next »

[Ntero]

Perhaps I didn't highlight BIG PHARMA enough.

The thread is a like a clown car crash. I mean it's all entertaining as it is, the gnashing of republicans upset that Obama has embraced a new kind of socialism instead of the old one arguing with assorted idiot leftist trash lecturing on how to be generous with other peoples money.

Then you have the paranoid conspiracists crashing into the debate at full speed in their all natural bio-identical Volkswagen Type 2 powered by homeopathic moon crystals

I don't think we are reading the same thread.  I think there was maybe one person who could be considered right leaning, and even he wasn't very much so.  It's indie game developers, it's likely to be a more left crowd.  And most of the conspiracy theory tidbits are pretty tame relative to standard US media conspiracy theories (oh you crazy crazy fox news).

[CK]

We pay income tax which is %0 if you're on less than $10,000; 20% for up to $31,000; 40% for more than that (roughly converted to US dollars).

holy fucking shit

[Richard Kain]

@ richard kain - they aren't paid directly for those drugs, but they are often informally paid "bribes" by drug companies for prescribing certain drugs, as someone mentioned earlier.

This is not true. Any medical practioner who accepted a bribe to recommend one drug over another, would be exposing themselves to malpractice suits, and could quite easily have their liscence suspended, or even revoked. The hypocratic oath requires that medical personel presecribe the drug most suited to a given patient's treatment. The laws of the U.S. provide severe penalties for any doctor who deviates from this.

Also, my father started his career as a pharmaceutical salesman. Were such "informal bribes" a common occurence, I am certain I would have heard something about them in the numerous stories he has told of the old days. I'm not saying doctors are above corruption. But pharmaceutical companies could never provide enough compensation to MDs to make such a practice worthwhile. And as I already pointed out, a doctor's prescription can be easily circumvented by purchasing generic alternatives. If a doctor prescribes 800mg Advil, the patient can just purchase 800mg generic Ibuprofen instead. The drug company that produces Advil would never see a dime.

[Movius]

Perhaps I didn't highlight BIG PHARMA enough.

The thread is a like a clown car crash. I mean it's all entertaining as it is, the gnashing of republicans upset that Obama has embraced a new kind of socialism instead of the old one arguing with assorted idiot leftist trash lecturing on how to be generous with other peoples money.

Then you have the paranoid conspiracists crashing into the debate at full speed in their all natural bio-identical Volkswagen Type 2 powered by homeopathic moon crystals

I don't think we are reading the same thread.  I think there was maybe one person who could be considered right leaning, and even he wasn't very much so.  It's indie game developers, it's likely to be a more left crowd.  And most of the conspiracy theory tidbits are pretty tame relative to standard US media conspiracy theories (oh you crazy crazy fox news).

True about the left-leaning crowd. I was conflating this thread with the many others on the internet. None the less, my point was that I can understand criticism of the current bill on ethical opposition to socialism/collectivism/whatever, but I can't understand how one could simultaneously endorse the current system (to the best of my understanding,) which is also a 'socialist' system.

Most of the comical medical conspiracies are in here though (except anti-vax.) For mine, peddling magical pretend-medicine and/or discouraging others from getting real treatment is far worse than any specific stance on public/private insurance. It is irrelevant to me whether it is acupuncture, chiropractic or voodoo witch doctor.

[gunmaggot]

@ Movius:  If people are being taxed for some particular amount of money, that money is hardly theirs - it's now $tax money$!  The same system that dictates what belongs to whom can take it away and put it somewhere else if that's what the popular mood dictates - democracy is a lot like capitalism is that it is to some extent self-correcting like that.
If you want to enjoy the benefits that come with a democracy, you gotta take stuff like that on the chin and understand that's part the ebb and flow of the system.  Moaning about it is like claiming that throws are cheap and should be banned from tourney play.  Or something.  Don't like it?  Ragequit.  Or you could be a libertarian and just hang around in the lobby exhorting everybody to ragequit, but never actually doing it.

[Mar]

if you really dont like it there's always canada O WAIT THEY HAVE THE SAME CRAP AS WE DO! i guess there's mexico. is that really what it's come to guys mexico?

[Rob Lach]

Yeah, our farm subsidies seriously mess up a lot of things ... unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any political will toward fixing it, though

All the U.S Farm Subsidies are a result of European and Asian farm subsidies enacted last century.US agriculture wouldn't be able to compete without them.

In 2006, $11.25 Billion was spent on on agriculture subsidies, and agriculture contributed to 1.2% of the US GDP, which is about $155 billion so it is a profitable system.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm still waiting for you to post a long boring blog article about how people think about this subject wrong.

i think movius is pretty smart, i agree with him on a lot of stuff, but yeah he has the tendency to see anyone who disagrees with him as having some sort of moral failure (e.g. "leftish trash") and an addiction to telling people why they're wrong. whereas i just think they're all wrong privately and don't bother trying to convince them of it.

I don't think we are reading the same thread.  I think there was maybe one person who could be considered right leaning, and even he wasn't very much so.  It's indie game developers, it's likely to be a more left crowd.  And most of the conspiracy theory tidbits are pretty tame relative to standard US media conspiracy theories (oh you crazy crazy fox news).

do you mean the OP? if so, there's two, i'm very right-leaning in a sense (somewhat of a voluntaryist): i don't think the gov should be involved in health care at all and think even medicaid and medicare should be the job of private charities rather than gov, but that's irrelevant: since currently the gov does involve itself in health care i'd rather it do so in an effective way (like spending money on prevention programs) rather than in a contradictory way (by forcing people to pay for their own health insurance or get fined).

@ richard kain - generic alternatives only work for old drugs: you can't make generic alternatives if the company still owns the patent (which lasts 20 years). besides, that's just replacing one drug with an identical drug by a different name. that isn't germane to the problem of the side effects of drugs; if you'd be harmed by the side effect of a drug, you'd also be harmed by its generic equivalent, since generic equivalents are the same chemical, just made by a different company. this article is relevant: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237

@ pierog - but why not at least subsidize stuff equally? why favor particular crops? why give corn farmers money and not give any to sweet potato farmers, for instance? that's pretty unfair.

[drChengele]

if individuals who are saved by modern medicine are examples of it extending lifespan, than logically aren't individuals who are killed by modern medicine examples of it not extending lifespan?

Of course, it's just that there are much more people saved by modern medicine than killed by it so, overall, statistically, medicine prolongs lifespan. Unfortunately, statistics by definition overlook such tragedies of the individual. Didn't Stalin say "death of a man is a tragedy, death of a million is a statistic?" I think modern medicine might be moving in that direction, for better or worse (hint: it's not better).

[Hangedman]

We need the extra room anyway.

[Zaphos]

Yeah, our farm subsidies seriously mess up a lot of things ... unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any political will toward fixing it, though

All the U.S Farm Subsidies are a result of European and Asian farm subsidies enacted last century.US agriculture wouldn't be able to compete without them.

In 2006, $11.25 Billion was spent on on agriculture subsidies, and agriculture contributed to 1.2% of the US GDP, which is about $155 billion so it is a profitable system.

I don't fully believe that counts as pure profit -- I mean, messing with trade via tariffs and subsidies usually does result in hefty profits for some players in the market, but at cost to the rest of the players, and it seems we'd need a lot more analysis to say the true cost/benefit.

There also appear to be significant externalities to the way we dump corn on the market -- there are the health costs of too much HFCS and cheap cheap junk food while a diet of fruits and veggies remains expensive.  And also since we also dump on the global market we screw up the potential for un-subsidized third world countries to develop agriculturally; see for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/opinion/05KRIS.html?ex=1027081396&ei=1&en=6415bc0232476bf2

[Richard Kain]

@Paul Eres

How are the side effects of drugs affected either positively or negatively by the socialization of the Healthcare industry? Moreover, how does alleged "bribery" by major pharmaceutical companies affect this in any way? Pharmaceutical companies are usually separate from insurance companies. The recently passed Health Care Bill isn't going to be able to dictate much to pharmaceutical companies. They fall under the oversight of the FDA.

I read that article you linked to. Most of the activities it labels as "bribery" are just standard industry practices. A lot of that consultant and research work by MDs is required in order for pharmaceutical companies to get FDA approval. None of that is illegal. And don't even bother bringing nice meals at fancy restaurants up. That's one of the oldest tricks in the book for any sales representative in any industry. You can call that underhanded if you like, but there's no point in singling out the pharmaceutical industry for that.

[Ntero]

@ Eres

I'm a little bit confused by Private Charities.  I'm really hoping this is not a euphemism for the US's previous/current mess.  Otherwise, do you really think a multibillion dollar charity would work?  Who's giving thousands of dollars a month to this charity?  What happens when they start running dry?  You are not helping impoverished children for pennies a day with health care, you are buying millions of people operations with exorbitant costs (especially in the US).

I generally think their solution seems somewhat ineffective(reduce costs to individuals, by giving insurance companies an even stronger grip).  But I also think that with the 'Tea Partiers' and people who seemed to oppose anything that benefits someone who is not either rich or them, they did one of the better options they had available.

[Dacke]

arguing with assorted idiot leftist trash lecturing on how to be generous with other peoples money.

Other people's money, you say?

I think that everyone should have enough to get by. It's about human rights, about human dignity. No one should be left without basic things like water, food, shelter, medical care and so on. There are enough resources in the world to give this to everyone, no problem.

But obviously we should prioritize the right to command capital, over the right to a decent life. People who are rich (due to historical reasons (often injustices)) have a bigger right to to the world's resources. They should be allowed to exploit natural resources for their personal gain (the world doesn't belong to all of us, no sir!). They should be allowed to keep accumulating wealth, by cashing in on other people's work. It's all so obvious now.

Yup. Filthy, moronic leftist trash, that's what I am. I should respect people more.

[Hangedman]

Yup. Filthy, moronic leftist trash, that's what I am. I should fear more.

Actually, they'd rather just have this ^

[Smithy]

We pay income tax which is %0 if you're on less than $10,000; 20% for up to $31,000; 40% for more than that (roughly converted to US dollars).

holy fucking shit

Eh. If you look up effective tax rates, Americans pay roughly the same amount.

[Curseman]

This whole thing should've been resolved by each state individually.  Then we could all go wherever the system we like best is and that would be the end of it.

[Smithy]

For families who have enough money to just pick up and relocate to wherever they want at a moment's notice without consequence.

[John Nesky]

  I imagine moving to another state would be easier than moving out of the country if you don't like the federal way.

[Smithy]

Actually, we were doing that before the bill passed. States always had the right to provide health programs. They still do. Just so happened most states provided minimal (if any) provisions. This bill is just a step towards regulating a corrupt industry. States will not lose the right to provide for their citizens.

Anyway, if you take the stance that we should just carry on with state programs alone and throw away the regulations that have been established, then what you're essentially saying (based on history dating back TWO FULL DAYS) is: "You wanted health care? Move to Hawaii."

Which is why the vast majority of American citizens, not senators or politicians, but American citizens were in favor of a public option and general health reform.

Edit: Also, this bill was largely geared to help people who couldn't afford health insurance in the first place. Many of them are essentially living paycheck to paycheck right now. Think about that for a second. Do you really think someone who lives paycheck to paycheck can afford to take their family and just *move* to some other state?