posted on May, 25 2006 @ 03:18 PM
The question you ask is flawed. "If you had saved all of the money you were taxed for government medical programs over the last 30 years, could you
afford your medical bills?"
REPLY: No, not flawed at all.... answer the question! What happened to individual responsibility? Where does it say in the Constitution that once I
reach a certain age, I can reach into your pocket, or that of a neighbor, or someone who lives a hundred miles away, to pay for MY health costs or
medication? Please point it out if it's there.
1. On whose income? Are we talking about about somebody who makes 40k (a respectable income reflecting some degree of hard work, but still a tight
budget if you have a family) or are we talking about somebody with fewer than 3 dependents who makes 80-100k?
REPLY: On each individuals budget, of course! You plan ahead, tighten your belt, and use your own income to prepare for your future. America has
enough resources to enable most anyone to better their situation, education and income level. If you plan on a large family, then plan to make ahead
to make more money. On average, East of the big river, every male child costs $95,000 from birth to age 18; a female is $130,000. Divide that by 18
and you'll see how much more you'll have to make each year.
2. Whose medical bills? A lot of us can get through life with very little medical care, but probability is sooner or later going to catch somebody.
REPLY: Sorry....... not my problem, and your circumstances (sorry to hear you've had so many; honest) do not give you the right to take any of my
hard-earned money to pay for your problems, medical or otherwise. It's bad enough that government house robs me at gunpoint each week.
The real question here is what part of Marxism don't you understand?
Let's step back for a moment and ask ourselves the most basic question about the economy: What does it do? It distributes goods and services,
REPLY: No.... the free market allows for and sets the price of goods and services, and the distribution thereof.
"... especially where the necessities of life and communal infrastructure are concerned.
REPLY: Ahhhhh, the catch word..... "communal"; Meaning Socialist and Communist.
REPLY: Don't you do any research? Marxism/Socialism has never worked, and the economics (numbers) show it can't. Look at what's happening in
Canada. I've studied politics and economy for over 35 years, and history shows I'm correct.
A centralized system would be capable of driving down prices, thus making it possible for a communal effort to provide care for all.
REPLY: No..... a centralized, "third-party" system has never worked, because if someone else pays for your care, you don't care HOW much it costs.
If someone else payed for a new car for you, would you buy a Lexus or a Volkswagon?
A billion dollar industry is way beyond profit motive; it's taking advantage of having the customer on the horns of a dillema: making someone choose
between life and livelihood.
REPLY: That's part of the problem, as too many people are trying to live beyond what nature or "God" intends. Way beyond profit motive???? Over
64% of seniors are invested, and part of their income is made from those evil drug companies. Ask them, or those who actually work making the drugs
we use, if THEY hate how much the drug companies make. Ask the carpenters, automakers, electricians, plumbers, etc, if THEY hate the fact some
executive makes lots of money.
You can have a government sponsored research lab, working at-cost with good six figure sallaries, and promise 7 figure bonuses for individuals
directly linked to the innovation and it would cost far less, because you've taken out the need to provide a profit motive for investors. The profit
motive for the investors is the will of the tax payer to have a quality healthcare industry at his disposal.
REPLY: Bogus and crap-ola! You obviously don't have a clue as to how much money it takes, and how much time it takes to develop and test each and
every drug. Here's some facts for you: Out of, lets say, a hundred possible drugs a year that a company works on, only one or two actually make it
to market. It costs around 200 MILLION dollars per drug to develop and test, and 10 to 15 years. Do the math.
It will of course be suggested that nobody would want to be a doctor working for the government: I say nonsense.
REPLY: Ask those in Germany right now, who's doctors are going to other countries because of the low wages.
You can still have a high-paying industry with outcome based bonuses. I do not suggest that individual workers be pinched. I suggest that proprietary
practices and investment be eliminated and replaced with tax-payer investment.
REPLY: Not true! Case in point: 'ol Hillary got a law passed whereby our government would buy flu vaccines, and would set the price of what they
would pay. At the time, America had 23 vaccine companies. Take away the profit motive, and what do you know.... we now have only ONE vaccine company
in America. So, no matter WHO pays for it... there's none to be had. One can artificially control the price, but you can't control the COST. See
my REPLY, above.
Capitolism is the problem.
REPLY: Capitolism has doubled our life expectancy in under 100 years, and has raised the baseline of human existance above any and everything that has
come before it, in under 250 years.
What we need is a system where the tax payers hire professionals directly on a sallary basis and therefore have a right to care. No more patenting
medications or competing so that we've had 5 fold investment to develop 4 different drugs for doing the same thing- the government owns the labs,
hands them the projects, and tells them how much money they get when they pull it off.
REPLY: See all of the above.