Why don't you ask the doctors and hospitals if it helps; they could care less about GDP when health care is being ruined and authoritarianism is becoming entrenched.


Oh and, the first dem victim of the '14 cycle was bounced today, after being hammered over the obamaKare debacle:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/11/republican-david-jolly-beats-alex-sink-in-florida-special-election/

Funny, her name is SINK.....

"The reason our healthcare is so expensive is because we have morons(read: Democrats and/or poor people) who come into the emergency room for a headache rather than just buying a $1 bottle of Advil and getting some rest."

This is a good point and one of the reasons why the British NHS system is such a colossal failure. Aside from the Ukraine situation and the Malaysian jet disappearance, this is has been the biggest story in the newspapers/online media in the UK in the last couple of weeks - and there is a government initiative to "educate" the citizens on when and where they should go to the ER. Socialized medicine doesn't make it better for the poor and uneducated, it just makes it worse for everyone else.

Cue in Boatshoes' response given that he lives in the UK and has lived the experience, or why Singapore's "socialist" system is so great (because socialism means excluding a large portion of the population) - because again, he's been there.

QuakerOats;1589112 wrote:Oh and, the first dem victim of the '14 cycle was bounced today, after being hammered over the obamaKare debacle:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/11/republican-david-jolly-beats-alex-sink-in-florida-special-election/

Funny, her name is SINK.....

I wonder how Mega RINO Mitch the Bitch McConnell feels about that? :RpS_w00t:

I'll be shaking my head when, several years from now, we are debating MASSIVE subsidies for medical/pharma R&D because big, bad single-payer has squeezed research budgets out of margins.

All this talk about the insurance companies as if they are the problem...the margins aren't there (it's on the pharma and devices side, and to a lesser extent the hospitals)

gut;1589205 wrote:I'll be shaking my head when, several years from now, we are debating MASSIVE subsidies for medical/pharma R&D because big, bad single-payer has squeezed research budgets out of margins.

All this talk about the insurance companies as if they are the problem...the margins aren't there (it's on the pharma and devices side, and to a lesser extent the hospitals)

I'll give everyone my wife's take on this, who knows more about pharma than anyone here by a long shot (I'd love to see her debate Boatshoes):

If the USA wants socialized medicine, it had better hope that there are no AIDS/HIV diseases that originate, or massive flu epidemic, or any other type of problem that throughout mankind's history arise, because we cannot rely on the government to solve it. We need R&D, and that means paying good doctors and researchists what they deserve - and earn. Nothing in life is free.

QuakerOats;1589112 wrote:Why don't you ask the doctors and hospitals if it helps; they could care less about GDP when health care is being ruined and authoritarianism is becoming entrenched.


Oh and, the first dem victim of the '14 cycle was bounced today, after being hammered over the obamaKare debacle:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/11/republican-david-jolly-beats-alex-sink-in-florida-special-election/

Funny, her name is SINK.....

No doubt the Democrats are going down in 2014. It will be a minor version of 2010. Then we get two awful years of delusional Republicans obstructing absolutely everything and calling the President a communist and a weak leader trying to repeal Obummercare as it slowly and steadily becomes more popular just like Medicare and then a repeat of Johnson v. Goldwater when Hillary uses a strap on without lube in 2016 on Cruz/Paul.

By 2020, the demographics of the country are irreversibly younger, more diverse and more progressive and Hillary coasts to reelection and the damage of the 2010 redistricting fiasco will be undone.

It sucks that it will take that much time but the arch of the moral universe is indeed long.


The only thing that stops this from happening is Hillary's health and of course if she doesn't pull an LBJ and fuck everything up and set the stage for another conservative takeover. Rising healthcare costs and social security spending ought to make sure that the deficit does not get too low and cause a recession as in 2000 and 2007. Hillary is a good competent person and LBJ was a corrupt psychopath so I think she'll pull it off. By that time, hopefully, we'll have Eisenhower and Nixon's Republican Party back and we can end this destructive political conflict.

Manhattan Buckeye;1589206 wrote:I'll give everyone my wife's take on this, who knows more about pharma than anyone here by a long shot (I'd love to see her debate Boatshoes):

If the USA wants socialized medicine, it had better hope that there are no AIDS/HIV diseases that originate, or massive flu epidemic, or any other type of problem that throughout mankind's history arise, because we cannot rely on the government to solve it. We need R&D, and that means paying good doctors and researchists what they deserve - and earn. Nothing in life is free.

The United States already has socialized medicine for the poor with medicaid, for Veteran's with The Veteran's Administration and for the Old with Medicare. And, it also has massive amounts of socialized Medical Research Funding from the National Institutes of Health. The Federal Government's Public Purse can fund any and all research for massive public health needs and would do so better and more efficiently than private for profit PHARMA.

As Bill Gates said, private medical R&D prioritizes male pattern baldnes (I would add limp dick) over important public health needs like Malaria. The National Institutes Health Research and Funding has been instrumental in most of the most important drugs in the last half a century.

"It means paying good doctors and researchers what they deserve"

^^As if the Public Purse cannot pay them!

The Federal Public Purse is unmatched by any spending power or profit motive in the private economy. The Federal Public Purse moved our economy's real resources to crush fascism in World War II, to create the world's greatest highway system in the 50's, to put a man on the Moon in the 60's, it sparked the creation of the internet in the 80's and countless medical breakthroughs along the way.

The Federal Public Purse provided the funds for the greatest engineers the United States has to offer to build this:




It can provide the funds to motivate the greatest scientists we have to offer to combat the most pressing public health needs that private capitalists have no desire to fund because they don't make money off of curing disease. They do make money off of getting old men to get boners though.

Tell your wife to create a screen name.

gut;1589205 wrote:I'll be shaking my head when, several years from now, we are debating MASSIVE subsidies for medical/pharma R&D because big, bad single-payer has squeezed research budgets out of margins.

All this talk about the insurance companies as if they are the problem...the margins aren't there (it's on the pharma and devices side, and to a lesser extent the hospitals)

The breakthroughs with the most utility to improve the human condition have been massively subsidized by the National Institutes of Health in any event. And, either way, using the public purse to subsidize pharma and R&D is fine anyway and uses the power of the purse to promote the very best kind of economic activity.

believer;1589204 wrote:I wonder how Mega RINO Mitch the Bitch McConnell feels about that? :RpS_w00t:

Mitch McConnell is not a RINO. This is a perfect example of conservative delusion. This idea that Mitch McConnell a 90% lifetime conservative rating from the American Conservative Union is somehow part of "Der Esterblershment Durr" and Not a "True Conservative" is utterly insane.

But, whatever makes the Tea Party waste time attacking Republicans is fine by me. McConnell is going to win his primary but if he somehow managed to lose that Matt Bevin turd would lose to the Democrat!

Hard to believe the Tea Party has not figured that out yet.

"As Bill Gates said, private medical R&D prioritizes male pattern baldnes (I would add limp dick) over important public health needs like Malaria. The National Institutes Health Research and Funding has been instrumental in most of the most important drugs in the last half a century."

What the hell was this? If you want to be 100% wrong, you just did it.

Manhattan Buckeye;1589203 wrote:"The reason our healthcare is so expensive is because we have morons(read: Democrats and/or poor people) who come into the emergency room for a headache rather than just buying a $1 bottle of Advil and getting some rest."

This is a good point and one of the reasons why the British NHS system is such a colossal failure. Aside from the Ukraine situation and the Malaysian jet disappearance, this is has been the biggest story in the newspapers/online media in the UK in the last couple of weeks - and there is a government initiative to "educate" the citizens on when and where they should go to the ER. Socialized medicine doesn't make it better for the poor and uneducated, it just makes it worse for everyone else.

Cue in Boatshoes' response given that he lives in the UK and has lived the experience, or why Singapore's "socialist" system is so great (because socialism means excluding a large portion of the population) - because again, he's been there.

Socialism means that the Public owns, controls or administers the means of Production. The Public Sector administrates the means healthcare delivery in both Singapore and the United Kingdom. If you do not understand the definition of socialism refrain from using the word. And, both systems are highly popular with the general public. Obummercare would kill for their numbers.

The NHS has a high level of popular public support within the country: an independent survey conducted in 2004 found that users of the NHS often expressed very high levels satisfaction about their personal experience of the medical services they received: 92% of hospital in-patients, 87% of GP users, 87% of hospital outpatients, and 70% of Accident and Emergency department users

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_United_Kingdom

Manhattan Buckeye;1589390 wrote:"As Bill Gates said, private medical R&D prioritizes male pattern baldnes (I would add limp dick) over important public health needs like Malaria. The National Institutes Health Research and Funding has been instrumental in most of the most important drugs in the last half a century."

What the hell was this? If you want to be 100% wrong, you just did it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294205/Billionaire-Bill-Gates-blasts-capitalism-saying-reason-research-male-baldness-gets-funding-malaria.html

Billionaire Bill Gates criticized capitalism saying that it causes fundraising efforts to go to trivial issues that bother rich people a opposed to global health epidemics that are devastating the poor.The Microsoft founder was speaking at a conference about his latest philanthropic push to end malaria, saying that it gets slighted in terms of funding because the ones with the checkbooks are typically men in wealthy countries.
'The malaria vaccine in humanist terms is the biggest need. But it gets virtually no funding. But if you are working on male baldness or other things you get an order of magnitude more research funding because of the voice in the marketplace than something like malaria,' he said.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/14/bill-gates-capitalism

Capitalism means that there is much more research into male baldness than there is into diseases such as malaria, which mostly affect poor people, said Bill Gates, speaking at the Royal Academy of Engineering's Global Grand Challenges Summit

"Our priorities are tilted by marketplace imperatives," he said."The malaria vaccine in humanist terms is the biggest need. But it gets virtually no funding. But if you are working on male baldness or other things you get an order of magnitude more research funding because of the voice in the marketplace than something like malaria."

As a result, governments and philanthropic organisations have to step in to offset this "flaw in the pure capitalistic approach".The Gates Foundation focuses on finding under invested areas of basic science and focusing an innovation agenda on the needs of the poor, specifically looking at education and health.

Manhattan Buckeye;1589390 wrote:"As Bill Gates said, private medical R&D prioritizes male pattern baldnes (I would add limp dick) over important public health needs like Malaria. The National Institutes Health Research and Funding has been instrumental in most of the most important drugs in the last half a century."

What the hell was this? If you want to be 100% wrong, you just did it.

In 2000, a report from a Joint Economic Committee of Congress outlined the benefits of NIH research. It noted that some econometric studies had given its research, which was funded at $16 billion a year in 2000, a rate of return of 25 to 40 percent per year. It also found that of the 21 drugs with the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and 1992, public funding was "instrumental" for 15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_institutes_of_health

You really need to stop quoting wikipedia.

http://practicalpoliticking.com/2014/03/12/higher-premiums-just-cut-other-costs-says-obama/

I thought Obamacare was supposed to lower premiums. Speaking at a town hall with Latinos, Obama told them they need to spend less on TV, phones, and other things, so they could afford Obamacare.

Manhattan Buckeye;1589418 wrote:You really need to stop quoting wikipedia.

Interesting. No complaints when Quaker links to Drudge or Breitbart. This is not a peer reviewed journal. You have been reduced to attacking me personally and the sources that I provide. The wikipedia portion that I cite links directly to the 2004 study that is cited in the article.

Are you claiming that the information is incorrect? Do you have a counterargument that does not include some random, uninteresting anecdote about your wife? Are you capable of a rational discussion without insults?

You presented an argument that critical medical research funding could not be supported without the private R&D. This assertion is belied by the facts. Indeed the discoveries that have most improved the human condition have been heavily subsidized and supported by the National Institutes of Health, a socialist organization owned and operated by the Federal Government. There is little doubt that the Federal Government could use its Power of the Purse to move real resources for even more medical research if Congress so desired.

TedSheckler;1589450 wrote:http://practicalpoliticking.com/2014/03/12/higher-premiums-just-cut-other-costs-says-obama/

I thought Obamacare was supposed to lower premiums. Speaking at a town hall with Latinos, Obama told them they need to spend less on TV, phones, and other things, so they could afford Obamacare.

So our moderately conservative president made the same argument that conservatives have been making since the dawn of time....spend less money on discretionary items and spend money on non-discretionary services like health insurance instead. Shocker!

What did conservatives force us to buy?

BoatShoes;1589379 wrote:The breakthroughs with the most utility to improve the human condition have been massively subsidized by the National Institutes of Health in any event. And, either way, using the public purse to subsidize pharma and R&D is fine anyway and uses the power of the purse to promote the very best kind of economic activity.

Why do you continue to insist a bunch of lawyers make better business decisions than private capital? This is at the core of some of your dumbest beliefs.

Good decisions come from knowledge and experience - and you want people with neither making the decisions.

Your unwavering faith in govt, much less the US govt, to do something right is simply sad.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/12/obamacare-band-aid-millions-potentially-exempted-from-individual-mandate/


More backtracking due to an untenable piece of legislation written by a bunch of liberal DC lawyers and forced up The People by liberal radicals who have never built a widget, met a payroll, provided health care, or paid for their employee's medical insurance.

The beat goes on .......

BoatShoes;1589373 wrote:No doubt the Democrats are going down in 2014. It will be a minor version of 2010. Then we get two awful years of delusional Republicans obstructing absolutely everything and calling the President a communist and a weak leader trying to repeal Obummercare as it slowly and steadily becomes more popular just like Medicare and then a repeat of Johnson v. Goldwater when Hillary uses a strap on without lube in 2016 on Cruz/Paul.

By 2020, the demographics of the country are irreversibly younger, more diverse and more progressive and Hillary coasts to reelection and the damage of the 2010 redistricting fiasco will be undone.

It sucks that it will take that much time but the arch of the moral universe is indeed long.

The only thing that stops this from happening is Hillary's health and of course if she doesn't pull an LBJ and fuck everything up and set the stage for another conservative takeover. Rising healthcare costs and social security spending ought to make sure that the deficit does not get too low and cause a recession as in 2000 and 2007. Hillary is a good competent person and LBJ was a corrupt psychopath so I think she'll pull it off. By that time, hopefully, we'll have Eisenhower and Nixon's Republican Party back and we can end this destructive political conflict.

I find your obsession with Hillary quite troubling. Whats with your fascination with Hillary wearing a strap on and pegging males? This is not the first time you have mentioned it. Maybe there is some sort of underlying fantasy you may hold? But hey whatever floats your boat.

I'm sure those images of Hillary pressing that idiotic reset button will look great in campaign commercials when Russian troops are occupying and their government annexing Russian speaking areas of Eastern Europe and Central Asia and moving into the Middle East.

Perhaps Hillary can once again reminisce on how she was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Bravely ducking under a hail of bullets to personally meet with those standing against the forces of evil threatening the peace in Europe.

"You have been reduced to attacking me personally and the sources that I provide."

I'm not attacking you personally (and if you think I am, grow some thicker skin), I'm attacking your arguments which are baseless and your "sources" which are non-sensical.

You remind me of one of our friends in Singapore from France who knew EVERYTHING about American politics, could tell us what was wrong and how he'd solve everything - turned out he had never even been to the USA (which is very strange for a Euro).

Here is a helpful note - people don't like being told that what they experienced is different than what it was, from someone that didn't experience it. You haven't been to Singapore or the UK, so I get a bit hostile when you tell me things that are counter to the experiences we had when you have no clue.

BoatShoes;1589373 wrote:No doubt the Democrats are going down in 2014. It will be a minor version of 2010. Then we get two awful years of delusional Republicans obstructing absolutely everything and calling the President a communist and a weak leader trying to repeal Obummercare as it slowly and steadily becomes more popular just like Medicare and then a repeat of Johnson v. Goldwater when Hillary uses a strap on without lube in 2016 on Cruz/Paul.

With the GOP controlling both houses, at that point it becomes Obie "obstructing everything."

Hillary will never be POTUS. Feel free to take that to the bank, and fill out a deposit slip.

BoatShoes;1589373 wrote:By 2020, the demographics of the country are irreversibly younger, more diverse and more progressive and Hillary coasts to reelection and the damage of the 2010 redistricting fiasco will be undone.

And has been shown, the yutes don't vote very well in off-year and down ballot elections, so unless you people can find another way to stop getting your asses kicked at the state level, the district configuration isn't going anywhere.

BoatShoes;1589373 wrote:The only thing that stops this from happening is Hillary's health and of course if she doesn't pull an LBJ and fuck everything up and set the stage for another conservative takeover. Rising healthcare costs and social security spending ought to make sure that the deficit does not get too low and cause a recession as in 2000 and 2007. Hillary is a good competent person and LBJ was a corrupt psychopath so I think she'll pull it off. By that time, hopefully, we'll have Eisenhower and Nixon's Republican Party back and we can end this destructive political conflict.

See above. There's at least a 50/50 chance that she doesn't even run.

majorspark;1589632 wrote:I find your obsession with Hillary quite troubling. Whats with your fascination with Hillary wearing a strap on and pegging males? This is not the first time you have mentioned it. Maybe there is some sort of underlying fantasy you may hold? But hey whatever floats your boat.

I'm sure those images of Hillary pressing that idiotic reset button will look great in campaign commercials when Russian troops are occupying and their government annexing Russian speaking areas of Eastern Europe and Central Asia and moving into the Middle East.

Perhaps Hillary can once again reminisce on how she was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Bravely ducking under a hail of bullets to personally meet with those standing against the forces of evil threatening the peace in Europe.

The Hillary and Dems "Going in dry" statements are in reference to the internet meme:



It is a euphemism for a dominating victory.

You can go on about the "idiotic reset button" all you like and I'm sure conservatives will talk about all of the other things you reference. But, if she is healthy enough to run she is going to win and it will akin to LBJ v. Goldwater whether it's Establishment Chris Christie pick or Tea Party Ted Cruz pick.