IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Quote:

What about the money for research? Where is that going to come from? What about for new drugs?
And we still have the problem of physicians leaving the public health care realm. Hell, I know doctors that are thinking of doing it now because they are getting shafted by taking medicaid and medicare.

The vast majority of medical research is already paid for by the gov't. There is some in the Pharma end of the industry which is more privately funded, but that doesn't mean that there can't be non-profit drug companies; they already exist today, with the mission of saving people's lives, over making profits.

When the public health realm is given an influx of cash for doctors, they will stop leaving it. Not a difficult concept to figure out.

Cycloptichorn

Yup.

Scenario: you can keep the insurance, but your new company isn't required by law to pay any more towards the old insurance plan then they pay towards their current insurance plan that they offer - you merely get to stay with the provider that you prefer.

Say company A had an outlay of 15k a year for the insurance you describe.

Company B will only outlay 10k of that towards the same plan - which is what they pay on the plans they currently offer.

You are free to keep the insurance, but you pay the difference. It's your choice when changing jobs.

Companies will change to a different model; instead of advertising 'we have Kaiser! We offer such-and-such plan!,' they will shift to 'we offer 15k towards the plan of your choice!' Incentives and fringe benefits remain, but the employee is free to choose the plan they like.

Cycloptichorn

Say goodbye to employer sponsored health care. No company in it's right mind will take on health care if it's available through the government. Why would they? It's expensive, an HR headache and all employees will have to get and pay for their own insurance.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What about the money for research? Where is that going to come from? What about for new drugs?
And we still have the problem of physicians leaving the public health care realm. Hell, I know doctors that are thinking of doing it now because they are getting shafted by taking medicaid and medicare.

The vast majority of medical research is already paid for by the gov't. There is some in the Pharma end of the industry which is more privately funded, but that doesn't mean that there can't be non-profit drug companies; they already exist today, with the mission of saving people's lives, over making profits.

When the public health realm is given an influx of cash for doctors, they will stop leaving it. Not a difficult concept to figure out.

Cycloptichorn

I've always wondered if Pharma wasn't a business if we'd see some 'cures' for illnesses and not just 'treatments' or maybe we'd see less viagra and more cancer curing.

I hope to god that someday we can say goodbye to employer sponsered health care.

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What about the money for research? Where is that going to come from? What about for new drugs?
And we still have the problem of physicians leaving the public health care realm. Hell, I know doctors that are thinking of doing it now because they are getting shafted by taking medicaid and medicare.

The vast majority of medical research is already paid for by the gov't. There is some in the Pharma end of the industry which is more privately funded, but that doesn't mean that there can't be non-profit drug companies; they already exist today, with the mission of saving people's lives, over making profits.

When the public health realm is given an influx of cash for doctors, they will stop leaving it. Not a difficult concept to figure out.

Cycloptichorn

I've always wondered if Pharma wasn't a business if we'd see some 'cures' for illnesses and not just 'treatments' or maybe we'd see less viagra and more cancer curing.

there is a huge difference between correcting ED and curing cancer. cancer can't simply be "cured" in the sense that you'll never have it again. ED is a simple thing to correct comparitively.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What about the money for research? Where is that going to come from? What about for new drugs?
And we still have the problem of physicians leaving the public health care realm. Hell, I know doctors that are thinking of doing it now because they are getting shafted by taking medicaid and medicare.

The vast majority of medical research is already paid for by the gov't. There is some in the Pharma end of the industry which is more privately funded, but that doesn't mean that there can't be non-profit drug companies; they already exist today, with the mission of saving people's lives, over making profits.

When the public health realm is given an influx of cash for doctors, they will stop leaving it. Not a difficult concept to figure out.

Cycloptichorn

I've always wondered if Pharma wasn't a business if we'd see some 'cures' for illnesses and not just 'treatments' or maybe we'd see less viagra and more cancer curing.

there is a huge difference between correcting ED and curing cancer. cancer can't simply be "cured" in the sense that you'll never have it again. ED is a simple thing to correct comparitively.

Obviously there is a difference, but I think you get my point....even if you don't want to admit it.

maporsche wrote:

I hope to god that someday we can say goodbye to employer sponsered health care.

i happen to like mine, thanks.

no... your point is invalid. cancer is an infinitely more difficult issue to resolve. all the money in the world might not cure it in the next 100 years.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

no... your point is invalid. cancer is an infinitely more difficult issue to resolve. all the money in the world might not cure it in the next 100 years.

My point (god your dense) is that parma has more of an interest in creating TREATMENTS for diseases then they do for creating CURES.

maporsche wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

no... your point is invalid. cancer is an infinitely more difficult issue to resolve. all the money in the world might not cure it in the next 100 years.

My point (god your dense) is that parma has more of an interest in creating TREATMENTS for diseases then they do for creating CURES.

Dense as I may be, your spelling is lacking. You are one of those people who assumes that things are conspiracies if they don't happent he way you want. Barring bacterial infections, there are exceptionally few illnesses that can be "cured." They are only cured BY treatments. There is no way to undo cell death. If you can't understand that, you are far more dense than I.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

no... your point is invalid. cancer is an infinitely more difficult issue to resolve. all the money in the world might not cure it in the next 100 years.

My point (god your dense) is that parma has more of an interest in creating TREATMENTS for diseases then they do for creating CURES.

Dense as I may be, your spelling is lacking. You are one of those people who assumes that things are conspiracies if they don't happent he way you want. Barring bacterial infections, there are exceptionally few illnesses that can be "cured." They are only cured BY treatments. There is no way to undo cell death. If you can't understand that, you are far more dense than I.

I'm just saying that for example...the real money is in treating people to LIVE WITH AIDS then CURING AIDS.

"To live, you must take these expensive pills that we SELL you for a PROFIT, for the next SIXTY+ years. Oh, and by the way it's 7 pills / day."

Or

"To live, you just need 5 of these cheap shots taken weekly, then you're done" (I understand that this cure doesn't currently exist, and why would it, there is little profit to be found here)


If you were a business, which of these business models would give you the largest return on investment (ROI)?

Please answer this simple question.

maporsche wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

no... your point is invalid. cancer is an infinitely more difficult issue to resolve. all the money in the world might not cure it in the next 100 years.

My point (god your dense) is that parma has more of an interest in creating TREATMENTS for diseases then they do for creating CURES.

Dense as I may be, your spelling is lacking. You are one of those people who assumes that things are conspiracies if they don't happent he way you want. Barring bacterial infections, there are exceptionally few illnesses that can be "cured." They are only cured BY treatments. There is no way to undo cell death. If you can't understand that, you are far more dense than I.

I'm just saying that for example...the real money is in treating people to LIVE WITH AIDS then CURING AIDS.

"To live, you must take these expensive pills that we SELL you for a PROFIT, for the next SIXTY+ years. Oh, and by the way it's 7 pills / day."

Or

"To live, you just need 5 of these cheap shots taken weekly, then you're done" (I understand that this cure doesn't currently exist, and why would it, there is little profit to be found here)


If you were a business, which of these business models would give you the largest return on investment (ROI)?

Please answer this simple question.

I don't intend to sound mean, but you are either stupid or completely misinformed. A virus cannot be cured. With out current technology, it is impossible. We can't even cure a common cold...

Actually... I'm not even going to get into this argument. You are so far behind the learning curve on this that it would take me forever to get you to understand.

I don't intend to sound mean, but you are either stupid or completely misinformed. A virus cannot be cured. With out current technology, it is impossible. We can't even cure a common cold...

Actually... I'm not even going to get into this argument. You are so far behind the learning curve on this that it would take me forever to get you to understand.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I hope to god that someday we can say goodbye to employer sponsered health care.

i happen to like mine, thanks.

Fine, I like mine too.

I don't like having to change insurance plans if I choose to work for another employer.

I don't like my employer having to incur the extra expense that healthcare is imposing on them. Expenses that foreign competetors DO NOT have to incur.

maporsche wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

no... your point is invalid. cancer is an infinitely more difficult issue to resolve. all the money in the world might not cure it in the next 100 years.

My point (god your dense) is that parma has more of an interest in creating TREATMENTS for diseases then they do for creating CURES.

Dense as I may be, your spelling is lacking. You are one of those people who assumes that things are conspiracies if they don't happent he way you want. Barring bacterial infections, there are exceptionally few illnesses that can be "cured." They are only cured BY treatments. There is no way to undo cell death. If you can't understand that, you are far more dense than I.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I don't intend to sound mean, but you are either stupid or completely misinformed. A virus cannot be cured. With out current technology, it is impossible. We can't even cure a common cold...

Actually... I'm not even going to get into this argument. You are so far behind the learning curve on this that it would take me forever to get you to understand.

And isn't Polio a virus. We created a vaccine to cure that malady. I hope you're your broad minded enough to not be arguing semantics between a cure and a vaccine.