Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2013, 05:04 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 05:09 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm on my mobile so I can't quote that well but I completely disagree with you. What is your familarity with economics?

I'm a follower of Austrian economics, Hayek, von Mises, etc.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Viagra is not a life savings medication. That demand is not inelastic. I was talking about life saving medication.

Demand for a particular life saving medication is only inelastic if it has a monopoly and there is no viable alternative. Thus I strongly favor the system which provides the least chance for monopolies, which are horribly destructive. We both agreed on abolishing the patent system, which would make this a moot point.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  To be fair - let's compare apples to apples. Also - I'm not too sure why force is applied in this scenario? You aren't forced to buy Viagra...or even life saving medication. Applying force dynamics to this economic proposition is completely nonsensical.

Well we ARE forced to pay taxes. So if the government gets involved and supersedes free market dynamics by picking winners and losers, then I do believe it's fair to say force is involved.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Also - comparing apples to apples - I did not include any success rate parameters in the assumption. Assuming the 90% vs 80% is a no brainer. But what about 90 vs 10? That changes what you will do.

Agreed, we all have our own thresholds. Some would spend their kids' inheritance if the odds were 90:89, others may not even with 90:10.

To me, the big question with the 90:10 ratio is "What happened to give that one drug company a monopoly and free reign to rape people, and how can that be prevented?" To me that's a much saner reaction than voters sending their Congressmen to Washington with the mandate to embed themselves in the drug companies and fight for consumer rights. When that happens, one month later the Congressmen are back in Washington, out of sight, out of mind, behind closed doors with the company they've been tasked to regulate. And by this time, the voters have forgotten about the issue anyway. Considering that, to get re-elected, the Congressmen need super-pac's and donations from the company which they are regulating, what do you think is going to happen once they're behind closed doors?

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Public Transportation? You do realize that unless you live in a major metropolitan area, there is no real public transportation to speak of? I said the demand for gas was mostly inelastic - not completely. While you will drive less, you will still drive.

But don't forget that before the government took over in the 1920's, nearly every town in the US with a population over 2,500 had a zero-emission all-electric metro (light rail) system, connected to high speed (100 mph) air-conditioned long-haul trains that covered 250,000 miles of track. And 90% of all trips were on public transport.

Then the US did what all other governments were doing: stepped in to "protect" the people from those evil for-profit transport companies, and passed laws ordering them to liquidate and nationalized passenger rail (Amtrak) as well as taking over almost all the roads and bridges, so that the entire system was completely dismantled and discarded, and 80 years later we have only 10% of the track we used to, only a handful of big cities even have metros anymore, trains are running half the speed they were, and hardly anybody uses public transport anymore. And they took people's money by force (through taxes) and used it to subsidize the internal-combustion automobile industry, because they thought they were "saving us" from electric mass transit and "freeing" us with our own private gas-burning automobiles.

This transition could never have happened without government force. Imagine if you lived in the 1920's and needed to visit another state, and your choice was an affordable, safe, air conditioned train that could make the journey in 2 hours vs. one of those open-air deathtrap automobiles that had no safety features, no climate control, and took 3x as long to get there--if you arrived in one piece. If we left it an un-regulated free-market system, the gas automobile wouldn't have stood a chance imo.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are paying for healthcare no matter which way you look at it. Pay for Medicare? Medicaid? Tax dollars. So what's the difference if you pay more up front temporarily to save more on the back end. The rising healthcare costs are the tax payers and private insurance ultimate problem. The more people that fail to pay their maintenance costs, the more the hospital charges to cover the difference. The more premium you pay goes up. You pay either way, my friend.

I totally disagree. I will post again an Excel spreadsheet showing the system I favor. Take 2 people, and both agree to set aside the cost of a 'gold plan' each month. One follows my system, the other gives it to the insurance company. With my system, even if you are so unfortunate as to have major medical expenses throughout your life, you will still end up with $3.5 million in savings in your old age, that you can spend on any treatment, or an ultra-luxurious nursing home, or leave it to your kids. And with my system, your monthly cost is locked in for life and never goes up (except for inflation). With the insurance company system, you will spend the same at first, but your monthly cost will quickly go up and up, you will be totally dependent on the insurance company for life, and when you do get sick the insurance company will reward their claims adjusters if they figure out how to kill you off quick before your care costs too much, and when you're old and medical costs are unavoidable, you'll get cancelled and be left to try to find doctors that will accept Medicare.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The average doctor out of medical school, if paying for it himself or herself, owes more than $214,000 out of med school if private, 120,000 if a state school. They can't charge you 150/h, pay for everyday living expenses, business costs and pay student loans. The math doesn't work.

My primary care physician is in Mexico City, in a huge, posh medical tourism facility. He went to one of the big ivy league medical schools in the US (Harvard as I recall), did his residency at John's Hopkins, and he charges US$90/hour. And NOT the same way US doctors do where you pay $300 and you wait in the lobby for an hour, spend most of your time with the nurse and see the doctor for 5 minutes if you're lucky. Nope, when I go for my checkup, if my appointment is at 3:00, that means at 3:00 I am walking into the doctor's office, we shake hands, and he is personally with me for the full hour, does a lot more tests than US doctors, he asks a million questions, and answers any questions you have, and at 3:59 we shake hands and I go to the receptionist and hand her US$90 in cash.

So my real-world experience proves that it IS possible, and we should be focused on WHY it doesn't happen in the US.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Also - canning the FDA isn't wise. How do you know what's in that white oblong pill? You need to have regulations in place to ensue you aren't taking nothing more than sugar pills and arsenic.

It's the other way around. If there were no FDA, and American consumers were educated to only buy drugs from respectable, well-rated drug companies that listed in the package contents what studies were performed, what the outcomes were, then if they knowingly withheld any evidence, the executives would all go to jail for fraud. The FDA, imo, is the drug company's best friend, because the FDA provides a great deal of immunity, since, FDA approved is a government seal of approval. Also, you forget the people run the FDA have a revolving door policy with the drug companies.

For example, Searle had an experimental ulcer drug that they observed was extraordinarily sweet (aspartame) and decided to offer it as a sweetener. After much debate, the FDA convened a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) which on September 30, 1980 advised against its approval citing research that rats developed tumors. Fortunately for Searle, their CEO was one Donald Rumsfeld (yes the same one), former Chief of Staff, with deep political connections, which he used to get Arthur Hull Hayes put in as the head of the FDA in 1982. Hayes immediately over-ruled the advisory board despite numerous objections and a firestorm of criticism. And after heading the FDA for only 1 year, Hayes resigned due to a conflict of interest scandal (big surprise) and went to work for Burson-Marsteller, Searle's PR agency, where it's rumored he collected a multi-million signing bonus. Within 3 years of its approval, the rate of brain tumors in the US rose 10%, and the rate of malignancy shot up dramatically. They also got the FDA to ban stevia, a naturally growing very sweet herb that been used as sweetener for hundreds of years, and was the primary sweetener in Japan, despite the FDA never receiving a single complaint about stevia, and receiving 750,000 complaints a year about aspartame--more than every other substance combined. Yet, still today, anybody who talks about this is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist because the FDA insists Aspartame is "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety is "clear cut", and, being the definitive official authority on the matter, there's little serious research on the controversy seems to have been dismissed.

I know there ARE times when the FDA protects us from safe drugs and saves lives. And FDA defenders are quick to point them out. But what's much harder is to measure is how many lives are lost by the FDA's delaying of new drugs that are safe, as well as lulling the public into taking bad drugs because they're sure the FDA wouldn't let them take anything that wasn't safe.


Attached File(s)
.zip  Health Savings2 (2).zip (Size: 201.24 KB / Downloads: 6)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 06:26 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 06:31 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
@Cathym112, as a P.S. regarding the difference in Mexico. The only medicine I take is HGH, 1IU/day, which is completely bio-identical, exactly the molecule your body produces naturally anyway, and the dosage simply keeps your hormonal system at the same, natural level it was in your 20's. I've taken it for years and never seen any side effects, and it keeps my energy and fitness level the same as they were 20 years ago, and I never get sick. Everybody I know who takes it raves that they look and feel great. There have been a lot of double-blinded placebo-controlled studies proving these results, and I've yet to read one study that reported any negative side effects that wasn't caused by administering a dose several times larger than what the body could ever naturally produce. See: link link

In Mexico it costs $2/IU, or $60/month. In the US, the best price i found is $55/IU, or $1,650/month FOR THE EXACT SAME THING IN THE SAME BOX AND FROM THE SAME FACTORY. You save 97% in Mexico, and I'm not talking about some backroom pharmacy. You get it at the Doctor's office, or pick it up in their top-rated hospital, and the drug company will confirm that this facility is an official distributor for Mexico. Naturally, no insurance will cover it since anti-aging stuff is elective and not considered 'essential'. And while it may be a staple item for movie stars, considering the price tag in the US, it's un-affordable for the working man. The advantage of taking health care into your own hands is YOU get to make those decisions--not some insurance adjuster far away.

Even _IF_ Obama got an entirely taxpayer-funded single-payer system like they have in Canada, which cost me nothing extra to use, I would STILL never use it and go to Mexico every time because in a free-market system where everybody is fighting for your business, competing to offer you the best possible service at the best possible price, the quality of service is substantially better, and the price you pay is reasonable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 09:06 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 05:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm on my mobile so I can't quote that well but I completely disagree with you. What is your familarity with economics?

I'm a follower of Austrian economics, Hayek, von Mises, etc.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Viagra is not a life savings medication. That demand is not inelastic. I was talking about life saving medication.

Demand for a particular life saving medication is only inelastic if it has a monopoly and there is no viable alternative. Thus I strongly favor the system which provides the least chance for monopolies, which are horribly destructive. We both agreed on abolishing the patent system, which would make this a moot point.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  To be fair - let's compare apples to apples. Also - I'm not too sure why force is applied in this scenario? You aren't forced to buy Viagra...or even life saving medication. Applying force dynamics to this economic proposition is completely nonsensical.

Well we ARE forced to pay taxes. So if the government gets involved and supersedes free market dynamics by picking winners and losers, then I do believe it's fair to say force is involved.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Also - comparing apples to apples - I did not include any success rate parameters in the assumption. Assuming the 90% vs 80% is a no brainer. But what about 90 vs 10? That changes what you will do.

Agreed, we all have our own thresholds. Some would spend their kids' inheritance if the odds were 90:89, others may not even with 90:10.

To me, the big question with the 90:10 ratio is "What happened to give that one drug company a monopoly and free reign to rape people, and how can that be prevented?" To me that's a much saner reaction than voters sending their Congressmen to Washington with the mandate to embed themselves in the drug companies and fight for consumer rights. When that happens, one month later the Congressmen are back in Washington, out of sight, out of mind, behind closed doors with the company they've been tasked to regulate. And by this time, the voters have forgotten about the issue anyway. Considering that, to get re-elected, the Congressmen need super-pac's and donations from the company which they are regulating, what do you think is going to happen once they're behind closed doors?

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Public Transportation? You do realize that unless you live in a major metropolitan area, there is no real public transportation to speak of? I said the demand for gas was mostly inelastic - not completely. While you will drive less, you will still drive.

But don't forget that before the government took over in the 1920's, nearly every town in the US with a population over 2,500 had a zero-emission all-electric metro (light rail) system, connected to high speed (100 mph) air-conditioned long-haul trains that covered 250,000 miles of track. And 90% of all trips were on public transport.

Then the US did what all other governments were doing: stepped in to "protect" the people from those evil for-profit transport companies, and passed laws ordering them to liquidate and nationalized passenger rail (Amtrak) as well as taking over almost all the roads and bridges, so that the entire system was completely dismantled and discarded, and 80 years later we have only 10% of the track we used to, only a handful of big cities even have metros anymore, trains are running half the speed they were, and hardly anybody uses public transport anymore. And they took people's money by force (through taxes) and used it to subsidize the internal-combustion automobile industry, because they thought they were "saving us" from electric mass transit and "freeing" us with our own private gas-burning automobiles.

This transition could never have happened without government force. Imagine if you lived in the 1920's and needed to visit another state, and your choice was an affordable, safe, air conditioned train that could make the journey in 2 hours vs. one of those open-air deathtrap automobiles that had no safety features, no climate control, and took 3x as long to get there--if you arrived in one piece. If we left it an un-regulated free-market system, the gas automobile wouldn't have stood a chance imo.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are paying for healthcare no matter which way you look at it. Pay for Medicare? Medicaid? Tax dollars. So what's the difference if you pay more up front temporarily to save more on the back end. The rising healthcare costs are the tax payers and private insurance ultimate problem. The more people that fail to pay their maintenance costs, the more the hospital charges to cover the difference. The more premium you pay goes up. You pay either way, my friend.

I totally disagree. I will post again an Excel spreadsheet showing the system I favor. Take 2 people, and both agree to set aside the cost of a 'gold plan' each month. One follows my system, the other gives it to the insurance company. With my system, even if you are so unfortunate as to have major medical expenses throughout your life, you will still end up with $3.5 million in savings in your old age, that you can spend on any treatment, or an ultra-luxurious nursing home, or leave it to your kids. And with my system, your monthly cost is locked in for life and never goes up (except for inflation). With the insurance company system, you will spend the same at first, but your monthly cost will quickly go up and up, you will be totally dependent on the insurance company for life, and when you do get sick the insurance company will reward their claims adjusters if they figure out how to kill you off quick before your care costs too much, and when you're old and medical costs are unavoidable, you'll get cancelled and be left to try to find doctors that will accept Medicare.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The average doctor out of medical school, if paying for it himself or herself, owes more than $214,000 out of med school if private, 120,000 if a state school. They can't charge you 150/h, pay for everyday living expenses, business costs and pay student loans. The math doesn't work.

My primary care physician is in Mexico City, in a huge, posh medical tourism facility. He went to one of the big ivy league medical schools in the US (Harvard as I recall), did his residency at John's Hopkins, and he charges US$90/hour. And NOT the same way US doctors do where you pay $300 and you wait in the lobby for an hour, spend most of your time with the nurse and see the doctor for 5 minutes if you're lucky. Nope, when I go for my checkup, if my appointment is at 3:00, that means at 3:00 I am walking into the doctor's office, we shake hands, and he is personally with me for the full hour, does a lot more tests than US doctors, he asks a million questions, and answers any questions you have, and at 3:59 we shake hands and I go to the receptionist and hand her US$90 in cash.

So my real-world experience proves that it IS possible, and we should be focused on WHY it doesn't happen in the US.

(08-11-2013 03:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Also - canning the FDA isn't wise. How do you know what's in that white oblong pill? You need to have regulations in place to ensue you aren't taking nothing more than sugar pills and arsenic.

It's the other way around. If there were no FDA, and American consumers were educated to only buy drugs from respectable, well-rated drug companies that listed in the package contents what studies were performed, what the outcomes were, then if they knowingly withheld any evidence, the executives would all go to jail for fraud. The FDA, imo, is the drug company's best friend, because the FDA provides a great deal of immunity, since, FDA approved is a government seal of approval. Also, you forget the people run the FDA have a revolving door policy with the drug companies.

For example, Searle had an experimental ulcer drug that they observed was extraordinarily sweet (aspartame) and decided to offer it as a sweetener. After much debate, the FDA convened a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) which on September 30, 1980 advised against its approval citing research that rats developed tumors. Fortunately for Searle, their CEO was one Donald Rumsfeld (yes the same one), former Chief of Staff, with deep political connections, which he used to get Arthur Hull Hayes put in as the head of the FDA in 1982. Hayes immediately over-ruled the advisory board despite numerous objections and a firestorm of criticism. And after heading the FDA for only 1 year, Hayes resigned due to a conflict of interest scandal (big surprise) and went to work for Burson-Marsteller, Searle's PR agency, where it's rumored he collected a multi-million signing bonus. Within 3 years of its approval, the rate of brain tumors in the US rose 10%, and the rate of malignancy shot up dramatically. They also got the FDA to ban stevia, a naturally growing very sweet herb that been used as sweetener for hundreds of years, and was the primary sweetener in Japan, despite the FDA never receiving a single complaint about stevia, and receiving 750,000 complaints a year about aspartame--more than every other substance combined. Yet, still today, anybody who talks about this is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist because the FDA insists Aspartame is "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety is "clear cut", and, being the definitive official authority on the matter, there's little serious research on the controversy seems to have been dismissed.

I know there ARE times when the FDA protects us from safe drugs and saves lives. And FDA defenders are quick to point them out. But what's much harder is to measure is how many lives are lost by the FDA's delaying of new drugs that are safe, as well as lulling the public into taking bad drugs because they're sure the FDA wouldn't let them take anything that wasn't safe.

I never agreed that patents be eliminated. Please don't minimize real rape by comparing it to the rights of pharm companies - who put up the funds of research and the risk - to realize a profit from it.

Also - are you mixing prescription medication? Your responses truly are alllll over the place. Concentrate please.

Please also rope Thomas in if you need help understanding economics but your assumptions are poorly devised and even more poorly articulated.

You assume that there is a viable alternative and that the alternative will be comparable. Take gas prices. While there is always an alternative to driving, that alternative might be walking more than 10 miles....which isn't a comparable alternative.

What comes out of Mexico isn't necessary the same product - not sure what comparison this has though to DOMESTIC product though? You are pulling in ad hoc economic trade policies but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Like I said - you are all over the place.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
08-11-2013, 09:17 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 03:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 02:46 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  You're very good at derailing other peoples arguments. But you such at defending your own! Should murder be a local matter?

Please, read your US Constitution. Murder _IS_ a local matter, and always has been. There is no Federal law against murder, rape, etc. And, YES, it SHOULD be a local matter. Why? Because, although everybody in all 50 states agrees murder must be illegal, they all differ as to WHAT murder even is.

In Texas, afaik, if somebody comes on your property and you pull out a machine gun and blow them to bits, that's not murder; it's defending your home.

In New York City, afaik, it IS murder, and guns are illegal.

Personally, I'm a peace-loving pacifist New Yorker so I REALLY do not want murder to be a national law because I know we'll be outnumbered by the 'stand your grounders', and I shutter to imagine what Texas-style justice would like in the big apple. Like pretty much every law, local is better imo.

Pistols are illegal to carry in NYC - not illegal to own. You are allowed to gave a gun for home protection with a permit, although those permits are difficult to obtain. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/nyregi....html?_r=0


Where the hell do you get your information?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 09:32 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
While the DEFINITION of murder may vary, to some extent, from state to state, I'm quite sure that it is illegal in all. If, however, I am mistaken: I am sure that many of us would like to meet you in a state where that is not the case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ameron1963's post
08-11-2013, 09:50 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 09:17 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 03:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In New York City, afaik, it IS murder, and guns are illegal.

Pistols are illegal to carry in NYC - not illegal to own. You are allowed to gave a gun for home protection with a permit, although those permits are difficult to obtain...
Where the hell do you get your information?

afaik = "As far as I know". It's a way of saying "What I'm about to say is something I haven't researched and don't care to research because I've never touched a gun and never will."

As far as the rest discussing my medical system, I don't know why you say it's all "over the place". The fact is my system works great for me, it's allowed me to be financially independent, not beholden to an insurance company, and puts me in the drivers seat so I decide for myself what medical care I need. And while most Americans complain about rising, outrageous health costs, my monthly health budget is locked in for life and is the same as it was 20 years ago, and I get world-class care at affordable prices. Does my system work for everybody? Is it even an option for everybody? I'm not saying it is, nor am I looking down on people who do choose to be dependent on health insurance companies. I just share it in case anybody else finds it appealing. If not, that's fine. I'll never force you to change, I only ask for the same in return.

(08-11-2013 09:17 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Please don't minimize real rape by comparing it to the rights of pharm companies - who put up the funds of research and the risk - to realize a profit from it.

But one of the biggest costs of getting a drug to market _IS_ navigating the FDA.
See Manhattan Institute research: "the nation’s system for drug approval discourages innovation and investment".

Today, Pharma companies are able to patent genes and other things that already exist in nature. WHY do they need to get patent protection in order to bring to market something that occurs in nature anyway and requires zero r&d to develop? Because: Forbes: "The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion [for FDA approval]"

So the patent system is only needed for drug r&d BECAUSE of the FDA. Eliminate BOTH the FDA _AND_ the patent system, and that $4 billion price tag drops to zero.

Besides, we were talking about Viagra. Pfizer got a 20 year patent on it during which time they made obscene profits and fully recouped their r&d. After the patent expired, the rest of the world starting offering generics for a fraction of the price. But in the US, they lobbied and got a special ruling to extend their patent ANOTHER 18 years, and then they pressure Congress to prevent Americans from bringing in drugs from over the border.

Yes, there are good, decent people in big pharma. But there are a lot of greedy crooks as well who use the government to [do unpleasant things] to the people

(08-11-2013 09:17 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You assume that there is a viable alternative and that the alternative will be comparable. Take gas prices. While there is always an alternative to driving, that alternative might be walking more than 10 miles....which isn't a comparable alternative.

I want you to come up with one historic example of when, in a free market system, there was true need for a given product, the technology existed to produce it for a viable cost, and there wasn't some bright entrepreneur who found a way to bring it to market. See my earlier post of a lecture from Milton Friedman on coal vs. oil. People always think that without a given product we'll suffer greatly with no viable alternative. But where there's a will there's a way, necessity is the mother of invention, and where there's a need for an alternative, one nearly always is found. If we added a 400% tax on gas like Europe, people would be buying more Tesla's, and the car companies would ramp up production, and production of Li-Ion batteries would skyrocket, driving down the cost. Plus, we already have alternatives to gas anyway. For example, algae can be grown economically in the desert, and used to make a drop-in replacement for gasoline. It holds great promise, but the problem, besides the oil companies buying up all the patents, is that the infrastructure to process it and deliver it doesn't exist. If gas was no longer as cheap as it is, that infrastructure would get built.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 10:08 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 09:06 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Please don't minimize real rape by comparing it to the rights of pharm companies

See the dictionary definition of rape. I obviously was using it to refer to the official definition "an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse", which is a legitimate meaning of the word and does nothing to minimize the unrelated use of the term to refer to forced sex. When discussing greedy insurance companies rewarding their employees to kill off sick people so they don't have to pay claims, rape is, imo, the most accurate description.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 10:11 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 10:18 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Ugh. We weren't talking about Viagra. I specifically said that Viagra is not an inelastic demand. It's a bad example of what we are talking about. Life. Saving. Medication.

I also agreed that the FDA should be significantly slimmed down - but I never agreed it needed to be eliminated. You think the US patent office was established to only patent medical advancements? Pfff. Where did you learn US history?!? Patents protect the interests of the inventor to make a damn living - something everyone is entitled to do in a "free market"

And drug companies also patent formulas, not only what you were talking about. Significant R&D goes into 80% of the drugs you take. You seem to have this strange conspiracy theory about everything!

Would you going to Guatemala for your chemo treatments? I sure wouldn't!

You are jumping all of the place with your arguments! Like conflating the 90% vs 10% success ratios of doctors with a monopoly of a particular drug. What does two completely different concepts have to do with each other? Concentrate please!

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 10:21 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 09:32 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  While the DEFINITION of murder may vary, to some extent, from state to state, I'm quite sure that it is illegal in all. If, however, I am mistaken: I am sure that many of us would like to meet you in a state where that is not the case.

Fucking poetry in motion, AmIone, laughing my ass off. Big Grin

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 10:28 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Because you have a hard time grasping that it's not that simple...

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/qSjGouBmo0M

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: