Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baffler]

Don't be so quick to take it as representative. The only reason people ever really go to town hall events is to yell at somebody so they tend to be very opposition heavy for the same reason you can count on people at a party rally to be supporters/members.

[EnigmaticHat]

Single payer would legitimately make money appear out of nowhere, simply because our current system is that much worse than everyone else.

Well, I mean, to rephrase.  Its such a large change that I'm sure the transition would be expensive and risky.  But our healthcare system is REALLY inefficient by GDP.  And it also results in a generally low level of care for a developed nation (although that would be a wall of text unto itself).

Edit: To be clear tho, even if single payer would result in increased taxes I would still support it

[redwallzyl]

what i don't understand is people railing against the fine when they don't get insurance. every other type of insurance is mandatory for a reason.

[Rolan7]

It's a little more complicated than car insurance, I guess.  There it's "the other person gets nothing if you can't pay".  There's a clear victim.  Whereas with health care the victim is...  I guess hospitals?  See, I don't even know if the government reimburses them for providing care to the destitute.  Obviously the money is coming from *somewhere*, but it's not some specific person, much less one you just drove a car into.

The money's coming from somewhere with single payer, too.  It's a better bargaining position, which means big pharma gets less money.  And I'm not always 100% sure that's a good thing.  Yeah their management gets way overpaid, but that's also what literally funds life-saving research.
The fact that we (America) are chumps who can't negotiate (due to political corruption) just means we're funding said life-saving research.  And bribes, and advertisements, and dozens of summer homes, but still.

S'why I get upset when people attack trademarks too simplistically.  Yes, a good thing exists now - it's a bad precedent to just steal it from the creator.  Creation needs encouragement.

[redwallzyl]

It's a little more complicated than car insurance, I guess.  There it's "the other person gets nothing if you can't pay".  There's a clear victim.  Whereas with health care the victim is...  I guess hospitals?  See, I don't even know if the government reimburses them for providing care to the destitute.  Obviously the money is coming from *somewhere*, but it's not some specific person, much less one you just drove a car into.

The money's coming from somewhere with single payer, too.  It's a better bargaining position, which means big pharma gets less money.  And I'm not always 100% sure that's a good thing.  Yeah their management gets way overpaid, but that's also what literally funds life-saving research.
The fact that we (America) are chumps who can't negotiate (due to political corruption) just means we're funding said life-saving research.  And bribes, and advertisements, and dozens of summer homes, but still.

S'why I get upset when people attack trademarks too simplistically.  Yes, a good thing exists now - it's a bad precedent to just steal it from the creator.  Creation needs encouragement.

we actually spend hundreds of millions tens of billions in research funding already.

[sluissa]

It's a little more complicated than car insurance, I guess.  There it's "the other person gets nothing if you can't pay".  There's a clear victim.  Whereas with health care the victim is...  I guess hospitals?  See, I don't even know if the government reimburses them for providing care to the destitute.  Obviously the money is coming from *somewhere*, but it's not some specific person, much less one you just drove a car into.

The difference between car/home/whatever and health is that you technically can go without a car, or insurance on any tangible object by simply not possessing that object... but mandatory health insurance is a fee you would have to pay simply for existing...

However I do believe there was enough protection in there for people who couldn't normally pay that the small fine for people without insurance over obamacare (which was waived for low income people) is really not that big of a deal. I do see how it might violate the letter of the law though, and while I don't agree with the outcome of that case, I can't really argue against it either.

[Sheb]

The money's coming from somewhere with single payer, too.  It's a better bargaining position, which means big pharma gets less money.  And I'm not always 100% sure that's a good thing.  Yeah their management gets way overpaid, but that's also what literally funds life-saving research.
The fact that we (America) are chumps who can't negotiate (due to political corruption) just means we're funding said life-saving research.  And bribes, and advertisements, and dozens of summer homes, but still.

There is a point to be made that the overspending of US healthcare on drugs do mean that more drugs get researched (that just wouldn't be profitable without US insurers to rip off) and that in turns mean better, cheap drugs when the patents runs out. Still cheaper drug is just one of the thing single-payer would save money on. Making sure everyone has access to a doctor so they get treated early rather than saved at great costs in a ER room later would be an amazing financial boon as well.

Edit: And I really wish drug ads would be banned. There is enough evidence that they distort prescriptions (which ain't good, you want your doctor to prescribe the best, not what the pharma rep recommended) and they costs a ton of cash. Ban them and suddenly pharma company have way more money to spend on R&D.

[Rolan7]

I mean, doctors are also bought through entirely legal means.  Doctors and politicians are bought, and consumers are misled, and it's almost all above board.  (Kudos to the rules that make them list the side effects during ads, though.  We shouldn't take that for granted, it's good.)

I don't know how single payer would support research, but maybe through grants instead (as it already is, largely).  And it would be such a better bargaining position for individuals and the government, who both really want cures to be developed, so I'm sure we'd come up with something.

[Reelya]

A lot of those "new" drugs that replace the patented ones are often functionally identical but they mix and match non-functional molecular additions, get a new patent then bamboozle everyone that you gotta switch to the new one. Kind of like Microsoft, actually.

It would actually be better to make it harder to get a patent on a new version of something if you already held the patent on the old version. You'd have to show proof that the new version is objective better than the old version.

[Sergarr]

Speaking of medicine, here's something interesting:

Several lawmakers are promoting a bill by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, that would make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV, the virus that causes the immune system-weakening disease AIDS. The change would treat HIV like other communicable diseases under California law.

Under current law, if a person who knows they are infected with HIV has unprotected sex without telling their partner they have the virus, they can be convicted of a felony and face years of jail time. Intentional transmission of any other communicable disease, even a potentially deadly condition like hepatitis, is a misdemeanor.

...

Wiener’s bill, SB239, would also repeal California laws that require people convicted of prostitution for the first time to be tested for AIDS and that increase penalties for prostitution if the sex worker tested positive for AIDS in connection with a previous conviction.

The original laws were passed during the 1980s and 1990s based on incomplete and outdated science, said Dr. Edward Machtinger, director of the Women’s HIV Program at the University of California, San Francisco. Transmission rates are much lower than people believed when the laws were enacted. Modern treatment dramatically reduces the effects of the virus and chances for transmission, he said.

It's good to know that in the Liberal Land, not informing your partner of a chance that they'll get a deadly life-crippling disease is "just a misdemeanor". Having sex in California may soon become equivalent to walking on a minefield.

[Sheb]

A lot of those "new" drugs that replace the patented ones are often functionally identical but they mix and match non-functional molecular additions, get a new patent then bamboozle everyone that you gotta switch to the new one. Kind of like Microsoft, actually.

It would actually be better to make it harder to get a patent on a new version of something if you already held the patent on the old version. You'd have to show proof that the new version is objective better than the old version.

Objectively better is hard to measure. It's often worthwhile to have several versions of a drug on the market because one patient might get some idiosyncratic response to one version and be better off using the "worse" drug.

[Starver]

Edit: And I really wish drug ads would be banned. There is enough evidence that they distort prescriptions (which ain't good, you want your doctor to prescribe the best, not what the pharma rep recommended) and they costs a ton of cash. Ban them and suddenly pharma company have way more money to spend on R&D.

There's a parallel with tobacco advertising. When it was banned¹, tue companies no longer had to spend so much on advertising to not fall behind all the other brands. It was a level playing field, at sea-level, rather than a fight for the high ground on some high Alpine pasture.


¹ After years of neutered advertising that resulted in things like the "It's the blue you're looking for" posters which, as a non-smoker myself, I still looked forward to seeing the next clever "its their product, though they don't say it" advertising hoarding.  That and Russ Abbott's misfortunes and Air On A G-String on telly (though they still named the Scottish Cigar... 

[smjjames]

Speaking of medicine, here's something interesting:

-snip-

It's good to know that in the Liberal Land, not informing your partner of a chance that they'll get a deadly life-crippling disease is "just a misdemeanor". Having sex in California may soon become equivalent to walking on a minefield.

I think you're blowing it out of poportion.

Also, Wiener, heh.

Anyways, that Comey hearing is starting.

[MrRoboto75]

It's good to know that in the Liberal Land, not informing your partner of a chance that they'll get a deadly life-crippling disease is "just a misdemeanor". Having sex in California may soon become equivalent to walking on a minefield.

Indeed, we should take away their right to vote and their ability to be employed.

/s

[Strife26]

It's good to know that in the Liberal Land, not informing your partner of a chance that they'll get a deadly life-crippling disease is "just a misdemeanor". Having sex in California may soon become equivalent to walking on a minefield.

Indeed, we should take away their right to vote and their ability to be employed.

/s

Yeah, there's strong arguments that'd be a reasonable crime for not telling one's sexual partner that one has friggin HIV.