strong as the individual beliefs within that group.

and collective agreements do NOT override individual rights