Health care victory

[cancerinform]

The last thing we need is a non-profit solution, because the greed is what makes US healthcare the driving force in innovation.

MRI.
CT Scan.
ACE Inhibitors.
Statins.
Coronary artery bypass surgery.
SSRIs.
Cataract Extraction.
Eye lens replacements.
Knee replacements.

All of these developments came from the greedy researchers in the US, out to make a buck for their own family, and the end result is better technology for the entire world. Since 1975, more Nobel Prize in medicine/physiology winners have come from the US than all other countries combined, and it's not a coincidence (nor is it a mistake) that there was a tremendous profit potential for the people doing the research.

Even though it makes for interesting movies, people don't work 80 hour weeks for academic stipends or for the love of their fellow man. They work 80 hour weeks because they know they have a potential to make life changing, retire-at-35 type money. Those 80 hour weeks in the lab working on unproven technologies are what create the breakthroughs that save lives.

You are damn wrong. If that was so, there would have been no scientific advancement ever. Researchers work on things day and night because they are purely interested in doing so. In fact money and greed is currently destroying the Universities and the research, because only certain type of research is supported. The result is that foreign countries, China or South Korea for example, are going to be ahead soon in a number research areas.

[FlashLackey]

Now you're starting to make sense.

When all else fails, everyone loves pirates.

[FlashLackey]

You are damn wrong. If that was so, there would have been no scientific advancement ever. Researchers work on things day and night because they are purely interested in doing so. In fact money and greed is currently destroying the Universities and the research, because only certain type of research is supported. The result is that foreign countries, China or South Korea for example, are going to be ahead soon in a number research areas.

It's very important that only certain types of research is supported. The type that there is a demand for. Money spent on research that there is no demand for is wasted and could have been spent on something people want and need.

There is a strong demand to stay alive. So, there will always be a strong demand for medical innovation, research, new procedures, equipment, etc.

The teachers unions are what is destroying our universities. Their greed and protectionist strong-arming keeps resources going to people who give nothing back to society in return. They've created a reward system detached from merit.

[Jeff2A]

You are damn wrong. If that was so, there would have been no scientific advancement ever. Researchers work on things day and night because they are purely interested in doing so. In fact money and greed is currently destroying the Universities and the research, because only certain type of research is supported. The result is that foreign countries, China or South Korea for example, are going to be ahead soon in a number research areas.

I posted pretty clear records showing 35 years of a for-profit country outperforming interest driving countries, and you have a counter argument of conjecture and speculation. I've been out of academia for 7 years, but my friends who still do research for a living aren't doing it out of interest in or love for the subject matter, and only a small portion of the Ph.D. professors are doing it out of interest (many of them are doing it for grant money, which is an awesome supplement to their mediocre salaries, and they weren't ashamed to admit that).

The day China passes us, it won't be because their scientists care more, it'll be because their government threw money at the problem. Money. Not caring, money. Like most conservatives (I hope), I would suggest that if the solution is spending money to fuel research, the proper avenue is through private corporations spending their profits on research that benefits their products, not widespread taxation and bureaucracy.

[atRax]

“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.

“He’s a corporatist,” Ron Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

But.. “Corporatism” is an euphemism for “fascism” isn't it?

[silverx2]

It's very important that only certain types of research is supported. The type that there is a demand for. Money spent on research that there is no demand for is wasted and could have been spent on something people want and need.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...96f58d&k=32447

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25197962/

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/...c-discoveries/

[FlashLackey]

But.. “Corporatism” is an euphemism for “fascism” isn't it?

I'm not sure what context your quote came from. But, it's a little more complicated than that.

Fascists believed that they had developed a "third position" of government that was a form of state corporatism. They objected to free market capitalism (with private corporations free to make their own decisions).

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...96f58d&k=32447

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25197962/

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/...c-discoveries/

Did you think that my argument was that wasteful research doesn't occur?

Under what context do you think that wasteful research is most likely to occur:

1) When the research decisions are made by a company that has to spend their money on the research and if it doesn't lead to a ROI, the company can go out of business.

2) When the research decisions are made by people getting grants and there are no consequences to the decision makers for whether or not the research produces anything of value.

[david petley]

I think the difference is pretty obvious. One makes a valid point and the other fails to do so.

Only if the point made by the well thought out and researched post is acknowledged and accepted by participants in any debate.

If protaganists simply decide to ignore the evidence or thinking evidenced in such posts because it doesn't sit well their point of view (this is the usual situation), then a sharp stick might be better.

The satisfaction of poking something annoying until it squeals a bit cannot be ignored. It is probably the most fullfilling thing that comes from such topics.

d

[FlashLackey]

Only if the point made by the well thought out and researched post is acknowledged and accepted by participants in any debate.

Just because a point is well thought out and researched doesn't mean that it's true or above scrutiny.

When a person responds to such posts with valid arguments, following up to such responses with ad hominem attacks makes no valid point and fails to defend the original position.

To each their own regarding what is satisfying. Personally, my pride wouldn't allow me to resort to only insults in response to a sincere argument.

[gerbick]

If protaganists simply decide to ignore the evidence or thinking evidenced in such posts because it doesn't sit well their point of view (this is the usual situation), then a sharp stick might be better

Too many people believe they are above reproach simply because they "say so" and typically don't really offer insightful opposition that's full of option and/or offers that make sense or would really help the situation - yet they demand it from others, somehow.

[david petley]

well, something we all seem to agree on then.

d

[silverx2]

[Jeff2A]

For those who still care about this stuff, this story is mostly getting lost in the Greece + Oil spill stories. House democrats learn about the concept of unintended consequences:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news...tune/index.htm

In the days after President Obama signed the bill on March 24, a number of companies announced big write downs due to some fiscal changes it ushered in. The legislation eliminated a company's right to deduct the federal retiree drug-benefit subsidy from their corporate taxes. That reduced projected revenue. As a result, AT&T (T, Fortune 500) and Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) took well-publicized charges of around $1 billion.
The announcements greatly annoyed Representative Henry Waxman, who accused the companies of using the big numbers to exaggerate health care reform's burden on employers. Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, demanded that they turn over their confidential memos, and summoned their top executives for hearings.
…
The request yielded 1,100 pages of documents from four major employers: AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and Deere (DE, Fortune 500). No sooner did the Democrats on the Energy Committee read them than they abruptly cancelled the hearings.

Nowhere in the five-page report did the majority staff mention that not one, but all four companies, were weighing the costs and benefits of dropping their coverage.

...

Edit:
"By Fortune's reckoning, each person who's dropped would cost the government an average of around $2,100 after deducting the extra taxes collected on their additional pay. So if 50% of people covered by company plans get dumped, federal health care costs will rise by $160 billion a year in 2016, in addition to the $93 billion in subsidies already forecast by the CBO".

AT&T has 280,000 employees, that's about $588M in additional federal cost alone. One day people will understand that you can't wave a pen and force companies to eat costs - they don't. They do everything they can to avoid eating costs, and this isn't going to end well.