In these United States of America, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill.
But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiums they pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor.
Additionally, due to the government-enforced monopolies of HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and pharmaceutical companies, many patients will never even hear about some of the most effective and non-invasive treatment methods. These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.
The current system is most definitely broken, and it must eventually be abolished if we want to regain both our health and our freedom.
But Obamacare is the worst possible answer. All it does is perpetuate a flawed system by forcing everyone to become a client of insurance companies, even those who don’t want to or need to participate.
Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others? Very few individuals would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a compulsory health insurance system?
There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.
Through these measures and the elimination of government-sponsored health care monopolies a much larger number of people will be able to finally access affordable health care, either by paying for medical insurance or by covering their medical expenses, which are now much lower, out of their own pocket.
As for the poor and the severely ill who can neither obtain insurance nor pay for the medical care they need, Ron Paul offers the following solution in his book “The Revolution: A Manifesto“:
In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.
Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?
Unfortunately, the current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license.
Under a liberated health care system prices would come down and additional options would become available, thereby making health care much more affordable. Moral corruption would give way to true compassion, and many doctors would remember their implicit obligation to provide free medical care to those in need, just like they did in the past.
As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return.
The government’s original role is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. Ron Paul is working to prevent greedy bureaucrats, opportunist politicians and corrupt pharmaceutical companies from having any sort of unhealthy influence over our bodies and minds.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help us put the federal government back where it belongs: to Washington DC and out of our daily lives.
Transcript:
Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.
Points to consider:
- No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.
- If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
- Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.
- More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.
- Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.
- First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.
- The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.
- Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
- The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.
Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. - Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
- Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.
- The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.
- The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.
Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration. - Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.
- There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
- We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.
True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.
I can’t understand how any advanced society has not adopted the belief that taking care of your fellow citizens is a necessity.
I’m from Canada, and our system is not perfect. I sometimes worry that as a small business owner, as I age, I may incur the costs of prescription meds, or maybe an illness may keep me from working for a period of time. These costs could affect my standard of living or my ablility to care for my family.
Never, ever, have I ever been concerned that if I had a heart attack I could lose everything to pay for treatment. If I was not lucky enough to have univeral healthcare might I have to consider losing my home, my savings, my childs education fund to pay to save my life? I, literally, quiver at the thought. Or if I defaulted on these debts how long after would I be subjected to limited prosperity due to bad credit.
Like I said, our system is not perfect. For instance, if you need a knee replacement in Canada you could wait quite some time in line. But it’s because everyone one of your fellow citizens can get in that line that you have to wait. Everyone who is suffering a decreased quality of life can have access to the care they need. Not for free, but because I pay my taxes. As a matter of fact I love paying my taxes! No seriously, my roads are paved, there are police, my child can go to school, if my house is burning down someone will come put it out and I have free healthcare all because of the money I give the government. And with that money I expect them to provide services.
And happy with the services I am, my mother was given 7 days to live last easter, secondary to cancer, and I’m lucky enough to have her still. She has quality of life too. The nurses that the government pays to come and see her three times a week ensure this. Sometimes they even fluff the pillows on the hospital bed that has been provided for her comfort. Not all stories are so great, people die, mistakes happen, we are all human.
Whatever you decide to do as a society I hope it provides all with some piece of mind. I don’t know how I would cope if I also added healthcare to my plate.
Goodluck
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
The problem is that the repugs in the U.S. consider good healthcare benefits to be a priviledge of the wealthy, not a necessity for the poor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This one is a complicated issue. I’m agree with everything that Ron Paul is fighting for with respect of drugs and the alternative treatment methods that are getting obstructed by the current system.
However, I’m 100% opposed to the idea that the Goverment should not be involved in providing free assistance to those less fortunate.
A big part of the population barely makes 12,000 dollars a year. No way these people can ever efford their medical needs even if prices get reduced.
Unless the prices are reduced to zero for this particular huge sector of the population. They will always have to decidc between paying rent or a tooth pain.
Highly rated. What do you think?
11 
1
Gustav, I also agree with you on the less fortunate and that we should take care of them; but there is also another point. Ron Paul’s plans brings the wealth with the real value back to the people. His policies decrease the prices on one side and increase the power of purchase of people on the other side. So people with 12000 dollars a year can live as they get 30000 dollars a year or maybe even more; because he is going to make dollar valuable again.
I am really in favor of Universal healthcare; however, when I compare the positive aspects of Ron Paul to the negative ones, the end to corporatism, fed, wars, etc. I find him much worthier.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
I don’t think the $12,000 a year will matter. Doctors are supposed to provide care to the less fortunate, even if its free. Right now healthcare is about money, not health, that has to be reversed. Not a problem in a place with lots of doctors. Becoming a doctor is expensive, so doctors sell out to pharmaceutical companies owned by health insurance providers. You tear down the Board of Education, auto school gets cheaper and better. Also pull government out of health care, that means Liscensing (which again Board of Education ensures only rich get good school) and regulating based on research down by pharmaceutical companies, insurance providors, and businesses (American Soybean Association provided almost all heart disease information in the 60′s saying trans fat was good for you and to use margarine). You will see doctors pull away from unneeded and untested pharmaceuticals, and actually start curing disease, not symptoms (why cure only symptoms if you don’t get a big paycheck from a repeat customers).
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Ron Paul is the only choice we can make for President. I like his idea’s of the healthcare systems and I think it is very do-able. I for one, do not have healthcare at this moment. I have carried healthcare for myself off and on for many many years. I just recently droped it once again. I am a healthy individual and never even make my deductable. When it came time for renewal I was prepared to buy another year. HOWEVER when they told me that my premium of 311 would increase to 469 well….I told them Thanks but no Thanks. I asked why?? And they told me becuase people in my area were using the insurance more and I would have to pay more. I told them good luck collecting it from someone else. I am frustrated 1st because the premiums are way to high for the amount of insurance you receive and 2nd I feel that it is not fair to me as a healthy individual. I should be rewarded for my health not penalized for it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
@firefox52 I agree Ron Paul is not the be all end all but I believe he is the best thing I’ve seen in my lifetime. I did not vote for Obama but I’m glad he won now that I can see what McCain is made of. We should all be registered Republicans so we can nominate him.
As for insurance it does not work that way. Premiums are based on what the company pays out and is spread among your demographic group, and profit is taken from that to run the company. (don’t dwell on the profit as all companies need it and when things are as they are now we want profit to be zero, not possible). Insurance is for what might happen and not for what hasn’t happened.
How many healthy people get breast cancer or any cancer for that matter every year?
Stroke, flu, appendix explodes, you name it, you can win the “iron man” race and still get cancer.
So we all pay in and hope we never use it. Now the question is will free market medicine decrease costs? I’ve read a ton on this subject and I’d like to see, for example broken bones set by technicians and that is all they do is broken limb bones. Or child birth back to mid wives in facilities next to hospitals. Cancer treatments need to have a sliding scale for the elderly. A 90 year old person should not get cancer treatment. And yes I’m saying this about my grandmother, mother and father. We all have to go sometime we need to be realistic about life and death. They say now 1 in 3 will die of cancer due to the cardiologists keeping us alive longer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
@JohnZappatos
You started off OK until you said ” Grandma” wont get the help she needs because of her age. SEE YA..Good BYE!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@firefox52 Sadly people keep their pets alive too long for themselves and not the pet. The same goes for people. Peoples adult children have not come to grips with their own mortality nor have they been responsible enough to have even thought about it. So they’ll keep Grandma on the machine because they are to immature to face the life. So it everybody ends their life in the ICU with a 30 day stay we’ll surely bankrupt the country.
I’m reading your other post where you say:
“The way to go would be Cheaper insurance or Lower Premiums. Not mandating we buy it or else we are penalized.”
One affects the other. You can’t have everybody going without insurance till they turn 50 then get a policy filing claims for surgeries medications, all kinds of ailments when we get older. They will have paid in $2,000 but will withdraw $200,000. I will not work.
You would like government to mandate prices to the companies, having them make it cheaper but you don’t want it mandated to you.
To say make it cheaper is an answer that has not been thought out. I’ve been on every side of this issue and the more I read the more I fear for our future. Because the majority of voters only got the sound bite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fear is holding your imagination in check, thats the propaganda and short attention span. Lets pretend the doctor you go to works on trying to cure you, not sell medicines and test. So lets pretend healthcare is about health, and not money. Doctors have an obligation to help those less fortunate, even if its for free. Government intervention recently has been lets throw money at it, like all problems people want government to fix. If you haven’t learned, whenever people ask government to fix something, they break the hell out of it and make it expensive, tell me one thing that has been cured by government involvement and excess spending and money thrown out from somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@JohnZappatos@firefox52
Excuse me? I dont want the Government to make Insurance cheaper I want them to deregulate it and Make them all nation wide. That would make Insurance cheaper. What you are talking about is a criticaly ill person on life support, I am talking about Grandma so to speak who with life saving tech. would go on to live till who knows when. I cannot express to you how I feel about your attitude. YES to make it cheaper is the answer and DEATH PANELS are NOT.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@firefox52 – Deregulation is another smoke screen. Unless everybody buys in they will be facing the same people getting insurance at 50 and taking out more than they put into insurance.
Demands on medicine are high and ever increasing as our population ages. Most things never go down in price and if we see something from deregulation it will be temporary until ins co. see they are still facing huge payouts.
They won’t pay for mamogams for 20 year olds then why would we pay for Chemo on somebody 95? No death panels just common sense. So if you want every person to get the most advanced treatments at end of life and we’ll make it cheap and affordable by deregulation that just won’t work and its folly to even go down that road. You don’t like my view but it’s reality. You and the government do not know how to pay for it. They will try this that and the other taking us farther down the road to insolvency. I’m greatly concerned because healthcare won’t be there for me when I get old. And if I get cancer at 85 I’ll do what Paul Newman did, refuse treatment, handle my affairs, surround myself with family and check out.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@firefox52
…And if you drop to the floor or have a severe injury from an automobile accident and someone calls 911, everyone else will have to pay indirectly for your hospital visit, that’s one of the very big reasons why your premium went up to “469″.
Do you also drive without auto insurance? Might as well, the rest of us are paying for your “just in case” medical insurance. We might as well eat the cost of having you slam into us. Being healthy today is only one check mark in your favor, not a referendum as to whether or not you would ever need any medical care that could not afford.
Regardless of your libertarian convictions and desire for change in the medical industry, this is the way it is right now. I would love to see it change myself, but there has to be a system where everyone somehow pays into it, unless they can prove they are self-insured.
Buy some catastrophic insurance with the high deductible for now, for God’s sake and yours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@kontiki
Excuse me? You assume quite a bit and taken liberty’s with my supposed situation. I have more than enough resources to take care of any medical situation that might be in store for me. Then my Long term care kicks in after 30 days. So you see , Your senario does not quite what would happen. Yes, yes I do have car insurance and every Insurance available except Health. That I refuse to pay. In fact I probably have more INSURANCE than you do.
Now then ” My libertarian convictions ” and my disire for change lead me to believe that this is NOT the way to go. My imposing the will of the Government upon me when the Consitution especialy protects me from that happening. The way to go would be Cheaper insurance or Lower Premiums. Not mandating we buy it or else we are penalized. At todays prices the Insurance would have a ‘ Bone” and become extremely rich. No I am sorry I do not want to trade My Liberties and my Freedom because the powers that be will not tackle big Insurance. Have a good day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What will you do if you have a catostrophic illness? Doctors and hospitals don’t do a lot of charity work.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
It’s ok if YOU think, Ron Paul is the best republican to elect. But; before you do, look back at the flood of 1939 and what the republicans did to the people, and have been doing ever since. The republican candidates all say that PRESIDENT
Obama but the country in this finanicial down fall……NOTTTTTT; do you all remember; :p let me see; let me see….whats their name; ahhhhhh yea, I got it;
daddy bush, and baby bush…..republicans; and democrat alike KNOWWS how we got in this Fix….and we know why a hit was put out on Osama….ask the baby bush….Can’t we all just get along….We the people; have not forgotten…..love you……..
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
How are hospitals supposed to recoup the money required for charitable cases? This is a business – they cannot be responsible for all those how cannot pay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
These pie-in-the-sky plans that have every one paying for their own healthccare cannot work in this economy where the real unemployment rate is pushing 20 percent, and millions more are barely making ends meet putting food on the table and paying for lodging. Govenment sponsored healthcare plans have worked well on other counties, and could work well here, if we got our priorities in order, i.e. stop spending hundreds of billions on the mlitary, and stopped tihe corruption in healthcare.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
The fact is, lucky, no health care program (government sponsored, insurance or HSAs) work when people can’t pay for them. All require funding. The programs in Europe are funded through taxes, but during a recession, the government borrows money in order to maintain the money pool. In Germany, health care is a part of their social security system and has been since its inception by Bismark. It even operated during the war as my wife had her tonsils removed at a cost of a few phennigs. That would not have happened had their “trust fund” ran dry. The problem, though , with government sponsored systems is that government employees manage them and, in this country unlike Germany, congress steals from them. Insurance funded systems are no different except that the board of directors and stockholders are the theives.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@ToriAlexander
I have not used the term “deregulation” once. The only system that we know works better that the one we have now is the one we had prior to the 1990s when gov’t sponsored HMOs began to put member-owned co-ops and other free market choices out of business. And exactly what system was that? HMO’s are not a common thing now as choices for healthcare. The only thing you could be talking about is pretty much the current system, which is not working.
So I’m going to stop writing to you.
LOL, you said that last time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander
You’re the one that doesn’t seem to get it. The government is ALREADY in the healthcare business with medicare and medicaid, which seem to work pretty well. You want deregulation which is essentially what brougt the financial market to its knees. One cannot depend on “privatization” to do anything but try to increase profits, and that usually means increase cost to the consumer. A single payor system with negotiated costs is the only viable solution to really lowering healthcare costs substantially.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
@lucky85 I have not used the term “deregulation” once. The only system that we know works better that the one we have now is the one we had prior to the 1990s when gov’t sponsored HMOs began to put member-owned co-ops and other free market choices out of business. I’ve never used the term “privatization” either. It’s hopeless trying to discuss this any further if I’m just going to be your Libertarian or Republican stereotype for you. I actually voted for Obama last time around. Won’t do that again. And if Ron Paul isn’t in the race for President, I’ll vote for Jill Stein. Not my first choice but I am willing to try to work with others with whom I don’t completely agree if I think that they might listen. You, on the other hand Sir, are not listening. So I’m going to stop writing to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ToriAlexander
You’re not mentioning one of the most important things – the skyrocketing costs of hospital care, doctor’s visits, and pharmaceuticals. The government is the ONLY entity that has the authorituy to try to reign in, or negotiate lowering these costs. Every other private entity generally also has their hands in this bucket of corruption, and has no interest in lowering costs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@lucky85 You can agree with my point or not, but first you have to get it! The gov’t has been SUBSIDIZING Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry. This is why the costs are so high. I’d be great if gov’t wanted to reign them in, but they want to give the reigns to a select few. It’s called crony capitalism, or actually facist capitalism is more like it. Let’s solve that problem first, then see if there is still a need for Federal single-payer. My guess is the need would no longer be great. I don’t think there is much point in continuing this conversation as you don’t seem to be able to understand the concept of gov’t subsidy of private industry.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@ToriAlexander
We already have “government run” healthcare, which is called medicare. This works pretty well and could be used as a basis for extending basic healthcare to all. This would provide “competition” to private insurance and force them to compete. Now all they do is shell out millions to politicians to keep the gravy train of the status quo.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@lucky85 The middle class has been asking for universal health care recently only because medical costs are so high. But they’ve been driven up artificially because it’s not a free market, i.e. the gov’t is in bed with the insurance industry. If we had affordable health care for most people we wouldn’t be asking for universal health care. I’ve offered several different perspectives on this situation, including compromises and mixed solutions that might appeal to a broader range of people. But you seem to want one thing and one thing only: Federal single-payer. Maybe that would be great for you, but in a democratic society it might be more appropriate to offer choices instead. Try considering other opinions, as I have yours, and you might feel less frustrated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re simply wrong on this issue, a “free market” in healthcare would just make things worse, look at what the degulation of banks and financial institutions did – it created a catastrophe. “For profit” in a free market insures the ever spiraling upward cost of healthcare to continue.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@ToriAlexander@lucky85 Where do people get their information? The middle class has not asked for universal health care. Most work a job and are covered by their work plans. The employers and the government cannot contain the spiraling costs. That is the only reason this has come up for discussion. Medicare and medicaid will soon take up the entire tax revenue of the federal government. If free market was the easy answer to drive down costs then every country in the world would be doing it. We are also a funny country with pioneer roots. “Force us to buy insurance?” “No way, not me” (that is our attitude) But when we get sick we cry “But we are the richest country in the world why can’t I have the best medical care for free”
We hear horror stories of Canada and England. That is just smoke and mirrors to keep us from changing. Why don’t we hear “Switzerland’s healthcare costs are increasing at 1% per year and they have 98% coverage for their citizens? Then you’ll hear the same BS that we are a much bigger country and it would not work here. Well roll it out state by state then. But we all know it will work much as every multinational corporation will attest.
This ain’t going to be easy but you people need to read through the BS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lucky85@ToriAlexander Actually, the better plan is allowing citizens to have HSAs and CHI. If you are reasonably healthy, over time your HSA will amass considerable wealth and actually replace the need for medicare.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lucky85@ToriAlexander Works pretty well? It will be bankrupt in a few years that is why all of the urgency and discussion on it. That is the reason Obama had to address it because its broken not because it works well and needs to be replecated. Please just vote for Ron Paul and speak to nobody about anything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@lucky85@ToriAlexander “Works pretty well” Are you kidding me they are what is going to bankrupt the country. That is why they are pushing for reform. If it weren’t a problem we would never had heard anything about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Well I don’t quite agree, but I do respect your opinion. I think I was choosing between the lesser of two evils. And if I did chose single-payer, I’d rather have 50 single-payers, one in each state. A big federal government is not to be trusted”
The farther down the totem pole you go in politics, the more corrupt it gets. State politics is almost always more corrupt than federal, and local politics is usually the most corrupt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lucky85 I don’t necessarily disagree, though it would be more convincing if you offered some evidence to support such a general claim. And if it is true, I believe it may be the lack of interest that voters seem to take in local elections. They are distracted by federal elections, where ironically, their vote doesn’t really count. In my own local community there is horrible corruption. It’s a small rural town and most of the residents have been here for many generations. As newcomers move in, however, the status quo gets challenged, more people start debating and taking an interest in politics. My own efforts to change policy in the local school were ultimately squashed because the corrupt school board could take refuge in a federal regulations that, simply put, place the bar way to low. A few miles away from me there is a local government that is both “progressive” and “efficient” and more people vote there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.”
We’ve had “for-profit” healthcare for a long time which is what has cause this mess. Jist like socoal security (which is not “bankrupt”), the government must be able to pick up the slack for those who cannot get insurance, and by providing this true competition will be created for the now corrupted healthcare system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lucky85 As Dennis Kucinich said, we shouldn’t be demanding more affordable health insurance, but more affordable health care. The invention of the HMO, prepaid medical care (which is not really insurance), and the gov’t subsidy of these HMOs, has driven up health care costs. Ron Paul recommends that, for now, people buy catastrophe insurance and open health savings accounts. This will help stop HMOs from taking money out of the doctor-patient relationship for routine care. (If you tell your doctor you don’t have insurance and want to pay cash, he/she will likely reduce your bill by 50%) This solution is not good enough, however, as catastrophe insurance is itself too expensive for most people. Would it be so bad if we went back to what we had before the 1990s, when the middle class could afford to pay for routine care out of pocket and could afford catastrophe health insurance? and the poor were taken care of by Medicaid, which, I think, back then used to pay the hospital or doctor directly and didn’t have the poor subscribing to HMO which the gov’t then paid. State run hospitals where the poor are treated at low cost or for free: no insurance middle man. And/or charities hospitals where the poor are taken care of for free or at low cost. Why have we gotten away from this? Why would we want to gov’t to insure everybody instead just paying directly for care of those who really need it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander@lucky85 The lesson here is that the greater the number of people standing between the health care provider and the patient, the greater the cost. HSAs eliminate the middleman and CHI minimizes their interference. The problem is that if you receive health insurance from your employer, you may find it difficult to impossible to transfer your health care to an HSA and CHI mainly because the government, in collusion with the insurance industry, won’t allow it. In other words, you are denied the freedom of choice. Now, that was the situation in the 1990′s, things may be different now, but I doubt it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@john lockes ghost@ToriAlexander There really is little “competition:” between health insurance companies currently. Many of the prices for drugs and services have prices that are preset by the hospitaol or doctor, so that most health insurance companies end up charging about the same rate for the insurance acording to plan, and you have to pick up the rest of the tab. There rates are skyrocketing both because of corporate greed, and because hospital and doctor costs have gone thru the roof. The system is broke, and somebodyn needs to fix it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When my first son was born (1958) he was in hospital 7 days, my wife 3. I didn’t have health insurance, but neither did the majority of people. The cost, $ 400. Two years later my second son was born. He and wife we in hospital 3 days. I still had no health insurance, cost $ 1,000. Another two years, and we had our third son. By then I and most people had health insurance. They were in hospital 3 days, the cost, $ 2,500. Health insurance drives up the price of health care, just like withholding taxes drives up the cost of government. When you can set your own income and are confident of acquiring x amount of money, you will raise your standard of living to be just a little bit more. Health insurance, like withholding taxes, provides a floor from which the health industry and politicians operate. The only way to cut the spending, is to remove the incentive.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@john lockes ghost I agree this is the best solution currently available. However, I wish the IRS would let people open a HSA without a CHI. I checked into CHIs and, for our family, it would cost us 10% of our income (full health insurance is about 18%), and we are at the “new” poverty level: middle class. We would also only have about 6 CHIs to choose from. How can the gov’t only offer a tax break only to those who give 10% of their income to one of six big wealthy insurance companies? It’s still corporatism-fascism if we are not allowed to have HSAs without CHIs. As far as eventually getting rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, I would put that last on the list of priorities after ending the Fed, stopping the wars, decentralizing gov’t by allowing states to regulate themselves. If we did all that then maybe there would be more money available for the disadvantaged, whose numbers, one would hope, would have shrunk far below 50% of the population.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tori, you can’t have one without the other. (sounds like a song lyric) The CHI is to protect you and family members from health issues that actually threaten your life. The HSA takes care of every day health issues like fixing a minor bone break, attending to a strep throat, sprains, splinters, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the government is so evil and socialized medicine could never work, why does it work well in Canada and the majority or Europe? Those are civilized societies that believe everyone has the right to access the amazing medical technology we have in this day and age regardless of their ability to pay. We all deserve access to that technology. Don’t let this loon or any other loons that agree with him tell you otherwise. These men are barbaric uncaring savages. I can’t see it any other way.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@Anthony9097 That’s a good question. However I do hear mixed reports about the quality of care. It may be that those countries have a democratic vote on health care. What I worry about with a federal program here is that we don’t have the vote and our representatives have been bought. I would be more inclined to consider state socialized medicine, since states have democratic governments, but that’s not my preference. I’ve already described some of my ideas below. Although I would not be happy with it, I would take Single-Payer over Obama Care in any case. I have zero desire to subsidize insurance companies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander Single payer is what I am advocating! We agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Anthony9097 Well I don’t quite agree, but I do respect your opinion. I think I was choosing between the lesser of two evils. And if I did chose single-payer, I’d rather have 50 single-payers, one in each state. A big federal government is not to be trusted. Until a better solution is found, I wish we could at least get rid of the HMO system, use insurance just for catastrophes, and get the insurance industry out of Medicaid and Medicare, which should definitely be single payer. No government subsidies of the insurance industry!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Anthony9097 – “If the government is so evil and socialized medicine could never work, why does it work well in Canada and the majority or Europe? Those are civilized societies that believe everyone has the right to access the amazing medical technology we have in this day and age regardless of their ability to pay. We all deserve access to that technology.”
Where does the “technology” (and the ability to use it effectively as well as humanely) come from?
Oh, yes. The benign, wonderful, caring, loving “government” creates it out of thin air, the same way the Federal Reserve System creates “stimulus” out of thin air.
I’m sure that “Anthony9097″ is also depending upon “socialized” mechanisms to feed himself, clothe himself, house himself, fulfill his sexual desires and control his reproductive functions, breathe for him, pump his blood, and wipe his soiled little butt.
Heaven forfend that “Anthony9097″ should take any responsibility, show any initiative, even think for himself in this life.
Anyone care to look at the perfect antithesis of a Ron Paul supporter?
Then I give you “Anthony 9097,” the consummate example of Odumbo’s most prized constituency.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
@Tucci78You know well that technology comes from socialized democracies just as much as the US. Your argument is totally erroneous and its also a strawman. You answered a question I didn’t ask. Why do socialist democracies have such good healthcare? Don’t dance around the question. If only the free market can bring success why has Europe always been our equal in healthcare and quality of life if not better? They work 35 hours a week with benefits. Because of you are a sucker and worship corporations you are worse off no matter how many people you insult.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Very good point . “Socialized” medicine works well in a number of countries. The idea is foreign to us in U.S., though, because we have grown up with health insurance tied to having a job. Health insurers always try to keep the “healthy” groups, and drop the “unhealthy” ones, which means if you are not healthy, you have to pay very high premiums, or go w/o heatlhcare. Extending medicare to all in some form would go a long way towards giving at least basic insurance to everyone, and getting rid of the corruption would reduce the cost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“From my very limited knowledge of economics I understand that any government interference with market forces screw the whole system up and causes inflation – ?”
You do remember the market meltdown which forced some of the bailouts. The repug’s deregulation of banks and financial institutions led to this financial disaster. The government (i.e.the people) needs to be involved regulating these industries because they tend to be easily corrupted. Pure capitalism is a proven failure, only a mixture of capialism and socialism is viable in today’s world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I would like to add that I advocate, unlike Paul, not getting rid of the income tax, but allowing people to donate the amount that they would pay to the government to charities instead”
“Voluntary” contributions would never fly, as many would not give, or give much less than they would wth an income tax. This also doesn’t address people with no jobs and no money, somebody else is stll going to have to foot the bill for them. As far as taxes go, a national sales tax is also a bad idea, as it is very regressive. The poor wold pay much more as a percentage of their income than the rich. Letting “charities” pick up the slack is also a bad idea, as there would be no consistent rules to go by, as each charitiy would used the money as they saw fit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lucky85@Tucci78 I said that donations to charities could be obligatory, in lieu of taxes; I did not say “voluntary.” Everybody seems to want a plan to fix everything instantly. Not possible. What would be possible would be to increase dramatically the charitable tax deduction. Paul is always for deductions! This would be one of the few deductions that most Democrats might approve. It would be a step in the right direction, for tax payers would get more of a say how their money is used to help the disadvantaged instead of being wasted by the government. The 50% deduction we have now is ridiculously low. It gives only 17 cents on the dollar at the most! Make it 300% for the top earners and 600% for the lower end. You can’t just get rid of the income tax immediately. You would have to phase it out. And, in a better world where Paul is elected, as government agencies are closed down, non-profits would pick up the slack. Accordingly, tax deductions for donations would go higher and higher.
This would not be “putting a gun” to someone’s head, Tucci78, to make them give to charity. It would be giving them the OPTION not to pay taxes and give to any charity instead. You can’t have it all your way tomorrow. But we can at least talk about what sort of steps might work to go in the direction that you want to go.
As some one who has worked as a volunteer with non-profits for 15 years, I know they tend to do a lot for very little. The IRS has pretty strict rules already for charities. People who say trying to encourage Americans to be more charitable “won’t fly” are just projecting their own selfish natures on others. Ron Paul, you’ve noticed I’m sure, projects his charitable nature on others. And he’s called naive for that. Well, I’d rather follow a naive charitable man than a cynical selfish one.
Yes, we need free markets in the sense of markets that are not subsidized by the government, but we need a strong charity and non-profit sector too. I wish Paul’s slogan were “Liberty and Charity.” He’d get more votes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lucky85 Our current tax code is regressive where the rich pay less than the middle class. But most of all its all a waste of money. Reread the “Fair – Tax” imho it is the only way to go. The benefits are so many. Btw, the current proposed Fair Tax plan has “Family consumption allowance” which I believe needs to be removed. It just leaves another avenue for the tax law to be exploited.
This talk of donations to charities makes my skin crawl. I can only imagine the number of fillings for start up charitable organizations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Ron Paul does stand a chance. Don’t kid yourself on that issue. That is why the discussion of health care is so important on this forum. As far as Tucci78, I’m making no judgement. I just want to understand the proposed health care here in its entirety”
Paul is too way out in right field to garner enough of the moderate vote to get the nomination. He also is old, which doesn’t help his chances. He looks like a retiree, and people are wanting the younger more vibrant candidate. That’s partly why Obama won the presidency.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@lucky85 Obama won because the economy imploded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
On H. pylori as causative of upper GI inflammation and malignant neoplasia, Tami had written:
“I don’t use Wikipedia. It was addressed well in my pathogenic microbiology class. My father has Barretts Esophagus. I understand the process. I never stated that the bacteria was good. I said that it may not be the problem. What I mean is that something else allows it to do what it does, opens the gateway so to speak. Many carry it and are unaffected. They have yet to determine why. It’s supporting that treatments are dynamic. It’s amazing how things change so quickly.”
The proper response to the contention that H. pylori infection is not a predisposing factor in the development of Barrett’s esophagus and other upper gastrointestinal disorders evokes Ring Lardner:
“The race may not always be to the swift, nor victory to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”
All medical diagnosis and treatment – like it or not – is predicated upon the best possible appreciation of probabilities, and is from first to last a matter of calculated risk.
Quibble about H. pylori infection however we like, patients presenting with upper GI inflammation or evidence of malignant disease who are also found to be harboring Helicobacter pylori infection can be expected with high levels of reliability to benefit by way of the eradication of that infection.
And that’s the way to bet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tucci78 I didn’t say it was causative. I said that my father has Barrett’s. What I meant is that I had researched the topic further when he was diagnosed. The appropriate response would have been made out of kindness actually. This is why nurses are so much better with their patients than doctors. I would never even think about attempting to make them feel stupid or insignificant to make myself feel better about myself or for any other reason. Good luck. While you are sitting here demeaning everyone I will be making this world a better place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tami Thanks Tami for your thoughts and questions. Some people are listening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tami – “I didn’t say [H. pylori infection] was causative. I said that my father has Barrett’s. What I meant is that I had researched the topic further when he was diagnosed.”
I didn’t say that H. pylori infection was causative in your father’s case. I know about the epidemiology and etiology of Barrett’s esophagitis, and note that it’s reliable to infer such in the differential diagnosis of particular cases.
If somebody involved in his evaluation and care didn’t rule out H. pylori infection in your father’s case, that failure was malpractitionate deviation from standard-of-care.
I don’t get your need for a “There, there, you poor dear!” expression of sympathy in a Web comments exchange, but I’m male, and men tend to focus on solving the problem to whatever extent might be possible, and the assuagement of emotional upset is almost never anything about which we really give a damn.
I should start faking it for you? Nah.
I’ve got a very good idea of what my own personal cause of death is going to be, and while it can be deferred, I know it can’t be avoided. I don’t particularly need or want any Internet stranger’s sympathy, and to the extent that there’s any emotional load associated with the subject, I’m concerned with how my dependents and other family members are going to take it.
The grandkids haven’t yet lost anybody who’s figured as large in their lives as I have, and though I know they’ll get over it, I still – quite uselessly – fret about it. Oh, well.
Oh, yeah. If what I write makes you personally “feel stupid or insignificant,” they’re YOUR feelings.
I don’t, can’t, and don’t particularly desire to control those feelings of yours.
You want to consider getting a grip on yourself?
Nobody else can do it for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is how I imagine a solution. Would anyone care to comment? First of all, that the private insurance companies are gone. Poof. All the profits that the insurance companies enjoyed are now in the coffers of doctors and hospitals. All of a sudden the price of medical care drops. Most people can now afford to pay out-of-pocket for routine care. Some people start living healthier life styles to avoid having to pay out-of-pocket more than they really must.
But there’s a problem. Catastrophic illnesses and accidents can still wipe out a family’s wealth. So, just as they did in Europe in the 1600s, communities start forming insurance cooperatives. Individuals each pay a certain amount into a big pool, and only those in serious need of medical help collect benefits. There are no stock-holders to pay and the administrators of the cooperative earn salaries agreed upon by the members. Such non-profit organizations existed in the U.S. right up until the time the government decided to start subsidizing HMOs, which put member-owned insurance cooperatives out of business by offering lower rates and more benefits, initially. Once co-ops were history, the rates went up and the benefits went down. There’s no reason (except current government restrictions) that we can’t go back to co-ops now. Or let the hospitals themselves run the co-operative, in the sense of selling health memberships. Hospitals might be in the best position to play the role of insuring their members as well as promoting health by providing free/mandatory wellness care.
But there will always be those who, through fault of their own or no fault of their own, have no money or who have prior illness and so are not be able to afford even low-cost care or insurance. Although I’m not religious, I think we need churches if only for the charity work they do. While we all tend to open our hearts to the hard-working poor who fall upon bad times, who but the church will help the undeserving poor and feel good about it? They are in the business of bringing souls into their fold and are motivated to be charitable. I’d listen to a sermon or two from someone who saved my life. But fewer charities and community-based solutions exist today because the government moved in, Wallmart-like, and put the Mom and Pops out of business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander What about chronic disease? Define catastrophic as you are applying it. There are many diseases, like autoimmune, that require high and ongoing costs. I’m not sure that you are defining catastrophic that way. I can assure you that the ongoing costs break people. Catastrophic means to me an occurrence vs. ongoing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tami To me any illness that’s so costly it would be devastating financially is a catastrophe. But I think different co-ops would set the bar differently. I would like to add that I advocate, unlike Paul, not getting rid of the income tax, but allowing people to donate the amount that they would pay to the government to charities instead. Libertarians would get to “do what they want with their money” more or less and socialist-types might be happy with such a compromise. Non-profits are much more efficient that government, by far! And charity is a virtue the government should encourage. Very few people feel virtuous when they pay their taxes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander@Tami – “…I advocate … not getting rid of the income tax, but allowing people to donate the amount that they would pay to the government to charities instead.”
Well, charity at gunpoint has at least the virtue of the victim’s limited discretion in determining how and where his stolen money is going to be spent.
I don’t mean to be crude about it, but it’s entirely too much like forcible rape being mitigated by its conduct in a comfortable bed, with candle light, soft music, scented lubricants and first-rate condoms.
Gad.
If the government-approved “charities” don’t include options which allow the taxed persons to “do what they want with their money” – something like spending it to the benefit of their own family members, or on capital investment in their own businesses – their rights are still violated, aren’t they?
Your proposed “charity” at gunpoint is REALLY supposed to be some kind of “virtue”?
Very good intentions, I’m sure.
But you know what they say about the destination to which the use of such paving material inevitably leads.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tucci78 While analogy can be used positively in, say, the creative arts, it is an inappropriate form of argument. It is actually rhetoric, aimed to manipulate rather than to get at truth. My condolences to your friends and family for the ill fortune that you believe charitable obligation is “like rape.” While I do not believe that we have a human right to health services, education and so forth, I am willing to say we have a human obligation to be charitable. If you disagree (go live on an island by yourself or) donate your money to a cause that will benefit you and yours, if indirectly. Maybe you’d like a wing in a museum bearing your name or if that’s not likely a bench with a plaque. Whatever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander – “While I do not believe that we have a human right to health services, education and so forth, I am willing to say we have a human obligation to be charitable.”
If you empower the officers of government to ENFORCE such an “obligation,” then by definition you’re use of the word “charitable” is a farce, and the rape analogy is precisely apposite.
There’s a difference between a voluntary choice to do something out of fellow-feeling and loving kindness (which is the motive behind charity) and as a politically-ordained alternative to armed robbery.
If you fail to acknowledge this difference, then you’re divorced from factual reality, and you’re no longer participating in this exchange under the pretense that you’re either sane or honest.
As for my alleged desire for postmortem tributes, I’ve no such vanities, and I find something disquieting and unclean in the personae of people – like former Ku Klux Klansman (and therefore model Democrat politician) Robert Byrd – who strive obscenely so to secure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tucci78 I’m suggesting that the government offer another option, in lieu of paying taxes, a real charitable deduction not a meaningless one. If you think offering more options is “like rape,” then you are just weird. I feel a duty to help my neighbor and that sense of obligation comes from within. Obviously that is too difficult for you to understand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander – “I’m suggesting that the government offer another option, in lieu of paying taxes, a real charitable deduction not a meaningless one. If you think offering more options is ‘like rape,’ then you are just weird. I feel a duty to help my neighbor and that sense of obligation comes from within. Obviously that is too difficult for you to understand.”
So what you’re saying is that while the government is raping us, we should demand the option to relax and enjoy it?
Beyond your endless yammer about charity at gunpoint as some kind of alleged set of “options” (who determines what sort of eleemosynary undertakings will qualify as any sort of permitted “real charitable deduction”?) there’s also the ABSOLUTELY real question you refuse to discuss – and which I’ve mentioned at least once already – about whether or not any sorts of “charitable deduction” actually result in beneficial outcomes.
Let alone the effective use of resources.
What might become popular as a taxpayer-elected “charitable deduction” alleged to serve a health care benefit? Is it really what the recipients of such measures actually need?
Moreover, is it what they want? What they’ll TOLERATE or, instead, fight off like guerillas being commanded to have their children castrated?
Ever read that Henry Thoreau quotation? Goes:
“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design to do me good, I should run for my life…”
As I’ve already observed, we all know where the road leads when your kind of good intentions get turned into paving material by government thugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander@Tucci78 Your charity solution will only create a million sham charities for people to launder money through. Your heart is in the right place but solution is not realistic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JohnZappatos@ToriAlexander – “Your charity solution will only create a million sham charities for people to launder money through.”
First, consider that government-mandated charitable undertakings (coercively funded and managed by politicians and bureaucrats whose motives and conduct make the descriptor “corrupt” a tautology) are in and of themselves “sham” undertakings which do enormous damage as an inevitable matter of course.
Second, consider that the role of “sham charities” being employed as vehicles for criminals “to launder money through” goes away all but completely as unconstitutional statutes criminalizing the production, sale, and use of psychoactive substances – the “War on (Some) Drugs” – is brought to a close, and other opportunities for extragovernmental organized crime (EOC) dry up and blow away.
Third, “sham charities” also disappear as an end is brought to the unnecessary and (16th Amendment notwithstanding) unconstitutional unapportioned direct federal taxation upon wages, salaries, commissions, profits – and even waitresses TIPS for ghodsake – subsumed falsely under the heading of “income tax” is brought crashing to an end.
No need to claim deductions to such “sham charities” if you aren’t being ripped off every pay period by that unlawful federal gouge, right?
Certainly, legitimately charitable undertakings will involve wasteful and ineffective expenditures. It’s the nature of imperfect knowledge as well as the hell of all “good intentions.”
But as I’ve observed, private voluntary charitable efforts contain within their methods and operations much more responsive negative feedback mechanisms than do politically-ordained “entitlement” programs, which become little bureaucratic empires that are as hard as cockroaches to kill.
And much more damaging, not to mention filthier and more disease-raddled.
Private charities which fail to “do good” in the eyes of their donors will – and do – die. They go out of existence.
Government programs?
Nope. The worse they fail, it always seems, the more funding they receive from the politicians. Isn’t it always so?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was saying to Tori, I don’t want a way to pay taxes to be with a charitable contribution. I’m not sure where you were going…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Hospitals might be in the best position to play the role of insuring their members as well as promoting health by providing free/mandatory wellness care.
”
This has proven to be false, as in the case of Humana Inc., who found that running both an insurance company and owning hospitals was a conflict of interest. They ended up splitting the company in two, one for the insurance, and one for the hospitals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ToriAlexander This needs to be looked at more closely (co-ops). We also need to educate our citizens about end of life. With today’s technology we can basically keep anybody hooked up to a machine indefinitely. So when is the end? Does a 92 year old man need a pace maker? Does a 90 year old person need cancer treatment? Does a 40yr old person complaining of anal itch need a colonoscocopy? I’ve seen all of these done and I truly believe one major problem is most doctors didn’t get into medicine to help people but for the money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tucci78 is a bitter old man that (maybe) was a doctor who claims to know everything, and obviously knows little. I worked in health care for years both for insurance companies and hospitals, and know how both operate. We need to get the “profit” out healthcare to have any chance of creating a viable healthcare system, because the profit motive(don’t pay for any more than you have to) goes counter to good healthcare, where more may be needed.
If tucci wants to back his fello Ahole who hasn’t got a chance in hell of getting the nomination , let him play in his little insane asylum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lucky85 – Now we’ve got this lying psychotic piece of shit claiming to have “…worked in health care for years both for insurance companies and hospitals, and know how both operate.”
Yet another unsupported assertion on the part of “lucky,” and yet another completely unreasoning excuse for argument on a subject under discussion in this forum.
First and foremost, even were “lucky” to be in some impossible fashion as well-educated and experienced as he manifestly is not, these completely yanked-out-of-his-ass claims of authoritative expertise would afford him no credibility. There’s truth to the old cartoon caption that “On the Internet, nobody can tell you’re a dog.”
All a disputant has in his presentations on a Web board such as this one is an intrinsically sound statement of his position supported by factual information which can be verified by the readers here, in many cases with active URL references or the mention of otherwise published back-up. This kind of support (as I’ve mentioned) this “lucky” son of a bitch has never yet provided.
It’s a pretty reliable characteristic of such flaming idiots in their online conduct.
Second, the obvious hostility of “lucky” to the concept of profit is gibbering insanity. As I’ve observed, the conduct of productive activity in a division of labor society requires a feedback mechanism that informs producers about whether or not what they’re doing is really needed by other human beings. Profit is the most efficient and effective mode of feedback, not only functioning as an incentive but serving an objectively measurable indication of the degree to which the particular activity is valuable relative to other activities in terms of the utilization of time, energy, capital, and other resources.
Again, the laws of economics at work.
I submit that no person could ever have gained a Masters’ degree in business administration (MBA) without the sort of lucid understanding of these laws of economics, nor would such a person fail to express that understanding in exchanges such as these.
Therefore “lucky” here is neither truthful about his own personal past history and qualifications to speak nor is he offering reasonable or reasoned contention on these subjects.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tucci78@lucky85 “Profit is the most efficient and effective mode of feedback, not only functioning as an incentive but serving an objectively measurable indication of the degree to which the particular activity is valuable relative to other activities in terms of the utilization of time, energy, capital, and other resources.” Good point. But that doesn’t mean charging $500 for a months supply of medication is reasonable. It places undue hardship on those needing the medication.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tucci78@lucky85 I also understand that the more competition there is in the market the better the options and lesser the cost to consumers. Is this correct?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Public Postings@lucky85 – “But that doesn’t mean charging $500 for a months supply of medication is reasonable.”
I would tend heartily to agree. It’s for this reason that I was taught in medical school and in clinical training (and have continued to learn in clinical practice) to “squeeze the eagle ’til it screams” by keeping my eye on such pharmacotherapeutic costs and the best possible lower-priced alternatives.
Part of the reason for these extremely high prices charges for on-patent “innovator” medicines is that pharmaceuticals manufacturers are compelled by FDA regulations to suffer enormous costs in both drug development and the process of getting prior approval from the federal government to put their products on the market for ANY clinical purpose.
The history of the FDA – especially since the thalidomide kerfluffle half a century ago – has to be studied in detail to understand how safety testing can be completed quickly and inexpensively and very effectively but the government’s imposition of EFFICACY testing requirements makes getting FDA marketing approval incredibly costly and unspeakably prolonged (remember, “time IS money” especially when it comes to drug testing).
It’s also generally acknowledged to be clinically useless, but I keep getting told that I go on at too much length already.
Getting rid of efficacy testing as a requirement for marketing approval would impose no risk on the American people while enabling pharma manufacturers to cut their prices enormously.
We can get rid of the FDA altogether later. THIS, however, we could do tomorrow.
Why not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Public Postings@lucky85 – “I also understand that the more competition there is in the market the better the options and lesser the cost to consumers. Is this correct?”
You betcha. It’s one of the reasons why the American Medical Association (institutionally speaking, not the majority of the few remaining American physicians and surgeons who belong to the Association) hate Dr. Paul’s ever-living guts.
He does keep pointing out that fact, doesn’t he?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tucci78@lucky85 I concur – what about the 10 year patent that companies have for a name brand drug that prevents a generic from being created until then? Where does this regulation come from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Public Postings@lucky85 – “what about the 10 year patent that companies have for a name brand drug that prevents a generic from being created until then? Where does this regulation come from?”
The protection of patents – intellectual property (IP) rights – is specifically written into the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8). Prior to 1995, the duration of patent protection was 17 (seventeen) years, not 10 (ten).
The Uruguay round agreements were the basis of revision in 1995, extending patent protection from 17 to 20 (twenty) years.
The idea behind patent rights protections has always been to ensure that innovators will be accorded an incentive not only to devise new technologies but also to open those technologies to public regard. In pharmacology, this is EXTREMELY important inasmuch as keeping such advantages secret (the only prior means of protecting innovation from copycat emulation) imposes tremendously increased risks from adverse effects such as congener sensitivities, drug-drug and drug-food interactions, etc.
As it is, the FDA and EMEA marking approvals processes make excruciatingly thorough exposition of not only the drug substances and formulation methods matters of public knowledge but also the details of manufacturing (under the aegis of current good manufacturing processes [cGMP]).
This enables generics manufacturers (India’s Dr. Reddy has long been notorious for this) to reformulate pharmaceuticals still under patent protection in these United States and the other Uruguay Round signatory nations, and “bootleg” them wherever they can get away with it.
It’s part of the reason why antiretroviral (ARV) drugs devised for the treatment of HIV-1 infection tend to be used in ways that facilitate the widespread development of treatment-resistant strains of the AIDS virus all over the Third World.
If you’ve got a better idea to address these and other concerns for which patent protections were devised, I’d be delighted to read it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lucky85 Ron Paul does stand a chance. Don’t kid yourself on that issue. That is why the discussion of health care is so important on this forum. As far as Tucci78, I’m making no judgement. I just want to understand the proposed health care here in its entirety.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0