Most of the pharmaceuticals fled western Europe a generation ago when those nations did what Obama proposes to do now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

LSUMama on November 23, 2009 at 4:06 PM
——
But they shouldn’t treat Joe Blow. He should pay for it, right?

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.

You don’t understand what I wrote. That’s okay.

Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 2:44 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.

Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 3:11 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.

Why do you pay your taxes?

Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 3:11 PM

To take care of freeloaders like you.

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

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.

Why do you have a military?

To help protect Canada?

(Lest we forget)

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

Mandatory labor for the benefit of another – what do you define that as, other than slavery?

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?

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.

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

Okay.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 2:37 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.

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.

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.

Dave Rywall on November 23, 2009 at 12:35 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.

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.

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.

Yeah, silly me for thinking “rights” and rights mean two different things to liberals.