Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
KSMountain
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
I understand that socialism is a fun word to throw around for those opposed to the current administration. But when using tax rates as evidence, it really becomes an assine assertion…Socialism, by the way, refers to government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. [/quote]
Ok, maybe not tax rates per se, but consider:
We now have a “Pay Czar”. Think about how anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise that really is.We’re going to have a new *required* health plan that people *must* participate in. There are very few precedents for things the government compels you to do. Taxes, selective service, anything else? This then adds a major new component to what it means to be a citizen. What if some folks want to do their own thing health care-wise? That’s not an option? The government is removing choice? One of the bills taxes “cadillac plans”. Why? On what basis? Why can’t a company choose to take care of its employees in the way it sees fit without arousing punishment from the government?
We’re telling companies what kind of bonuses they can give. We own AIG and GM, and half the mortgages in the country…
The senate version of the health plan taxes tanning salons 10%. What industries might be next? (actually I’d support a tax on fast food, due to societal costs, even though I admit that’s a bit anti-capitalistic of me)
The “public option” in the house bill by the way, it seems would satisfy your socialism definition of “production and distribution of goods and services”, don’t you think?
Participant[quote=jficquette]
The expense now is treating the cancer, heart disease, kidney failures etc in older people.Eliminate the disease and you won’t have to worry about the cost.
John[/quote]
People will always die of something John.
I personally don’t think immortality is imminent, and even if it were, I bet it wouldn’t be cheap.Participant[quote=jficquette]
The expense now is treating the cancer, heart disease, kidney failures etc in older people.Eliminate the disease and you won’t have to worry about the cost.
John[/quote]
People will always die of something John.
I personally don’t think immortality is imminent, and even if it were, I bet it wouldn’t be cheap.Participant[quote=jficquette]
The expense now is treating the cancer, heart disease, kidney failures etc in older people.Eliminate the disease and you won’t have to worry about the cost.
John[/quote]
People will always die of something John.
I personally don’t think immortality is imminent, and even if it were, I bet it wouldn’t be cheap.Participant[quote=jficquette]
The expense now is treating the cancer, heart disease, kidney failures etc in older people.Eliminate the disease and you won’t have to worry about the cost.
John[/quote]
People will always die of something John.
I personally don’t think immortality is imminent, and even if it were, I bet it wouldn’t be cheap.Participant[quote=jficquette]
The expense now is treating the cancer, heart disease, kidney failures etc in older people.Eliminate the disease and you won’t have to worry about the cost.
John[/quote]
People will always die of something John.
I personally don’t think immortality is imminent, and even if it were, I bet it wouldn’t be cheap.Participant[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.
We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.
Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.
A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.
Sci Fi? Nope.
John[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.[/quote]
davelj is so right. There will always be expensive treatments that are on the cutting edge of current technology. I think even if we could address some of the malpractice costs, there still would be very expensive treatments having to do with new sensors, new genetic treatments, perhaps nanotechnology, etc.
Who gets access to those – everybody? Who pays? How much does ICU cost per day? ECMO machines for preemies? I don’t think such things will ever be cheap, because there is the cost of the R&D, the engineers to implement the thing, the cost to build them, and the cost of the trained folks to operate these machines. Why does anyone think such a thing would ever be cheap? Sheesh even an apple computer or a mercedes is kind of expensive – you think an MRI machine is simpler? Plumbers get paid a good wage per hour – do you really think a surgeon will ever be cheap?
Nowadays with ventilators, etc, we can keep folks alive. We can swap organs at tremendous cost. If we spend $1 million on everyone at their end of life, and they’ve only paid in say $50k, and you do that millions of times a year, the accounting is not going to work out. The moment you accept that, if you have public health care, then you have to go to some form of “rationing” it seems to me. There will not be enough rich people in the country to pay for *everyone* to have the highest technology end of life.
It’s one thing if you say “insurance is for some surprising, unusual, catastrophic event”. But the thing is, *everyone* gets old and run down at the end, and ultimately dies.
Is it really “insurance” if you’re guaranteed to need it?
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.
We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.
Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.
A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.
Sci Fi? Nope.
John[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.[/quote]
davelj is so right. There will always be expensive treatments that are on the cutting edge of current technology. I think even if we could address some of the malpractice costs, there still would be very expensive treatments having to do with new sensors, new genetic treatments, perhaps nanotechnology, etc.
Who gets access to those – everybody? Who pays? How much does ICU cost per day? ECMO machines for preemies? I don’t think such things will ever be cheap, because there is the cost of the R&D, the engineers to implement the thing, the cost to build them, and the cost of the trained folks to operate these machines. Why does anyone think such a thing would ever be cheap? Sheesh even an apple computer or a mercedes is kind of expensive – you think an MRI machine is simpler? Plumbers get paid a good wage per hour – do you really think a surgeon will ever be cheap?
Nowadays with ventilators, etc, we can keep folks alive. We can swap organs at tremendous cost. If we spend $1 million on everyone at their end of life, and they’ve only paid in say $50k, and you do that millions of times a year, the accounting is not going to work out. The moment you accept that, if you have public health care, then you have to go to some form of “rationing” it seems to me. There will not be enough rich people in the country to pay for *everyone* to have the highest technology end of life.
It’s one thing if you say “insurance is for some surprising, unusual, catastrophic event”. But the thing is, *everyone* gets old and run down at the end, and ultimately dies.
Is it really “insurance” if you’re guaranteed to need it?
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.
We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.
Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.
A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.
Sci Fi? Nope.
John[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.[/quote]
davelj is so right. There will always be expensive treatments that are on the cutting edge of current technology. I think even if we could address some of the malpractice costs, there still would be very expensive treatments having to do with new sensors, new genetic treatments, perhaps nanotechnology, etc.
Who gets access to those – everybody? Who pays? How much does ICU cost per day? ECMO machines for preemies? I don’t think such things will ever be cheap, because there is the cost of the R&D, the engineers to implement the thing, the cost to build them, and the cost of the trained folks to operate these machines. Why does anyone think such a thing would ever be cheap? Sheesh even an apple computer or a mercedes is kind of expensive – you think an MRI machine is simpler? Plumbers get paid a good wage per hour – do you really think a surgeon will ever be cheap?
Nowadays with ventilators, etc, we can keep folks alive. We can swap organs at tremendous cost. If we spend $1 million on everyone at their end of life, and they’ve only paid in say $50k, and you do that millions of times a year, the accounting is not going to work out. The moment you accept that, if you have public health care, then you have to go to some form of “rationing” it seems to me. There will not be enough rich people in the country to pay for *everyone* to have the highest technology end of life.
It’s one thing if you say “insurance is for some surprising, unusual, catastrophic event”. But the thing is, *everyone* gets old and run down at the end, and ultimately dies.
Is it really “insurance” if you’re guaranteed to need it?
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.
We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.
Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.
A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.
Sci Fi? Nope.
John[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.[/quote]
davelj is so right. There will always be expensive treatments that are on the cutting edge of current technology. I think even if we could address some of the malpractice costs, there still would be very expensive treatments having to do with new sensors, new genetic treatments, perhaps nanotechnology, etc.
Who gets access to those – everybody? Who pays? How much does ICU cost per day? ECMO machines for preemies? I don’t think such things will ever be cheap, because there is the cost of the R&D, the engineers to implement the thing, the cost to build them, and the cost of the trained folks to operate these machines. Why does anyone think such a thing would ever be cheap? Sheesh even an apple computer or a mercedes is kind of expensive – you think an MRI machine is simpler? Plumbers get paid a good wage per hour – do you really think a surgeon will ever be cheap?
Nowadays with ventilators, etc, we can keep folks alive. We can swap organs at tremendous cost. If we spend $1 million on everyone at their end of life, and they’ve only paid in say $50k, and you do that millions of times a year, the accounting is not going to work out. The moment you accept that, if you have public health care, then you have to go to some form of “rationing” it seems to me. There will not be enough rich people in the country to pay for *everyone* to have the highest technology end of life.
It’s one thing if you say “insurance is for some surprising, unusual, catastrophic event”. But the thing is, *everyone* gets old and run down at the end, and ultimately dies.
Is it really “insurance” if you’re guaranteed to need it?
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.
We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.
Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.
A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.
Sci Fi? Nope.
John[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.[/quote]
davelj is so right. There will always be expensive treatments that are on the cutting edge of current technology. I think even if we could address some of the malpractice costs, there still would be very expensive treatments having to do with new sensors, new genetic treatments, perhaps nanotechnology, etc.
Who gets access to those – everybody? Who pays? How much does ICU cost per day? ECMO machines for preemies? I don’t think such things will ever be cheap, because there is the cost of the R&D, the engineers to implement the thing, the cost to build them, and the cost of the trained folks to operate these machines. Why does anyone think such a thing would ever be cheap? Sheesh even an apple computer or a mercedes is kind of expensive – you think an MRI machine is simpler? Plumbers get paid a good wage per hour – do you really think a surgeon will ever be cheap?
Nowadays with ventilators, etc, we can keep folks alive. We can swap organs at tremendous cost. If we spend $1 million on everyone at their end of life, and they’ve only paid in say $50k, and you do that millions of times a year, the accounting is not going to work out. The moment you accept that, if you have public health care, then you have to go to some form of “rationing” it seems to me. There will not be enough rich people in the country to pay for *everyone* to have the highest technology end of life.
It’s one thing if you say “insurance is for some surprising, unusual, catastrophic event”. But the thing is, *everyone* gets old and run down at the end, and ultimately dies.
Is it really “insurance” if you’re guaranteed to need it?
Participant[quote=SK in CV]And for the most part, since then, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer.[/quote]
Check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1%25.jpg
From this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_StatesThe article makes the interesting point that dual-income households have a big impact on the “inequality”.
Also there is a major correlation with education.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]And for the most part, since then, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer.[/quote]
Check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1%25.jpg
From this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_StatesThe article makes the interesting point that dual-income households have a big impact on the “inequality”.
Also there is a major correlation with education.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]And for the most part, since then, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer.[/quote]
Check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1%25.jpg
From this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_StatesThe article makes the interesting point that dual-income households have a big impact on the “inequality”.
Also there is a major correlation with education.
-
AuthorPosts
