Re: OT Health care


"BillB" <bogus@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gqvfrc$pts$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CoFAl.960$6n.302@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Shithead,
She said she'd need to pay for it in the United States.

No, she didn't.'


Yes, she did, you fucking imbecile.

Tell you what, reread this : Fact: We would never have financially recovered
from this one catastrophic
illness if our son had been born in the United States.
You want to explain, dear *** for brains, the meaning of this statement if
you DENY she'd be paying for it in the United States?



r Regardless, you were previously asserting with an abundance
of ignorance that poor people in Canada paid for their medical care
through sales taxes. Are you now abandoning that absurd position?
Hell no. I'm stating thatv SHE paid for her health care through taxes.
You, being the lying shithead that you are, tried to hypothesize some
situation where she paid no taxes, that would be inconsistent with her
claims.

You lose AGAIN, retard.





Care is freely available here.
It isn't rationed. The choice is a willingness to pay for it.

LOL it is not "freely" available. It is rationed by ability to pay. Many
people have a "willingness" to pay, but lack the money to do so. That is
rationing my friend:

Nope.
They MUST treat you.
They can go after you for payment, and take your house.
They cannot let you die because you don't have cash on you.

Uhhh.....you are talking about emergency care. Perhaps you were not aware
of this, but there is much more to medical care than emergency treatment
to keep you alive. Do you really believe a middle aged poor person can
walk into a medical facility in the US and demand a colonoscopy

No, he can go into the emergency room and get one.

? If so, you are
an idiot. The answer is no, even though the procedure can easily save his
life.

Or kill him.
Again, you're spouting off about *** you know nothing about. Colonoscopies
are over-requested as it is in this country.



And regardless, why are you falling back on Medicaid to prop up your
advocacy of free market medicine? Medicaid *is* socialized medicine.

No, Medicaid is a safety net.
I'm in favor of safety nets.

I
thought you were against that? The fact of the matter is that Medicaid
only exists because free market medicine does not work
No, you fucking retard.
Medicaid exists because some people are destitute or disabled.
For the same reason Welfare and Foodstamps exist.
Or are you retard enough to claim food distribution is a failure because
foodstamps exist?

Are you now saying you
are in favor of everyone being able to receive medical care (emergency,
routine, and preventative) regardless of their ability to pay?

No, fuckhead.
I'm stating the fact that they can all receive NEEDED care.

If so,
congratulations, you are a proponent of one form or another of socialized
medicine.

You were born an idiot. You'll die an idiot. And you'll remain an idiot
between the two periods.



And why in the world would you think it's a good system for a sick person
to have to lose everything they own before they qualify for assistance?

Because it allows the system itself to improve the fastest.;
A lack of money is easily corrected.
A lack of a cure isn't.


That is
not a reasonable burden to put on the middle class and poor.

And letting them die because we don't know how to save them is better?
Brilliant!


Why not spread
the insurance risk over the entire population so critically ill people
*don't* lose their homes?

Because then there's no incentive to discover new cures and better
techniques.
When we can extend the lifespan indefinitely, THEN talk to me about free
care for all.


Don't you think that's a better solution? Not
putting critically ill people out of their homes? That is the very purpose
of insurance: to spread large risks over a large enough population base so
you can painlessly eliminate the risk of financial catastrophe for
everyone.

Structuring the cost to eliminate the profit motive stagnates the system.
If they did it 100 years ago, how many millions would have died decades
younger?

Why was the CAT scan developed? What motivated the PET scan's inventor?

I'd like to thank them both.

I don't know why I am even bothering with you. You are such a phony. If
you had worked for 25 years to pay for your home and were at risk of
losing everything because you had the bad luck to contract a critical
illness you'd be singing a completely different tune

Shithead.

I've worked 25 years.
I own a house I haven't finished paying for yet.
My dearest love was JUST diagnosed with stage one lung cancer. A CAT scan
allowed the doctors to SUSPECT she might have it, and a PET scan just
confirmed it to more than a 95% likelihood.
Ten years ago (one simple decade) the Cat scan would have missed the spot on
her lungs because the technology was literally too slow when it scanned, and
breathing confused it.
Advancing medicine saves far more lives than giving it away free to everyone
would.



.. You know it. I know it. Everybody
reading this knows it.

Bill, what everyone knows is that you're a complete idiot.

If all it took were money, I'd sell the house and everything I own to save
her, or me, at any time.

And you'd be right. Because it's *not right* to do
that to a critically ill person, and, further, it's totally unnecessary.
The only reason anyone would even contemplate such lunacy is if he is a
slave to ideology over common sense.

No, idiot.
And the system doesn't require it, if you're intelligent. If you're
critically ill, you can place the assets in the spouses name, get divorced,
and qualify for medicaid.





"In economics, it is often common to use the word "rationing" to refer
to one of the roles that prices play in markets. Using prices to ration
means that those with the most money (or other assets) and who want a
product the most are first to receive it. Such rationing happens daily
in a market economy. Non-price rationing follows other principles of
distribution."
When they get medical care to save their life, then work the rest of it
to pay for it, they still got it.
In the US, medical services are rationed by price. In Canada, medical
services are rationed my medical necessity.

Wrong, shithead.
But you like to lie, so why stop?
Bill, clearly you're a retard. Price is only a form of rationing if
you're denied it if you have no money.
Care MUST be provided.
Payment is an issue AFTER the fact.
You fucking idiot.

No, EMERGENCY care must be provided. Do you *really* not understand the
distinction between medical care in general and emergency medical care?

Needed vs wanted.
If you get what you need regardless, it isn't rationed.

There is much more to medicine than emergency care. In the US medical care
it is RATIONED by price. That is a fact. The end result is that the price
of medical services are bid up to the point you are at now where tens of
millions of your fellow citizens (who you seem to care little or nothing
about) cannot afford insurance.
Retard, I have friends who opt to go without insurance by choice.
I know people who can't afford it. And they're ALL better off with the
advances in medicine being AVAILABLE to them.







It's "documented", is it? Rather than making empty (headed) assertions
that it's "documented", please *explain* how the government acting in
the *exact same capacity* as an insurance company for *medical services*
will limit R&D for *medical products.* You can't, because there is no
direct relation.

Shithead,
The government controls the market.
SETTING prices nationwide is far different than brokering prices with
institutions that can say NO if they wish. You drunk, overtired, or
REALLY fucked in the head tonight, Bill?
Government says "You must".
Insurance companies say "We'd like you to"


I note that you were completely non-responsive here, which I understand,
because you have no answer.
You note that you were too stupid to understand my very intelligent
response.
Let's try it simpler, so even a *** for brains like you can understand it :
Governments say "You must sell your service for this price or you can't
offer it at all."

Insurance companies say "If you sell it to us at this price, we'll send our
clients to you".
The former is a mandate. The latter is a negotiated deal. The provider can
say "No, we can't pay our bills at that price and still improve our product,
so we'll pass".

Do you get it yet?





Uhhhh....private insurance companies do all those things too.

You think my insurance company lets me go anywhere I want?
Of course not. But the PROVIDERS can charge whatever they feel they need
to.

This is a distinction without a difference for the vast majority of
Americans.

No, it isn't.

For most people, they must accept what their insurance company
will offer because it is financially impossible to foot the bill
themselves, especially after having spent most of their disposable income
on exorbitant insurance premiums
I pay $1500 a year.
Define "exhorbitant"





Now try to read and *understand* this next part. How much per capita is
spent in the US on medical R&D? Pick any number for the sake of
argument. Now, keeping that number in mind, whatever it may be, what is
it about the various provincial *medical services* plans that prevents
the government from investing the exact same amount in R&D in Canada?
I'll give you a hint: nothing. If the government (i.e. the Canadian
people through the political process) wanted to invest DOUBLE per capita
what the US does, there is absolutely nothing stopping them.

You fucking *** for brains.
R&D is done by PRIVATE enterprise for the possibility of PROFIT.

No, medical R&D is done with private and public funds. Private industry
accounts for only about 55% of medical R&D spending in the US. You have a
gross misunderstanding of your own system, let alone Canada's.

Yep, you're a fucking moron
Government funding is not for product development. It's sometimes for cures
of desease. Government research also yields poorer results per dollar,
because the researchers generally have NO incentive to find positive
results.




It's GAMBLING.
The risk is the investment, the reward is the potential PROFIT should
they come up with a breakthrough.
The vast overwhelming amount of R&D finds NOTHING. The successes need to
pay for the failures, as well as keep the company afloat.
Governments don't generally invest in risk. This is why there is so
little government funded R&D.

A tremendous amount of R&D is done through government funding. It's a huge
percentage of total spending. Do you just make stuff up as you go along?
Do you have any idea how much research is done in publicly funded
universities?
*** for brains, what the government does is not R&D.
They do a lot of pure research. They don't develop better treatments, and
new and improved scanners.


I am asking you, and you are plainly avoiding the question, what is to
stop Canada, if it wanted to as a society, from spending 3x the amount per
capita on R&D with public funds as the US spends with private funds?

The simple fact that simply spending the money isn't what provides answers,
and the fact that citizens DON'T fund research without being dragged kicking
and screaming to it.
They don't WANT the higher taxes involved.
The answer is,
of course, absolutely nothing.

Yep, you're a shithead.
The answer is, political and economic consequences.

There is nothing inherent in socialized
medicine to stop a government from spending whatever its constituency
wants on R&D.

No, shithead.
The problem is, the constituents want $0.00 spent on it.

They, en masse, are incredibly short-sighted.

Your assertion seems to be that socialized medicine is incompatible
with R&D, and that is demonstrably false

Fuckhead, it's demonstrably true.

.. Do you deny Canada is free to
spend as much public money as it wants on R&D? Just because Canada has
*chosen* to spend less, does not mean they are precluded from spending
more. This should not be that difficult for you to grasp.
You are clearly mentally defective.
They choose not to spend anything because the public doesn't want to spend
it.
They don't want to fund risks. They want to pay for sure things.

Which is why private enterprise does it, and is why the Canadian government
made a deal to increase medical R&D in canada, YOU MORON.

Look why your drug companies stopped doing research :
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board
In 1987 the Canadian government established the PMPRB as part of a package
of initiatives to encourage pharmaceutical research and development (R&D).

For 18 years prior to the PMPRB's establishment, the government encouraged
drug-price competition by allowing generics manufacturers to obtain a
license and pay a nominal royalty to the patent holder to sell versions of
patented drugs.

The package included a law that mandated a seven- or 10-year period of
market exclusivity during which generic drugs could not enter the market.
Canadian drug manufacturers agreed to double the ratio of R&D to sales in
Canada from 1987 to 1996.

Brogan said that before the legislation, the ratio had been between 3.5
percent and 4.5 percent.

The PMPRB was intended to prevent "excessive" increases in patent-drug
prices that might result from the manufacturers' new rights to market
exclusivity.

What Does the PMPRB Do?

The PMPRB uses four guidelines in determining whether a drug price is
excessive:


.. For most new patented drugs, the cost of therapy may not exceed the
highest cost of therapy with existing drugs used to treat the same disease
in Canada.

.. For breakthrough drugs and those that offer a substantial improvement,
manufacturers can charge the median of the prices charged for the same drug
in countries listed in the PMPRB's "Regulations."

.. Price increases after a product launch can not exceed the rate of increase
in Canada's Consumer Price Index.

.. The price can never exceed the highest price for the drug in the countries
listed in the "Regulations."


The PMPRB can order a company it deems out of compliance with the guidelines
to reduce the price and also relinquish double any "excess" revenues it may
have received from sales of the drug.






There is nothing inherent in the Canadian
*medical services* system that would prevent Canadians from investing
10x what the US does in R&D if we wanted to. It's a simple policy
decision.

No, shithead. It's simply a funding issue. You can't possibly afford it
without raising the taxes needed dramatically. As a result, you don't
fund it, and medicine fails to improve, except on the backs of the US
payers, who DO fund it.

Canada "can't possibly afford it"? Are you serious? You can't be. The US
spends about $100 billion on all forms of medical research annually. So on
a per capita basis that would be like Canada spending about $10 billion.
Let's assume Canada spends NOTHING right now (which is obviously not the
case). So to catch up to US per capita R&D spending it would have to add
$10 billion in spending from a $1.3 trillion economy. Do you now see how
ridiculous you are? Of course Canada can afford it. We could afford to
spend *triple* what you do if we wanted to. If we decided to spend TRIPLE
what the US spends starting tomorrow, would you then flip-flop and say
private medicine is bad for R&D? Somehow I doubt it.

***.
It isn't a "per capita" issue. It's a gross research issue. Per capita has
nothing to do with it.






And this of course leaves aside the fact that anyone in Canada can start
a medical R&D company (as thousands have), invent something, acquire
worldwide patents, and market that product in Canada and around the
world.

Christ alfucking mighty, you goddamned retard.
They are not legally barred from it, they are simply FINANCIALLY barred
from it because of pricing restrictions.

lol...Canadian companies are not "FINANCIALLY barred" from working on R&D.
Yes, idiot boy, they are.
They cannot recoup their investment from what they are allowed to sell their
products for, when they discover an innovation.
***, how many times did you fail math?


This may be the dumbest thing you have asserted yet (and that's really
saying something!). As I pointed out already, there are *already* lots of
Canadian companies thriving in the medical R&D sector, and even if they
had NO ACCESS WHATSOEVER to the Canadian market, the entire world market
(including the US) is wide open to them.
Excuse me, imbecile.
I thought you were smart enough to understand that we're talking about firms
producing for the benefit of Canadians.
Noone in their right mind would open a firm in canada and not sell there.
It's insanely cost prohibitive.



I can't go on. I would have more success teaching my cat calculus than I
would teaching you basic economics.
Bill, your cat probably knows more calculus and surely knows more economics
than you do.

People do research for profit. When you make profit impossible, they don't
do research.
Goddamned, you're simply a fucked up liberal moron.


.