Reason TV: Will ObamaCare kill medical innovation?
posted at 8:48 am on November 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Nick Gillespie and Reason.tv offer this look at the attempt to strip profits from the health-care field, especially from innovators who produce new technologies, treatments, and medications. Nick takes us to a typical ObamaCare advocacy protest, which contains all of the elements we’re used to seeing by now: drums, chanting, SEIU shirts (they’re out in force at this rally), and the obligatory and ubiquitous venom aimed at profit. “It’s disgusting!” yells one protester into Reason’s microphone, while another protester clearly has little idea how profit works.
Dave Christensen does, and tells Reason how innovation saved his life:
Protesters at a recent rally in downtown Los Angeles demanded universal coverage. They told Reason.tv that America is a cruel land where profits come before people.
“It’s disgusting!” said one woman. “There should be no profits in health care!” What about those who argue that profits drive medical innovation? “I think that’s kind of sick,” declared another protester, who wants the U.S. to be more like Canada, where government policy keeps drug prices, and drug company profits, lower than in America.
Many regard the profit motive as cruel, but it actually produces compassionate results. After all, America has generated vastly more medical innovations than other nations. Included in the long list is the innovation that saved the life of Dave Christensen, construction supervisor, husband, and father. After being diagnosed with cancer, Christensen was lucky enough to be given a then-experimental drug that probably wouldn’t have been developed or brought to market in any other country in the world.
If America follows the lead of the rest of the world and clamps down on profits in health care, who will make tomorrow’s wonder drugs?
It won’t be the people beating the bongo drum and chanting jejune organizing rhymes on the street. The US, as Reason explains, is the last frontier for many innovators. Most of the pharmaceuticals fled western Europe a generation ago when those nations did what Obama proposes to do now. Innovation takes a lot of failure to produce a single success — and if innovators don’t get an opportunity to recoup their losses on the failures, no one will put up the money to get to the successes.
When everyone becomes a “free rider,” then the ride comes to an abrupt halt.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Hey how about a child with a heart defect who requires heart surgery immediately after birth? Oh wait – her parents have no insurance. Leave her to die on the table. Nice system you’ve got there.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I think you are misinformed, no one in this country is turned away at emergency room it is against the law here to withhold treatment from the uninsured. One of the reasons we are charged more if we have insurance is to offset Hospitals loss from treating illegals and uninsured. We also have free insurance for children called schip. So please don`t believe all the hysteria about uninsured suffering here it is bogus.+
LSUMama on November 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM
If people were not getting treatments that they can not afford, there would not be medical caused bankruptcy.
Slowburn on November 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM
What is it about liberals that make them such sniveling cowards? Did the specific questions asked, scare you?
MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM
daesleeper on November 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM
It’s too bad the debate isn’t about AIDS drugs. Talk about the expensive AIDS drugs and the impact it will have on the gay community. If you get gays against this plan, you’ll have an army of angry rainbows.
600,000 dollars to treat AIDS will be a lot of money. And there won’t likely be any new drugs to ease AIDS patients’ pain.
ThackerAgency on November 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Yep, and a Kaiser study in 2004 estimated that the additional cost of treating the uninsured adds less than 3% to total healthcare spending, so the notion that spending is going to go down dramatically if everyone is covered is nonsense.
Don’t have a link, but the study was called “The Cost of the Uninsured: What Do We Spend, Who Pays, and What Would Full Coverage Add To Medical Spending”.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 10:58 AM
What makes you think I do?
darwin on November 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM
You obviously found it more convenient to attempt humor than answer my comment.
darwin on November 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM
We must do more to stamp out greedy Republicans!
Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM
This is good news. It gives me hope. Below 40% approval is usually key to defeating anything.
But this darn thing may be so far through the pipeline that liberals simply will not be able to stop themselves from forcing it the rest of the way through. They can be blinded by their own high opinion of themselves, if not by the cash and appointments Barry has to spread around.
Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Um, Dave, those mostly aren’t innovations — just basic research.
It is also pathetically short, for all the space it takes up here.
Count to 10 on November 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM
I was just reading something about global patent filings and the US files more than the rest of the world combined. Now, some of those are junk patents, I’m sure, and will never make it to market. Some are also filed by foreigners who want to sell into the US market. Still, more than the rest of the world combined shows that when it comes to innovation, the US is still peerless. The article was about falling R&D spending as a percentage of GDP, so it was as much of a warning as a celebration.
One of the problems with people outside the US commenting on our system is that they don’t realize just how “larger than life” it really is and their government-run media certainly isn’t going to tell them, lest they get any big ideas about wanting to be more like us. And, of course, the biggest of the big lies told about us in those countries is that we’re “brainwashed sheep”. It is to f*cking laugh.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Will ObamaCare kill medical innovation?
You betcha!
faol on November 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM
A bit OT, but related through Federal borrowing:
Currently, the US Treasury is having difficulty securing borrowed funds for social programs from the “lender of choice”: China.
What would be the financial ramifications should the flag go up in one of the worlds’ current hot spots that would require a large military response from the US (assuming the current POTUS would live up to current defense treaties)?
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are very near, if not at, a point where we will not be able to meet our obligations as an Ally because we don’t have the cash reserves to engage in a war.
BobMbx on November 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM
BEST POST I have seen on this issue… BRAVO ZULU!
Khun Joe on November 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM
BEST POST I have seen on this issue… BRAVO ZULU!
Khun Joe on November 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM
They won’t need to push amnesty in order to provide “free” (that is, taxpayer-funded) healthcare to millions of illegals if this POS “healthcare reform” bill passes. The Democrats in the House already defeated every attempt to include a citizenship or legal U.S. residency requirement in the bill, and you can bet the Senate will do the same.
If this bill passes, we’ll all be paying for more healthcare for every illegal alien in the U.S. (and the new ones that will be coming for “their share”). More “free” healthcare for illegals was one of the primary motivating factors behind this whole fiasco. LaRaza even said that getting this bill passed is more important to them than getting amnesty. (Since Obama has significantly reduced the number of illegals being apprehended and deported, you can understand why they care more about getting more taxpayer-funded freebies than they care about amnesty. So long as they get to stay here and remain on the taxpayer teat, their citizenship status is not particularly important to them).
AZCoyote on November 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
It would be great if someone could post this video at Huffpo.
I just read a story there and mistakenly read the comments- and got an overdose of stupidity, (Is there nothing they don’t blame on Bush?)
Those folks could use a strong dose of reason.
LASue on November 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I don’t think you can say you corner the market on human life, when it takes so long to see a specialist. The person who’s diagnosed with cancer, can’t, and shouldn’t have to wait 6 months, to get things going. The person with a broken hip, shouldn’t have to sit in agony, waiting for a slot to open, just to see a doctor about getting surgery. I’m not saying you don’t care about human life, but don’t say we don’t either. If I broke my hip today, or found a lump, I am assured right now, that I could walk into the doctors office, and get some tests done, TODAY. Can you be assured of that?
Also…last week, the HHS, announced women should wait til 50 for their first mammogram, and 21 before their first pap smear. How is that caring about human life? My daughters great grandmother, on her fathers side, died of breast cancer. Putting my daughter at risk. Now she is told, she has to wait til she’s 50 to get checked out? That’s not caring about life…that’s caring about cost savings. Money! And this is all being done by *gasp* liberals.
capejasmine on November 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Hey how about a child with a heart defect who requires heart surgery immediately after birth? Oh wait – her parents have no insurance. Leave her to die on the table. Nice system you’ve got there.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I think you are misinformed, no one in this country is turned away at emergency room it is against the law here to withhold treatment from the uninsured. One of the reasons we are charged more if we have insurance is to offset Hospitals loss from treating illegals and uninsured. We also have free insurance for children called schip. So please don`t believe all the hysteria about uninsured suffering here it is bogus.+
LSUMama on November 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM
——
Uh, I know that you have Medicaid.
I was making the point that you should get rid of it because those people aren’t paying, so they shouldn’t get any medical attention whatsoever.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM
If people were not getting treatments that they can not afford, there would not be medical caused bankruptcy.
Slowburn on November 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM
————
Bankrupt or dead.
What an awesome system.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Statins = the 2nd greatest scam in modern history.
based on the “lipid hypothesis” of heart disease = the greatest scam in history.
jsunrise on November 23, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Simple solution…..just let the baby die and call it an abortion. You’d be ok with that, wouldn’t you? I mean, since when are people like you so concerned about the lives of babies anyway?
xblade on November 23, 2009 at 12:14 PM
By the way, how would the baby be on the table in the first place if they don’t have insurance? You know, since no one gets treatment here if they have no insurance.
xblade on November 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Yeah, at the extremes, those things happen, moron. That’s why they’re called “extremes”. The middle 85%, according to Gallup, are satisfied with their coverage and care. This data has been posted here many times.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Drywall,
Canada didn’t have universal coverage until the 1950′s and didn’t have a system resembling single-payer until the 1980′s. So most of the Canadian “innovations” you listed occurred when Canada had a system that strongly resembled our own.
Meezles on November 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Hey how about a child with a heart defect who requires heart surgery immediately after birth? Oh wait – her parents have no insurance. Leave her to die on the table. Nice system you’ve got there.
Dave Rywall
By the way, how would the baby be on the table in the first place if they don’t have insurance? You know, since no one gets treatment here if they have no insurance.
xblade on November 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM
—–
OMG You’re right. Those poor people would not be in the hospital.
So let’s revise: baby born at home. Brought into hospital. THEN you let it die on the table, right? Great.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Hey how about a child with a heart defect who requires heart surgery immediately after birth? Oh wait – her parents have no insurance. Leave her to die on the table. Nice system you’ve got there.
Dave Rywall
Simple solution…..just let the baby die and call it an abortion. You’d be ok with that, wouldn’t you? I mean, since when are people like you so concerned about the lives of babies anyway?
xblade on November 23, 2009 at 12:14 PM
——–
People like me? Like what? I’m pro-choice but anti-abortion. That’s probably too complicated for you to understand. But that’s okay.
You cannot possibly be suggesting that
a) only liberals are pro-choice and only liberals have abortions
b) all conservatives are pro life and no conservatives get abortions
Because that would be really, really stupid.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Bankrupt or dead.
What an awesome system.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Yeah, at the extremes, those things happen, moron. That’s why they’re called “extremes”. The middle 85%, according to Gallup, are satisfied with their coverage and care. This data has been posted here many times.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
——–
15% bankrupt or dead.
What an awesome system.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Drywall,
Canada didn’t have universal coverage until the 1950’s and didn’t have a system resembling single-payer until the 1980’s. So most of the Canadian “innovations” you listed occurred when Canada had a system that strongly resembled our own.
Meezles on November 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
——–
That’s a very good point.
However, I would disagree with your claim that MOST happened before our system changed with Mr. D’s idea.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Wrong, again. The 15% are the unsatisfied. That doesn’t mean they’re dead or bankrupt.
You are a f*cking idiot.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, a Canadian petulantly defending socialized medicine. And for our next cliché: A Frenchman on a bicycle, carrying a baguette.
Jim Treacher on November 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM
My baby was born at 6 months gestation. She died a few hours after birth. Nothing could be done. We accepted that, and we had, and still have insurance. It wasn’t anyone’s fault, and we blame no one. I still live with the….what could I have done, or should have done to prevent it? I’ve been told over, and over, by my priest, doctors, and others, there was nothing. Sometimes, God just decides these things. My faith helped me thru…but I still at times, wonder. This happened in 91.
A few days later, as I was home, still grieving my loss, my husband turned on the news. A young girl pregnant, at 6 months gestation, was shot. She was rushed to the hospital…her baby came as well, and lived, and would be fine. She had no insurance, but they treated her baby. So to say that a baby wouldn’t be treated at birth, whether or not they had insurance is absurd. They are treated. And with steadfast speed.
I also have a friend that lives in Ontario. Her mother in law took ill a few years ago. She ended up with her leg amputated, only to die a few weeks later….and they never were able to diagnose what was wrong with her. I don’t blame the care she got, but there are always sad stories, but to say no one here would get care, is simply untrue.
capejasmine on November 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM
How do you disagree with this? Tally up the innovations before and after the date at which the changeover occurred. It’s not an interpretive question, it’s a yes or no question.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM
15% bankrupt or dead.
What an awesome system.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Wrong, again. The 15% are the unsatisfied. That doesn’t mean they’re dead or bankrupt.
You are a f*cking idiot.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM
——-
“In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9–2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy.”
1.9-2.2 million of your fellow citizens.
What an awesome system.
USA USA USA
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM
My baby was born at 6 months gestation. She died a few hours after birth. Nothing could be done. We accepted that, and we had, and still have insurance. It wasn’t anyone’s fault, and we blame no one. I still live with the….what could I have done, or should have done to prevent it? I’ve been told over, and over, by my priest, doctors, and others, there was nothing. Sometimes, God just decides these things. My faith helped me thru…but I still at times, wonder. This happened in 91.
A few days later, as I was home, still grieving my loss, my husband turned on the news. A young girl pregnant, at 6 months gestation, was shot. She was rushed to the hospital…her baby came as well, and lived, and would be fine. She had no insurance, but they treated her baby. So to say that a baby wouldn’t be treated at birth, whether or not they had insurance is absurd. They are treated. And with steadfast speed.
I also have a friend that lives in Ontario. Her mother in law took ill a few years ago. She ended up with her leg amputated, only to die a few weeks later….and they never were able to diagnose what was wrong with her. I don’t blame the care she got, but there are always sad stories, but to say no one here would get care, is simply untrue.
capejasmine on November 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM
——-
1 Your story is tragic, but my hypothetical situation wasn’t about a baby whose condition was not treatable.
2 I UNDERSTAND IN YOUR CURRENT SYSTEM THE UNINSURED ARE NOT TURNED AWAY MY POINT IS WHY SHOULD YOU GIVE THEM ANY MEDICAL ATTENTION WHATSOEVER THEM THEY DO NOT DESERVE TREATMENT IF THEY DO NOT PAY FOR IT
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Do you even know how to develop a statistical analysis, assh*le?
http://dranove.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/setting-the-record-straight-on-medical-bankruptcies/
That’s a rhetorical question. The only thing you know are slogans and “feelings”. Well, I don’t have any feelings toward “my fellow citizens” other than to say that we share the same plot of dirt on this God-foresaken planet and if they leave me alone, I’ll leave them alone. Hardly the kind of sentiment that makes me want to open my wallet to pay for their healthcare. Get your family to pay for it, because I’ve got other uses for my money. Christ, you people are f-ing busybodies.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM
That’s a rhetorical question. The only thing you know are slogans and “feelings”. Well, I don’t have any feelings toward “my fellow citizens” other than to say that we share the same plot of dirt on this God-foresaken planet and if they leave me alone, I’ll leave them alone. Hardly the kind of sentiment that makes me want to open my wallet to pay for their healthcare. Get your family to pay for it, because I’ve got other uses for my money. Christ, you people are f-ing busybodies.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM
——-
Ah, so you’re the kind of person who drives right past a car accident without helping. Nice.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
From vvv’s link:
“Uninsured Americans who have major illnesses stand to lose 40-50 percent of their life savings. ”
ha ha who cares says venividivci
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM
If you have it so great, Drywall, how ’bout just go away and leave us ignorant Americans alone? We all know Canada is the world leader in so many things. Medical innovation, GNP, aid to 3rd world countries, lives lost defending the freedom and liberty of others, etc, etc.
Oh wait. That’s us.
misterpeasea on November 23, 2009 at 1:08 PM
No, but it will certainly slow it to a crawl.
n0doz on November 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Depends on the situation, idiot. If I see someone on a lonely road and I’m not sure if it’s actually an ambush being set up, why would I stop and put my self in danger? Same thing if I see someone stranded on a busy highway. On the other hand, I’ve stopped and helped people with car trouble on multiple occasions, when I thought the situation warranted it.
Hey, better uninsured Americans lose 40-50% of their life savings than the entire country goes bankrupt. The latter would be a real “ha ha” moment, wouldn’t it?
Your thinking is so small-scale and lacks even a hint of strategic-level “big picture” insight.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM
The bombthrower on this thread is an idiot. He just throws bombs and doesn’t ook at present reality, or reason. Fact of the matter is, everyone gets treated in America. It is clearly the world’s best system for anyone serious enough to examine it. It is also worth a huge amount of money, which is why Congress wants to stick its dirty paws into it and gut it — not to mention gutting medical innovation like the video quite rightly indicates.
There are problems in American medical care — no one disagrees. Any system so huge will also have corresponding big problems no matter what. But think Joni Mitchell: “You Never Know What You Got Till It’s Gone.”
Smart, focused improvements to segments of this system are needed rather than the crushing, graft-laden Soviet-style takeover that now looms over America.
Liberals in Congress want a new source of slush funds, and what better industry to attack than the Golden Goose of health care, which liberals have long lusted after.
Once Congress gets its tentacles around health care you can say goodbye to medical innovation and cutting-edge medical education that is renowned the world over and that students the world over flock to.
You can say goodbye to excellent, flexible, and, yes, efficient and expeditious health care plans that millions upon millions upon millions of Americans CAN currently afford and DO like.
You can say goodbye to specialized medical procedures that patients come here the world over for, and could only happen in this country and now will happen in no country.
As has been repeatedly stated — the current system turns down no patient in genuine need in America.
Focused reforms to help those who can least afford it to have a better shot at decent health care are needed, sure — but not a whole new monolithic system that destroys the abundant good in the current system, and not something that serves up American health care like a ripe juicy turkey for the Feds to eagerly stick their fangs into and suck the living juice out of.
Edouard on November 23, 2009 at 1:13 PM
And the people denied care who have their quality of life seriously impaired and/or abruptly ended? What about their “fundamental human rights”?
Or do we need to crack some eggs to make that socialized medicine omelet first.
Because, see, I don’t believe the government gives a sh*t about human life or inherent rights. They just want control. If you’re cool with that, well, it’s your flaw. Just don’t pretend I’m supposed to get all gooey over the government controlling my body.
englishqueen01 on November 23, 2009 at 1:17 PM
The biggest joke of the modern era is that people like Drywall think they are the “smart ones”. Holy God, I’m glad I don’t have to live with that level of self-delusion.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM
If the government denies you care, it’s not a violation of your fundamental human rights. Silly.
It’s only if an eeeevil profit-crazed private entity denies you care that your fundamental human rights are violated and Drywall whips out his burgeoning moral superiority and lashes said private entity with it.
misterpeasea on November 23, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Edouard on November 23, 2009 at 1:13 PM
——
Joni Mitchell is Canadian.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Wow, Drywall. Credit where it’s due. You just made my day.
misterpeasea on November 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM
They paved Paradise and put in a waiting room.
Jim Treacher on November 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM
ObamaCare will not only kill medical innovation, its going to kill a lot of people too. Kiss your Grndmother and Grandfather goodbye.
TrickyDick on November 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Michael J. Fox is Canadian too. I’ll bet you anything he’s being treated in Canada.
misterpeasea on November 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Dude. You really need to get your own blog. And post on it more than once every two weeks. Twitter is for teen-aged girls. Or is that your angle?
misterpeasea on November 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM
… The churlishness of it sort of grates against the stereotype. Evidently Dave didn’t graduate from the same Cirque de Cliche as the rest of us.
Another one sung about the needle gone and the damage done. Not that his commentary is a particularly enlightening take on drug policy or the health effects thereto.
Grunchy Cranola on November 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Neil Young is Canadian? That explains a lot.
misterpeasea on November 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM
He also has a couple of boys with cerebral palsy, yet chooses to live here in the US with its evil profit-driven health care system.
These people would be a joke if their policies weren’t so destructive.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM
California, where he (presumably) keeps his stash. Keep on stockin’ in the free world.
Grunchy Cranola on November 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM
The lowest form of generosity is that which is compulsory and anonymous.
Next is that which is voluntary but still anonymous.
Next is when the giver knows who he is giving to, and why, but his gift is generic.
The highest form of giving and generosity is when the giver knows who he is giving to, what his need is, and directly addresses the need. Better still is if the need can be eliminated – give a poor man a job so he no longer needs charity and everyone wins!
Paying for someone else’s health insurance (or food, or housing, or clothing, or transportation) via mandatory taxation is not what I would call generous, charitable or humane. No one has a right – civil, humane or otherwise – to anything that requires another to provide goods, services or labor. NO ONE.
For the 6 – 8 million who are truly in need (unable to obtain it for reasons not under their control) of subsidized healthcare, let’s build a program for them. Oh wait, we have that, it’s called Medicare! So let’s fix it. Throw out the bums taking a free ride so there is enough for those who truly need it. Same goes for welfare.
For the rest of us, take personal responsibility for ourselves and our own. We should not depend on the labors of others to provide for our needs and wants. We should reject any government that wants to force us to labor on behalf of another – isn’t that called slavery?
And isn’t it ironic that our first black (even if only half) president is promoting the return of slavery in this country?
LissaKay on November 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Really? What if, for the price of a coffee a day, you could keep certain gazangas out of the public domain.
I think that’s a price worth paying.
Grunchy Cranola on November 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Yeah, silly me for thinking “rights” and rights mean two different things to liberals.
englishqueen01 on November 23, 2009 at 2:35 PM
The lowest form of generosity is that which is compulsory and anonymous.
Next is that which is voluntary but still anonymous.
Next is when the giver knows who he is giving to, and why, but his gift is generic.
The highest form of giving and generosity is when the giver knows who he is giving to, what his need is, and directly addresses the need. Better still is if the need can be eliminated – give a poor man a job so he no longer needs charity and everyone wins!
Paying for someone else’s health insurance (or food, or housing, or clothing, or transportation) via mandatory taxation is not what I would call generous, charitable or humane. No one has a right – civil, humane or otherwise – to anything that requires another to provide goods, services or labor. NO ONE.
For the 6 – 8 million who are truly in need (unable to obtain it for reasons not under their control) of subsidized healthcare, let’s build a program for them. Oh wait, we have that, it’s called Medicare! So let’s fix it. Throw out the bums taking a free ride so there is enough for those who truly need it. Same goes for welfare.
For the rest of us, take personal responsibility for ourselves and our own. We should not depend on the labors of others to provide for our needs and wants. We should reject any government that wants to force us to labor on behalf of another – isn’t that called slavery?
And isn’t it ironic that our first black (even if only half) president is promoting the return of slavery in this country?
LissaKay on November 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM
—
Yeah, it’s like slavery. No, really. It’s totally exactly like slavery.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM
What’s hard to understand. The kind of coward, afraid to answer simple questions, also tends to be the kind of coward too afraid to simply take a stance on abortion. Instead, having to hide one’s postion behind terms like “choice.”
You know, little tardlett. I wonder how much of my life savings would never have happened, if I had to pay Canadian income taxes, some God awful GST tax. Figure 10% of my income, minimum…carry the 2…what do you know, more than half my savings.
MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Tell ya what, child. Why don’t you dump your Poly Sci degree, go back to school for 8 years, intern/resident for 4 more, and then give away your service.
Get back to us.
MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Yeah, it’s like slavery. No, really. It’s totally exactly like slavery.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Tell ya what, child. Why don’t you dump your Poly Sci degree, go back to school for 8 years, intern/resident for 4 more, and then give away your service.
Get back to us.
MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM
——-
Sure, but that’d be like slavery. Exactly like slavery. Oh wait – I have to ask LissaKay first, because she thinks something else is exactly like slavery.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM
What’s hard to understand. The kind of coward, afraid to answer simple questions, also tends to be the kind of coward too afraid to simply take a stance on abortion. Instead, having to hide one’s postion behind terms like “choice.”
You know, little tardlett. I wonder how much of my life savings would never have happened, if I had to pay Canadian income taxes, some God awful GST tax. Figure 10% of my income, minimum…carry the 2…what do you know, more than half my savings.
MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM
——-
You don’t understand what I wrote. That’s okay.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM
OK, Dave … I want a new Lexus. So, for the next 2 years, you have to work 40 hours a week and all your pay will go towards the loan that will purchase one for me. You get to keep just enough to survive on. (I presume with your level of intelligence and common sense, that any job you might have would take at least 2 years to earn $40,000)
That’s not slavery, that’s me asserting my right to efficient transportation.
Right?
How is that different than me being mandated to work to pay for someone else’s health insurance?
Mandatory labor for the benefit of another – what do you define that as, other than slavery?
LissaKay on November 23, 2009 at 2:51 PM
OK, Dave … I want a new Lexus. So, for the next 2 years, you have to work 40 hours a week and all your pay will go towards the loan that will purchase one for me. You get to keep just enough to survive on. (I presume with your level of intelligence and common sense, that any job you might have would take at least 2 years to earn $40,000)
That’s not slavery, that’s me asserting my right to efficient transportation.
Right?
How is that different than me being mandated to work to pay for someone else’s health insurance?
Mandatory labor for the benefit of another – what do you define that as, other than slavery?
LissaKay on November 23, 2009 at 2:51 PM
———
It would appear that you should be mandated back to school.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Dave thinks that just because we live under the same Constitutional system, we are somehow obligated to support each other, regardless of whether we want to or not.
We’re all supposed to be one big 300 million member happy family, with the lucky 10 million or so who administrate the whole thing being the Orwellian “pigs” who are the animals more equal than the others. Dave either fancies himself a “pig” or knows that he’s not bringing much to the table to begin with, so having everything thrown into one big pot benefits someone as below-average as himself.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Okay.
Jim Treacher on November 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Back to the subject at hand, which trolls have a hard time understanding, healthcare innovation …
Companies that actually DO the innovation are totally against these taxes (how’s that for a duh moment?lol) One of the biggest, and most innovative, stands to lose billions of dollars a year with these taxes. They have stated semi-publicly that the ramifications on their ability to continue to do business in this area are enormous. The effect would have a lasting and deleterious impact not just on the quality of medical care in the US but globally.
Quite unlike what has been written here, I know that a company that has been rumored to be in Obama’s pocket is very much opposed to ObamaCare.
LissaKay on November 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Once upon a time, conscription. Nowadays that practice is usually subsumed under and/or substituted for the broader (euphemistic) ‘national service.’
How’s that for a workable state health analogy?
Grunchy Cranola on November 23, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Dave thinks that just because we live under the same Constitutional system, we are somehow obligated to support each other, regardless of whether we want to or not.
We’re all supposed to be one big 300 million member happy family, with the lucky 10 million or so who administrate the whole thing being the Orwellian “pigs” who are the animals more equal than the others. Dave either fancies himself a “pig” or knows that he’s not bringing much to the table to begin with, so having everything thrown into one big pot benefits someone as below-average as himself.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM
——-
Why do you have Medicaid? Why do you have a military? Roads? Bridges? Fire Departments? The CDC? Building codes? Transit systems? Why do you pay your taxes?
oink oink
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 3:11 PM
To help protect Canada?
(Lest we forget)
Grunchy Cranola on November 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Maybe before you start flapping your gums, you should look up the history of the concept “public goods”.
If you were half as smart as you think you are, you’d see that one of those things in your list isn’t like the others.
That lack of understanding of “distinctions” in the logical and categorical sense, is exactly what I meant when I said you’re a softheaded thinker. Time to pull out your Aristotle.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 3:22 PM
To take care of freeloaders like you.
Jim Treacher on November 23, 2009 at 3:22 PM
And for crying out loud, stop demanding that I defend Medicaid. You act like I was the one who created and passed the legislation to set it up or something. I would have said the same thing then as I say now, which is that private, tax-advantaged savings accounts that are to be used exclusively for medical expenses is a much better way to go than a government entitlement. That goes for Medicare, too.
As a Generation Xer, I’ve known for years that I’m going to get screwed on these programs, so I don’t view them as sacred cows, I view them as drags on the economy and my future.
As for your “oink oink”, you may be a pig, but I’m a butcher.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Translated:
Dam, someone that can figure how additional Canadian taxation, applied to their income over their lifetime, can add up to. Gees, I just hate it when a good talking point is subjected to actual math. It’s tough being a cookie-cutter tard.
I feel for ya, little one. You types that think all wealth derives from “Obama’s stash” really have no concept, how much 10% of one’s income, over a lifetime of work, can add up to. Nevermind the concept of spending 50% of it, for what those of us outside of the cult refer to, as a rainy day.
MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM
——
Uh, I know that you have Medicaid.
I was making the point that you should get rid of it because those people aren’t paying, so they shouldn’t get any medical attention whatsoever.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Uh, I wasn`t talking about medicaid that is totally different . This is any Joe blow who walks in off the street. if you were in the USA and had emergency they would treat you.
LSUMama on November 23, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Uh, I wasn`t talking about medicaid that is totally different . This is any Joe blow who walks in off the street. if you were in the USA and had emergency they would treat you.
LSUMama on November 23, 2009 at 4:06 PM
——
But they shouldn’t treat Joe Blow. He should pay for it, right?
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM
If you live in a country with a single-payer system and you pay taxes up-front before you have an emergency, how is that not paying for it?
F*ck, you’re dumb.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 4:45 PM
But they shouldn’t treat Joe Blow. He should pay for it, right?
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM
If you live in a country with a single-payer system and you pay taxes up-front before you have an emergency, how is that not paying for it?
F*ck, you’re dumb.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 4:45 PM
——
You’re one very clearly stated hypothetical situation behind.
Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 4:53 PM
First of all, there are Collections departments to try to get some payment from Joe Blow because he’s the one incurring the bill. However, there is a Federal mandate that patients in need of immediate treatment can’t be asked for payment up-front, on the sound medical principle that some treatments can’t wait.
Once treatment has been rendered, of course Joe Blow should pay for it. Single-payer doesn’t eliminate Joe’s need to pay, it just shifts it to a different funding mechanism.
The common complaint in your posts seems to be that medical care costs money and sometimes more money than someone can afford without either having to pay it off over time or having to declare themselves bankrupt in order to legally liquidate the debt. That’s a trade-off more Americans are willing to make than the alternative of ObamaCare, regardless of whether you agree with that trade-off or not. You (and by extension, ObamaCare proponents in general) have simply not made a persuasive case grounded in reality, as opposed to rhetoric like “I believe health care is a fundamental human right”. Well, that a $4 will get you a coffee as Starbucks.
venividivici on November 23, 2009 at 5:04 PM
I am speechless. I have been a chemist in the pharma industry for over 25 years and I missed this event. Could someone tell me the name of a single pharma company that has “fled” Europe over the last 25 years??
I have said this before: Obama has been bought and paid for by the pharma and insurance companies. This piece of crap health care bill is 100% pro-pharma/pro-business/pro-insurance company, and has absolutely nohing to do with European systems, or any other system in the rest of the world. Wake up. Why do you think the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Accosciation is 100% behind the Obama plan? Why are the people I work for telling me how great this plan is?? Is it because the pharma industry wants to commit suicide? If this bill passes, it will be great for the pharma industry, great for insurance companies, and bad for patients. And Obama is a communist. Hilarious.
dave742 on November 23, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2