• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Social Justice Universal Health Care Discussion Thread

Atelier3 said:
Expressed this way I am in total agreement with you. And I think plenty of others would be too. The big schism here seems to be between a view that many or most people who can’t afford health care are undeserving of it because they are lazy free-riders on those that end up paying for it and the alternative view that many people remain unable to afford healthcare because of personal, social and economic factors beyond their control and best effort.

An example would be 12 year old girl with leukaemia whose parents are hourly waged hospitality workers with no benefits. It’s not clear how @bmf666 would see her receiving medical treatment and whether she is deserving of it.

Another example would be someone in their early 20s who had done all that @bmf666 thinks people should do. Worked hard in school, took on part-time jobs to build her skills, planned to apply to the military but had a psychotic episode one day and was found to have schizophrenia. Unfortunately she comes from a broken home with a drug addicted mum and a violent father so cannot look to her family for support. How should her care be funded? Does she deserve care?
Click to expand...
I don't think anything will ever be enough for people like this. There will always be some excuse for why people are undeserving.
 
bmf666 said:
Jesus if someone goes to the store and wants two cheeseburgers

Nope people that want something that cost a lot of money for free and perfectly fine with others paying for it.
Click to expand...
Again it's not "for free". It's the use of tax money in a manner that is beneficial. This whole "people are lazy and want free stuff" argument is 1) false and 2) a logical fallacy.
 
If they can do everything you guys are saying without raising taxes I’m all for it but that’s not happening. The middle class is already over burdened and the governments proven to be horrible at everything it does.
 
deficiT said:
Again it's not "for free". It's the use of tax money in a manner that is beneficial. This whole "people are lazy and want free stuff" argument is 1) false and 2) a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
You’re right it’s just free to the people that already contribute nothing and more expensive for the people that do. And no idea how you can say people wanting free stuff is false because that’s exactly what you want and I’ve seen enough lazy people in this country to know that’s true also
 
I might personally favor a system like UBI where families get checks for $xxx and can use it at the healthcare provider of your choice. I think the market provides innovation better than any govt system does, so for that reason I dont think a planned health economy is smart. the option of the govt directly paying private health companies is just bound for corruption, as it already is in the US

this system would allow for those who can’t work, are in poverty, etc to have healthcare access while still maintaing the virtues of the free market
 
bmf666 said:
If they can do everything you guys are saying without raising taxes I’m all for it but that’s not happening. The middle class is already over burdened and the governments proven to be horrible at everything it does.
Click to expand...
The middle class is overburdened by the military industrial complex, not a child getting leukemia care
 
@thegreenhand
we Should probably get some other countries to start helping foot the bill then because I promise you without the threat of retaliation from our military China and Russia would be messing with everyone. I know the liberal nutjobs like to indoctrinate people with how America’s so evil but we police a lot of the world and there’s a lot of countries that rely on us for protection
 
bmf666 said:
The middle class is overburdened by the military industrial complex, not a child getting leukemia care

we Should probably get some other countries to start helping foot the bill then because I promise you without the threat of retaliation from our military China and Russia would be messing with everyone. I know the liberal nutjobs like to indoctrinate people with how America’s so evil but we police a lot of the world and there’s a lot of countries that rely on us for protection
Click to expand...
I’m not a liberal mate, more of a libertarian if I had to put a label on it. Plus warfare is likely going to be more and more in the digital space as time goes on. yet we keep buying planes and ships and bombs from Lockheed and Raytheon

Also if these countries rely on us for protection, why can’t our own citizens rely on us for healthcare?
 
so because we offer one thing we got to offer everything for free (not really free people are paying for it)? Don’t understand the logic but exactly my point, when you give a little people just want more. We are all just making the same points over and over but one last time. I believe everyone should be accountable for themselves to a degree. If people put zero effort into something I don’t that think they should be just entitled to it since it’s apparently not important to them. I saw it when I worked at Lowe’s, every single one of the lm could have worked full time and had health insurance but by working less they got it for free and unfortunately that’s what the majority of people would do. Humans are inherently lazy and that’s why we need to be rewarded for doing stuff
 
A good discussion. All points made reasonably with a minimum of personal attacks and we all end up agreeing to disagree. What should we discuss next?
 
Atelier3 said:
What should we discuss next?
Click to expand...
Should pharmaceutical research be moved from private industry to government research, including the funding, with the goal of lowering prices for pharmaceutical products and eliminating price gouging.
 
aemetha said:
Should pharmaceutical research be moved from private industry to government research, including the funding, with the goal of lowering prices for pharmaceutical products and eliminating price gouging.
Click to expand...

Hi @aemetha. Lovely to see you here. You raise an interesting question, especially for our many members who are convinced the government cannot do anything productive. My first thought though was setting up a government institution like DARPA - which small government advocates rarely ever acknowledge as a government run source of tremendous innovation. It seems to have developed ways to work productively with the private sector to commercialise many of its developments. But why can the government only be good at Defence innovations and not innovations in other fields, such as pharmacology?

Some people might argue that the government could never attract and appropriately reward people the way that the private sector can. But I think that less of an issue these days when academics and PhD’s are being trained by their institutions to be proactively entrepreneurial with their patents. A government pharmaceutical research body could just skip dealing with big pharma and contract directly with education and research institutions. Big pharma might just become a production and distribution contractor-for-hire.
 
Atelier3 said:
Hi @aemetha. Lovely to see you here. You raise an interesting question, especially for our many members who are convinced the government cannot do anything productive. My first thought though was setting up a government institution like DARPA - which small government advocates rarely ever acknowledge as a government run source of tremendous innovation. It seems to have developed ways to work productively with the private sector to commercialise many of its developments. But why can the government only be good at Defence innovations and not innovations in other fields, such as pharmacology?

Some people might argue that the government could never attract and appropriately reward people the way that the private sector can. But I think that less of an issue these days when academics and PhD’s are being trained by their institutions to be proactively entrepreneurial with their patents. A government pharmaceutical research body could just skip dealing with big pharma and contract directly with education and research institutions. Big pharma might just become a production and distribution contractor-for-hire.
Click to expand...
That could very easily lead to monopolies if/when the govt chooses to only hire from select companies because of their political donations
 
thegreenhand said:
That could very easily lead to monopolies if/when the govt chooses to only hire from select companies because of their political donations
Click to expand...

Which is apparently what happens in Defence. There is a saying here that the government shouldn’t try and pick winners, but the reality is that many companies become winners precisely because the government picked them - and that’s the gap where corruption thrives.

On the other hand, in Australia the governments are reasonably good at putting together independent advisory boards that work at arm’s length from the Minister (Secretary) responsible for that area of the budget. It is usually a newsworthy story if a Minister rejects the advice of his department or the relevant advisory board. I think America might be different in that regard because new administrations rapidly put in so many new partisan players into the public service and get rid of everyone ‘tainted’ by working with the previous administration.
 
Atelier3 said:
Which is apparently what happens in Defence. There is a saying here that the government shouldn’t try and pick winners, but the reality is that many companies become winners precisely because the government picked them - and that’s the gap where corruption thrives.

On the other hand, in Australia the governments are reasonably good at putting together independent advisory boards that work at arm’s length from the Minister (Secretary) responsible for that area of the budget. It is usually a newsworthy story if a Minister rejects the advice of his department or the relevant advisory board. I think America might be different in that regard because new administrations rapidly put in so many new partisan players into the public service and get rid of everyone ‘tainted’ by working with the previous administration.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m only familiar with the American model, which doesn’t seem to work too great. Lots of pharma research is done at public universities but these academics also often work in private industry as consultants too. So it’s very muddy over here
 
Atelier3 said:
You raise an interesting question, especially for our many members who are convinced the government cannot do anything productive.
Click to expand...
I see that argument a lot too. In all honesty though I see plenty of examples of government enterprise run productively (an example of this is Pharmac in New Zealand which is a government run monopoly supplier of pharmaceuticals. Because of pharmac's ability to source affordable pharmaceuticals in bulk we pay $5 per item for our prescriptions on all subsidized items, which is almost all prescriptions). I also see plenty of examples of private enterprise running former government enterprises poorly. An example of this is the railways service in New Zealand which had to be re-nationalized after private enterprise failed to invest in sufficient maintenance to keep it running.

I think certain industries are simply run better by government than private industry, and other industries the reverse is true. I think the way pharmaceutical companies are currently operating does not provide good service to consumers. A major point of contention is the amount of money these companies spend on sales and marketing. A few years ago it was highlighted that they spend more on sales and marketing than on R&D - and all those dollars are added to the bottom line paid by consumers. In theory, these companies shouldn't really spend any money on sales and marketing - their products are purchased where there is a need and should not be purchased where there is not one. Obviously some reality needs to be applied to that, doctors need to know about the products in order to identify when one fits a need, but the current spend indicates that they are pushing it well beyond that. They have improved the S&M to R&D ratio in recent years, but it's still bad. In 2017 the top 10 spent $47.5b on S&M and $66.8b on R&D.

Ultimately, pharmaceutical companies exist to provide a public good in the form of healthcare. Healthcare is key to maintaining a productive workforce. That's a powerful argument for placing it within the purview of government. In the long term there is a significant benefit to the economy to be found in government researching and offering effective, affordable pharmaceutical treatments and there is demonstrable waste in the private enterprise provision of these items which government provision can eliminate.
 
bmf666 said:
If they can do everything you guys are saying without raising taxes I’m all for it but that’s not happening. The middle class is already over burdened and the governments proven to be horrible at everything it does.
Click to expand...

IT'S CHEAPER!!!!!!

America is spending MORE money for worse health care. I've said that like 3 times.
 
bmf666 said:
@thegreenhand
we Should probably get some other countries to start helping foot the bill then because I promise you without the threat of retaliation from our military China and Russia would be messing with everyone.
Click to expand...
My god. This is the dumbest thing I will read all week.

JessFR said:
IT'S CHEAPER!!!!!!

America is spending MORE money for worse health care. I've said that like 3 times.
Click to expand...
He won't get it.



YT video, I am aware. Fairly short, well made, just listen damnit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top