IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

woiyo wrote:

The problem I have with Senator Clintons plan is not so much the plan itself, it is her lack of ability to make it happen. She has not shown the ability to bring together a consensus on anything during her limited term as Jr. Senator from NY. Her disingenuous way of presenting the "new and improved" plan already has me sceptical when she say, "I been down this road before and I know what to expect". Yes, she has been down this road and was unable to get anything accomplished.

Based upon what abilities that she has demonstrated, makes me feel she can accomplish this bold endeavor?

How does the "math" add up? If her plan is to raise taxes on the top earners, how will she incorporate this into any meaningful economic / tax plan?

I fear she will use this "plan" as a single platform item, since as is apparent from this post, touches a sensitive "button" of many.

So you have no problem with her plan, just with her.

Fine, so don't vote for Hillary....and instead make sure whomever you would like to vote for implements this plan that you seem to have no problem with.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

And check out who may be funding AIDS research.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=who+is+funding+AIDS+vaccine+research


The Worlds Governments....not Pfizer, Merck, etc....or at least they're not letting anyone know about it. I even browsed Merck's website, hoping to find out some info on AIDS research....nothing there.

Actually, smart guy, Merck IS funding a vaccine project. It went into phase II trials on december 13, 2004. It was co-funded by the NIH. Their vaccine was based on a weakened adenovirus with the subtype B HIV genes implanted.

Here's info on the Glaxo vaccine: http://www.hvtn.org/media/press_releases.sht?id=19
http://www.thebody.com/content/art8353.html

Happy reading.

From the 2nd GSK article, it looks like the EU is FUNDING the project, and GSK is collecting a check to conduct the research, and I'm sure will get the contract to produce the vaccine. I'm sure GSK saw that the EU was going to pay SOMEBODY to produce this vaccine, there was no way that any Pharma would fund the research themselves, as there's no profit in it, but there would be profit in manufacturing a vaccine that somebody else funded the research for......nice line of work these Phama companies.

I see nothing about the NIH in either article. Are you making this **** up?

maporsche wrote:

woiyo wrote:

The problem I have with Senator Clintons plan is not so much the plan itself, it is her lack of ability to make it happen. She has not shown the ability to bring together a consensus on anything during her limited term as Jr. Senator from NY. Her disingenuous way of presenting the "new and improved" plan already has me sceptical when she say, "I been down this road before and I know what to expect". Yes, she has been down this road and was unable to get anything accomplished.

Based upon what abilities that she has demonstrated, makes me feel she can accomplish this bold endeavor?

How does the "math" add up? If her plan is to raise taxes on the top earners, how will she incorporate this into any meaningful economic / tax plan?

I fear she will use this "plan" as a single platform item, since as is apparent from this post, touches a sensitive "button" of many.

So you have no problem with her plan, just with her.

Fine, so don't vote for Hillary....and instead make sure whomever you would like to vote for implements this plan that you seem to have no problem with.

I said more than that moron.

Want to discuss some of the details?

Nope. Those articles are about the GSK vaccine, not the Merck. I'm sure you can use some of that fancy legwork and find the info on the Merck vaccine.

mysteryman wrote:

Also, there is no viral illness that has been cured.
Several have been prevented,but no viirus's have been cured.

There is a difference between prevented and cured.

We've been through this already, but while techinically you're right...it's obvious I'm speaking in laymen's terms.

Ask almost anybody if we 'cured' polio or if it was 'prevented' and what answer will you get.

Ask almost anybody if we 'cured' smallpox or it was 'prevented' and what answer will you get.


It's obvious that when forced to think about such details that a vaccine is a prevention measure, and not a cure. But in laymen's terms, does it really make a difference?


And again, to bring this up is to parse tidbits out of my overall argument to avoid answering the most basic question that I put forth. Nice try, but everyone can see it going on.

MM, do you want to take a shot at my question, USAFHokie80 must have a reading disorder as she keeps on missing that part of my posts (yet can somehow pick out tiny technically wrong tidbits).

Your question is idiotic. You want to know why we can't cure a disease when it is beyond our ability to cure any viral illness. The fact that the layman might call a vaccine a cure doesn't matter. His misunderstanding of the words does not make his ideas valid, quite the opposite.

Fine, to rephrase my question.

What would you say is the most profitable business model A)to treat a disease caused by a virus, such as AIDS for life (as we have today, see Magic Johnson), or B) to create a vaccine that would need to be administered say 1 time that would prevent someone from getting AIDS, eventually eradicating the disease ala smallpox and polio.

What business plan is more profitable (the primary objective for Pharma) for Pharma? Just answer A or B.

Do you see how this is really the same question, and if you weren't so busy trying to weasel out of answering the question that you're arguing the smallest details of my question in a not so subtle attempts at avoidence.

Health care becomes city's cause

San Francisco plan covers the uninsured

By Jane Meredith Adams, Special to the Tribune
September 19, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO - As Democratic presidential candidates unveil proposals for universal or near-universal health care for all Americans, San Franciscans already are signing up for a new program that guarantees free or sliding-scale medical care to all uninsured adults.

The program provides a network of care to city residents, regardless of existing medical conditions, immigration status or ability to pay.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Your question is idiotic. You want to know why we can't cure a disease when it is beyond our ability to cure any viral illness. The fact that the layman might call a vaccine a cure doesn't matter. His misunderstanding of the words does not make his ideas valid, quite the opposite.

I rephrased my question to accomodate your unwillingness to let tiny techincal tidbits about 'cures' vs 'vaccinations' go. Here it is again:

Quote:

Fine, to rephrase my question.

What would you say is the most profitable business model A)to treat a disease caused by a virus, such as AIDS for life (as we have today, see Magic Johnson), or B) to create a vaccine that would need to be administered say 1 time that would prevent someone from getting AIDS, eventually eradicating the disease ala smallpox and polio.

What business plan is more profitable (the primary objective for Pharma) for Pharma? Just answer A or B.

Do you see how this is really the same question, and if you weren't so busy trying to weasel out of answering the question that you're arguing the smallest details of my question in a not so subtle attempts at avoidence.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Your question is idiotic. You want to know why we can't cure a disease when it is beyond our ability to cure any viral illness. The fact that the layman might call a vaccine a cure doesn't matter. His misunderstanding of the words does not make his ideas valid, quite the opposite.

I rephrased my question to accomodate your unwillingness to let tiny techincal tidbits about 'cures' vs 'vaccinations' go. Here it is again:

Quote:

Fine, to rephrase my question.

What would you say is the most profitable business model A)to treat a disease caused by a virus, such as AIDS for life (as we have today, see Magic Johnson), or B) to create a vaccine that would need to be administered say 1 time that would prevent someone from getting AIDS, eventually eradicating the disease ala smallpox and polio.

What business plan is more profitable (the primary objective for Pharma) for Pharma? Just answer A or B.

Do you see how this is really the same question, and if you weren't so busy trying to weasel out of answering the question that you're arguing the smallest details of my question in a not so subtle attempts at avoidence.

I said more than that moron.

Want to discuss some of the details?

Oh, and here is the press release stating that the NIH AND Merck are funding the Merck vaccine:

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jan2005/niaid-24.htm

woiyo wrote:

I said more than that moron.

Want to discuss some of the details?

Don't give the opposition any daylight at all, woiyo. Having Hillary design our health care is like having the fox design the health care of the residents of the chicken house. The first issue to be addressed is her credibility, and she has none, and even less on this issue. As many ideas as she has on this, she might by pure accident stumble into one idea worth considering, perhaps out of dozens of ideas, but does that mean we should use her ideas as a starting point. Definitely a no. This is a woman that has claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, a man that only became known several years after she was born.

georgeob1 wrote:

I find this to be a very strange concept - a government enforced mandate for all people (or citizens, or residents) to purchase health insurance from one of a list of presumably government-approved providers.

Strange? How is it stranger than a government-enforced mandate to purchase insurance for your car?

georgeob1 wrote:

In addition it could lead to the organization of medical providers into competing service groups (such as with current HMOs). This of course creates significant limitations on the ability of individuals to freely choose their own medical providers - even if they are willing to pay for them themselves.

1) Maybe it could, theoretically. But so far, in 60 years of German history, it hasn't. Which is at least some evidence that it might work in America, too.

2) How is this different from your current system, which also creates significant limitations on the ability of individuals to freely choose their own medical providers? Under the current system, 40 million or so Americans are uninsured -- not because they freely chose to, but because they can't afford it. That's a limitation too, and a pretty hefty one at that.

georgeob1 wrote:

Thirdly, it adds yet another layer of administrative cost and profit to the delivery of medical care.

Not necessarily, because a large part of current insurance bureaucracies dedicates itself to buck-passing. Universal health insurance would cut, if not eliminate, this part of private health insurance bureaucracies. It is not clear to me at all that current Democratic health care reform plans would increase the total size of bureaucracies.

I'm sure that, even in Germany, the insurers set limits on various elements of coverage provided and on just who is covered by each policy.

Stronach went to U.S. for cancer treatment: report
Updated Fri. Sep. 14 2007 7:57 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.

Stronach's spokesman, Greg MacEachern, told the Toronto Star that the MP for Newmarket-Aurora had a "later-stage" operation in the U.S. after a Toronto doctor referred her.

"Belinda had one of her later-stage operations in California, after referral from her personal physicians in Toronto. Prior to this, Belinda had surgery and treatment in Toronto, and continues to receive follow-up treatment there," said MacEachern.

He said speed was not the reason why she went to California.

Instead, MacEachern said the decision was made because the U.S. hospital was the best place to have it done due to the type of surgery required............

Not sure if this Canadian story has been posted yet, but it's interesting.

SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL?

Yes
64%
No
27%