Boy........Did we ever get Schlonged

[Flopper]

Lets do that. When you get sick & can't fork out the $500k, we drag your fat ass to the dumpster.

There are other options beside that. Stop being so emotional. There's family and friend's. There's loans. There's your community and finally there is Medicaid.

Yes, there are always ways to get medical care even if you don't have insurance or money. However, it takes time and time is precious if you have an aggressive cancer. The one thing in life you never want to hear is, "If only you had got to us sooner...", particularly if it's your 6 year old daughter. Believe me, I know.

If you have an aggressive cancer, the deal is already sealed. But then again, if we socialize medicine there will be long wait times anyway. I have yet to see a government program that has worked as intended. We already have enough bad attitude medical professionals, we can hardly expect their attitudes to improve once they become government employees.

No, the deal is not sealed if you have an aggressive cancer. I can testify to that.

I lived in Europe for nearly a year used the French healthcare system which is government supported. I never had long wait for appointments, usually only a couple of days. In the US, I'm lucky if I can get an appointment in two weeks. Also in France you can go to a consulting pharmacy and get prescription drugs for common ailments without seeing a doctor. Not only is their healthcare system easily accessible but my cost were less than in the US even though I was not a resident of France. I got prescription drugs that cost over two hundred a month in the US for a fraction of the price.

I'm sure there are countries where there are long waits for certain medical services. However that is the case in US. I just made an appointment with a dermatologist for Jan 24th which was their first available appointment.

The US healthcare system is no better or worst than it was before Obamacare. It's just more expensive and more people have access to it. Until the day comes we have a single payer system, US healthcare is going to be more expensive and less effective.

That is not the experience my friend from the UK tells me about. Not even close.

Well, those are my experiences.

My wife and I take prescription drugs that cost $1700/mo or $900 with insurance purchased at Walgreens. We started purchasing these drugs through Canada last year at a cost $294/mo. These drugs are exactly the same medications. In fact they are manufactured in the same plants as the US equivalents.

Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.

So why is there such a huge difference in what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to the rest of world? Several reasons. First, there is no completion because the most popular drugs have 20 year patents that can often be extended. Secondly, most countries have very few organizations buying drugs which allows them to negotiate very low prices. In the US, there are several thousand organizations buying prescription drugs and the largest, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices which puts an upward price bias on every drug sold in the US.

While Obamacare has increased the number of people covered by insurance and has provided additional coverage, it has done nothing to lower the cost of healthcare.

 

[ding]

So you are no longer claiming jobs created when the government contracts for a new building are not jobs & the work has no value. You are progressing here.

I never said they weren't jobs that were created. I said that they were being paid with the money we gave them and that there was no value created by it because the government is inefficient in everything they do. When they get involved in anything, costs go up. They don't have a balance sheet they have to answer to. So if you really need to see this as some victory because your ego is fragile, go for it. That doesn't change what I wrote, or how rational individuals who are not overly emotional will evaluate this exchange.

You believe that corporations will do the right thing.

When did I say that? I said they are accountable to a balance sheet. They are accountable for profits and losses. They must be efficient with their capital. The government doesn't have to be. The federal government which you so dearly love and want to get bigger and bigger and take care of your every need is a lousy creator of value, such that they don't create value at all.

Most intelligent people know that Corporations need to be regulated.

I never said they didn't. The question is one of degree. You love government so much that you want them to control everything. You probably want them to regulate prices, wages and profits, don't you? That's communism.

And cut the right wing crap claiming it is about me waning free stuff. You are being the typical asshat. I have worked all my life & never took any government help along the way. We need a federal government to protect our country, steer it in the right direction by doing things like not polluting the crap out of it so some corporation can add billions to their bottom line. To set regulations to prevent corporations from nearly killing this country again. Corpoirations cry & you are sofa king duped, that you carry their banner. It is people like you who got us a shyster like Donald Trump.

You want the government to be your nanny. There isn't anything you don't want your government to not do.

The religion of socialism worships big government and social policy.

Fuck off. That's all I hear from dumbasses like you. I work for a living & take care of myself. All you people do is blame Government for your miserable little lives.

I think you have that backwards. I'm not the one who wants big government. Therefore, I have no needs that need to be filled. All of us work for a living and take care of ourselves. It's that some, like yourself, believe that more government is better. My life is good without government regulation. Would you like for government to regulate wages, prices and profits? Would you like for government to control all aspects of society?

 

[ding]

There are other options beside that. Stop being so emotional. There's family and friend's. There's loans. There's your community and finally there is Medicaid.

Yes, there are always ways to get medical care even if you don't have insurance or money. However, it takes time and time is precious if you have an aggressive cancer. The one thing in life you never want to hear is, "If only you had got to us sooner...", particularly if it's your 6 year old daughter. Believe me, I know.

If you have an aggressive cancer, the deal is already sealed. But then again, if we socialize medicine there will be long wait times anyway. I have yet to see a government program that has worked as intended. We already have enough bad attitude medical professionals, we can hardly expect their attitudes to improve once they become government employees.

No, the deal is not sealed if you have an aggressive cancer. I can testify to that.

I lived in Europe for nearly a year used the French healthcare system which is government supported. I never had long wait for appointments, usually only a couple of days. In the US, I'm lucky if I can get an appointment in two weeks. Also in France you can go to a consulting pharmacy and get prescription drugs for common ailments without seeing a doctor. Not only is their healthcare system easily accessible but my cost were less than in the US even though I was not a resident of France. I got prescription drugs that cost over two hundred a month in the US for a fraction of the price.

I'm sure there are countries where there are long waits for certain medical services. However that is the case in US. I just made an appointment with a dermatologist for Jan 24th which was their first available appointment.

The US healthcare system is no better or worst than it was before Obamacare. It's just more expensive and more people have access to it. Until the day comes we have a single payer system, US healthcare is going to be more expensive and less effective.

That is not the experience my friend from the UK tells me about. Not even close.

Well, those are my experiences.

My wife and I take prescription drugs that cost $1700/mo or $900 with insurance purchased at Walgreens. We started purchasing these drugs through Canada last year at a cost $294/mo. These drugs are exactly the same medications. In fact they are manufactured in the same plants as the US equivalents.

Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.

So why is there such a huge difference in what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to the rest of world? Several reasons. First, there is no completion because the most popular drugs have 20 year patents that can often be extended. Secondly, most countries have very few organizations buying drugs which allows them to negotiate very low prices. In the US, there are several thousand organizations buying prescription drugs and the largest, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices which puts an upward price bias on every drug sold in the US.

While Obamacare has increased the number of people covered by insurance and has provided additional coverage, it has done nothing to lower the cost of healthcare.

I agree that's a real problem. When government colludes with big business, nasty things happen. Same goes for when government colludes with religion. I'm not a proponent of either. Drug companies have been raping us for years. We can't compete with their lobbyists. That's what happens when free market principles get overridden. If I were you, I'd by the Costco brand of pepcid.

 

[Flopper]

IRS is not a job?

Any civilian government job really isn't a real job, it's a liability people with real jobs have to pay taxes to pay for that so called job.
Anyway, the IRS unconstitutional... And should be abolished

So a job is not a job if the wrong people p[at for it?
When the Federal Government hires a contractor to build a building, these aren't jobs? You keep blabbing this crap & it is ridiculous.

No, it's a job, but it does not create value. Unless you want communism, the government does not create value.

So why would building a new Trump Tower be different than creating a new FBI center? Do the workers get paid or not. Do the buildings not have value? You are quite naive & misinformed.

Sure, they do get paid. But in the case of the federal government they are paying us from the money they got from us. As for the value, the government has never been known as efficient. The only thing we can count of with the government is that when they get involved in anything, costs will go up. In the business world we must get a return on our investment. That doesn't apply to the government. They don't have a balance sheet.

I will agree that jobs created by the private sector are preferable to that of government. However, to say that government doesn't create jobs because it relies on taxes to do so is nonsense and here's why. Money for government jobs do not all come from taxes. Much of government expenditures come from deficit financing which of course adds to a debt that will never be paid off. Secondly, those taxes if left in the hands of the public will not necessarily go into investments or expenditures that produces American jobs. Some of it will go abroad to create jobs in others countries. Some of it will be invested government bonds. Some it will be used in unproductive way such as profits that will just build cash reserves or be paid to foreigner investors, or failing business enterprises, etc. So we can not say that every dollar not collected in taxes is going to go to producing US jobs.

 

[ding]

Any civilian government job really isn't a real job, it's a liability people with real jobs have to pay taxes to pay for that so called job.
Anyway, the IRS unconstitutional... And should be abolished

So a job is not a job if the wrong people p[at for it?
When the Federal Government hires a contractor to build a building, these aren't jobs? You keep blabbing this crap & it is ridiculous.

No, it's a job, but it does not create value. Unless you want communism, the government does not create value.

So why would building a new Trump Tower be different than creating a new FBI center? Do the workers get paid or not. Do the buildings not have value? You are quite naive & misinformed.

Sure, they do get paid. But in the case of the federal government they are paying us from the money they got from us. As for the value, the government has never been known as efficient. The only thing we can count of with the government is that when they get involved in anything, costs will go up. In the business world we must get a return on our investment. That doesn't apply to the government. They don't have a balance sheet.

I will agree that jobs created by the private sector are preferable to that of government. However, to say that government doesn't create jobs because it relies on taxes to do so is nonsense and here's why. Money for government jobs do not all come from taxes. Much of government expenditures come from deficit financing which of course adds to a debt that will never be paid off. Secondly, those taxes if left in hands of public will not necessarily go into investment or expenditures that produces American jobs. Some of it will go abroad to create jobs in others countries. Some it will be used in unproductive way such as profits that will just build cash reserves or be paid to foreigner investors, or failing business enterprises, etc. So we can not say that every dollar not collected in taxes is going to go to producing jobs.

I agree. Please do go on.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, there are always ways to get medical care even if you don't have insurance or money. However, it takes time and time is precious if you have an aggressive cancer. The one thing in life you never want to hear is, "If only you had got to us sooner...", particularly if it's your 6 year old daughter. Believe me, I know.

If you have an aggressive cancer, the deal is already sealed. But then again, if we socialize medicine there will be long wait times anyway. I have yet to see a government program that has worked as intended. We already have enough bad attitude medical professionals, we can hardly expect their attitudes to improve once they become government employees.

No, the deal is not sealed if you have an aggressive cancer. I can testify to that.

I lived in Europe for nearly a year used the French healthcare system which is government supported. I never had long wait for appointments, usually only a couple of days. In the US, I'm lucky if I can get an appointment in two weeks. Also in France you can go to a consulting pharmacy and get prescription drugs for common ailments without seeing a doctor. Not only is their healthcare system easily accessible but my cost were less than in the US even though I was not a resident of France. I got prescription drugs that cost over two hundred a month in the US for a fraction of the price.

I'm sure there are countries where there are long waits for certain medical services. However that is the case in US. I just made an appointment with a dermatologist for Jan 24th which was their first available appointment.

The US healthcare system is no better or worst than it was before Obamacare. It's just more expensive and more people have access to it. Until the day comes we have a single payer system, US healthcare is going to be more expensive and less effective.

That is not the experience my friend from the UK tells me about. Not even close.

Well, those are my experiences.

My wife and I take prescription drugs that cost $1700/mo or $900 with insurance purchased at Walgreens. We started purchasing these drugs through Canada last year at a cost $294/mo. These drugs are exactly the same medications. In fact they are manufactured in the same plants as the US equivalents.

Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.

So why is there such a huge difference in what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to the rest of world? Several reasons. First, there is no completion because the most popular drugs have 20 year patents that can often be extended. Secondly, most countries have very few organizations buying drugs which allows them to negotiate very low prices. In the US, there are several thousand organizations buying prescription drugs and the largest, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices which puts an upward price bias on every drug sold in the US.

While Obamacare has increased the number of people covered by insurance and has provided additional coverage, it has done nothing to lower the cost of healthcare.

I agree that's a real problem. When government colludes with big business, nasty things happen. Same goes for when government colludes with religion. I'm not a proponent of either. Drug companies have been raping us for years. We can't compete with their lobbyists. That's what happens when free market principles get overridden. If I were you, I'd by the Costco brand of pepcid.

Yes, Costco does have good prices on prescription drugs.

I don't agree that leaving healthcare to the free market is a good idea. Now if we were talking about selling potatoes, I would agree.

If we left healthcare to the free market with no government intervention, healthcare would be provided just like any product in the free market. The best healthcare goes to wealthy. Those who can't afford good healthcare get bad or none. I don't think most people in our society would want to live like that.

Now argument can be made that getting government out of healthcare would bring down prices which is certainly true but even if it cut healthcare cost in half, it would be well above the means of most people. Of course people could turn to insurance. However since insurance would be deregulated it would be designed to maximize premiums and minimize payments which do to complexity of insurance and healthcare, it would make it a bad option for most people.

Lastly, free markets work well only when the customer is able evaluate the quality of the goods or services in relation to price. Due to complexity and the uncertainty of healthcare this would be impossible.

 

[ding]

If you have an aggressive cancer, the deal is already sealed. But then again, if we socialize medicine there will be long wait times anyway. I have yet to see a government program that has worked as intended. We already have enough bad attitude medical professionals, we can hardly expect their attitudes to improve once they become government employees.

No, the deal is not sealed if you have an aggressive cancer. I can testify to that.

I lived in Europe for nearly a year used the French healthcare system which is government supported. I never had long wait for appointments, usually only a couple of days. In the US, I'm lucky if I can get an appointment in two weeks. Also in France you can go to a consulting pharmacy and get prescription drugs for common ailments without seeing a doctor. Not only is their healthcare system easily accessible but my cost were less than in the US even though I was not a resident of France. I got prescription drugs that cost over two hundred a month in the US for a fraction of the price.

I'm sure there are countries where there are long waits for certain medical services. However that is the case in US. I just made an appointment with a dermatologist for Jan 24th which was their first available appointment.

The US healthcare system is no better or worst than it was before Obamacare. It's just more expensive and more people have access to it. Until the day comes we have a single payer system, US healthcare is going to be more expensive and less effective.

That is not the experience my friend from the UK tells me about. Not even close.

Well, those are my experiences.

My wife and I take prescription drugs that cost $1700/mo or $900 with insurance purchased at Walgreens. We started purchasing these drugs through Canada last year at a cost $294/mo. These drugs are exactly the same medications. In fact they are manufactured in the same plants as the US equivalents.

Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.

So why is there such a huge difference in what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to the rest of world? Several reasons. First, there is no completion because the most popular drugs have 20 year patents that can often be extended. Secondly, most countries have very few organizations buying drugs which allows them to negotiate very low prices. In the US, there are several thousand organizations buying prescription drugs and the largest, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices which puts an upward price bias on every drug sold in the US.

While Obamacare has increased the number of people covered by insurance and has provided additional coverage, it has done nothing to lower the cost of healthcare.

I agree that's a real problem. When government colludes with big business, nasty things happen. Same goes for when government colludes with religion. I'm not a proponent of either. Drug companies have been raping us for years. We can't compete with their lobbyists. That's what happens when free market principles get overridden. If I were you, I'd by the Costco brand of pepcid.

Yes, Costco does have good prices on prescription drugs.

I don't agree that leaving healthcare to the free market is a good idea. Now if we were talking about selling potatoes, I would agree.

If we left healthcare to the free market with no government intervention, healthcare would be provided just like any product in the free market. The best healthcare goes to wealthy. Those who can't afford good healthcare get bad or none. I don't think most people in our society would want to live like that.

Now argument can be made that getting government out of healthcare would bring down prices which is certainly true but even if it cut healthcare cost in half, it would be well above the means of most people. Of course people could turn to insurance. However since insurance would be deregulated it would be designed to maximize premiums and minimize payments which do to complexity of insurance and healthcare, it would make it a bad option for most people.

Lastly, free markets work well only when the customer is able evaluate the quality of the goods or services in relation to price. Due to complexity and the uncertainty of healthcare this would be impossible.

The patent protection is the antithesis of free market. If that were done away with, what would be your complaint then on prescription drugs?

 

[Flopper]

No, the deal is not sealed if you have an aggressive cancer. I can testify to that.

I lived in Europe for nearly a year used the French healthcare system which is government supported. I never had long wait for appointments, usually only a couple of days. In the US, I'm lucky if I can get an appointment in two weeks. Also in France you can go to a consulting pharmacy and get prescription drugs for common ailments without seeing a doctor. Not only is their healthcare system easily accessible but my cost were less than in the US even though I was not a resident of France. I got prescription drugs that cost over two hundred a month in the US for a fraction of the price.

I'm sure there are countries where there are long waits for certain medical services. However that is the case in US. I just made an appointment with a dermatologist for Jan 24th which was their first available appointment.

The US healthcare system is no better or worst than it was before Obamacare. It's just more expensive and more people have access to it. Until the day comes we have a single payer system, US healthcare is going to be more expensive and less effective.

That is not the experience my friend from the UK tells me about. Not even close.

Well, those are my experiences.

My wife and I take prescription drugs that cost $1700/mo or $900 with insurance purchased at Walgreens. We started purchasing these drugs through Canada last year at a cost $294/mo. These drugs are exactly the same medications. In fact they are manufactured in the same plants as the US equivalents.

Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.

So why is there such a huge difference in what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to the rest of world? Several reasons. First, there is no completion because the most popular drugs have 20 year patents that can often be extended. Secondly, most countries have very few organizations buying drugs which allows them to negotiate very low prices. In the US, there are several thousand organizations buying prescription drugs and the largest, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices which puts an upward price bias on every drug sold in the US.

While Obamacare has increased the number of people covered by insurance and has provided additional coverage, it has done nothing to lower the cost of healthcare.

I agree that's a real problem. When government colludes with big business, nasty things happen. Same goes for when government colludes with religion. I'm not a proponent of either. Drug companies have been raping us for years. We can't compete with their lobbyists. That's what happens when free market principles get overridden. If I were you, I'd by the Costco brand of pepcid.

Yes, Costco does have good prices on prescription drugs.

I don't agree that leaving healthcare to the free market is a good idea. Now if we were talking about selling potatoes, I would agree.

If we left healthcare to the free market with no government intervention, healthcare would be provided just like any product in the free market. The best healthcare goes to wealthy. Those who can't afford good healthcare get bad or none. I don't think most people in our society would want to live like that.

Now argument can be made that getting government out of healthcare would bring down prices which is certainly true but even if it cut healthcare cost in half, it would be well above the means of most people. Of course people could turn to insurance. However since insurance would be deregulated it would be designed to maximize premiums and minimize payments which do to complexity of insurance and healthcare, it would make it a bad option for most people.

Lastly, free markets work well only when the customer is able evaluate the quality of the goods or services in relation to price. Due to complexity and the uncertainty of healthcare this would be impossible.

The patent protection is the antithesis of free market. If that were done away with, what would be your complaint then on prescription drugs?

Without patent protection, there would be no new drugs. What drug company is going to spend tens of millions of dollar developing a drug only to have it cloned the day it hits the market.

 

[bripat9643]

That is not the experience my friend from the UK tells me about. Not even close.

Well, those are my experiences.

My wife and I take prescription drugs that cost $1700/mo or $900 with insurance purchased at Walgreens. We started purchasing these drugs through Canada last year at a cost $294/mo. These drugs are exactly the same medications. In fact they are manufactured in the same plants as the US equivalents.

Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.

So why is there such a huge difference in what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to the rest of world? Several reasons. First, there is no completion because the most popular drugs have 20 year patents that can often be extended. Secondly, most countries have very few organizations buying drugs which allows them to negotiate very low prices. In the US, there are several thousand organizations buying prescription drugs and the largest, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices which puts an upward price bias on every drug sold in the US.

While Obamacare has increased the number of people covered by insurance and has provided additional coverage, it has done nothing to lower the cost of healthcare.

I agree that's a real problem. When government colludes with big business, nasty things happen. Same goes for when government colludes with religion. I'm not a proponent of either. Drug companies have been raping us for years. We can't compete with their lobbyists. That's what happens when free market principles get overridden. If I were you, I'd by the Costco brand of pepcid.

Yes, Costco does have good prices on prescription drugs.

I don't agree that leaving healthcare to the free market is a good idea. Now if we were talking about selling potatoes, I would agree.

If we left healthcare to the free market with no government intervention, healthcare would be provided just like any product in the free market. The best healthcare goes to wealthy. Those who can't afford good healthcare get bad or none. I don't think most people in our society would want to live like that.

Now argument can be made that getting government out of healthcare would bring down prices which is certainly true but even if it cut healthcare cost in half, it would be well above the means of most people. Of course people could turn to insurance. However since insurance would be deregulated it would be designed to maximize premiums and minimize payments which do to complexity of insurance and healthcare, it would make it a bad option for most people.

Lastly, free markets work well only when the customer is able evaluate the quality of the goods or services in relation to price. Due to complexity and the uncertainty of healthcare this would be impossible.

The patent protection is the antithesis of free market. If that were done away with, what would be your complaint then on prescription drugs?

Without patent protection, there would be no new drugs. What drug company is going to spend tens of millions of dollar developing a drug only to have it cloned the day it hits the market.

A new drug costs $500 million to a $billion dollars to bring to market.

 

[ding]

That is not the experience my friend from the UK tells me about. Not even close.

Well, those are my experiences.

My wife and I take prescription drugs that cost $1700/mo or $900 with insurance purchased at Walgreens. We started purchasing these drugs through Canada last year at a cost $294/mo. These drugs are exactly the same medications. In fact they are manufactured in the same plants as the US equivalents.

Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.

So why is there such a huge difference in what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to the rest of world? Several reasons. First, there is no completion because the most popular drugs have 20 year patents that can often be extended. Secondly, most countries have very few organizations buying drugs which allows them to negotiate very low prices. In the US, there are several thousand organizations buying prescription drugs and the largest, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices which puts an upward price bias on every drug sold in the US.

While Obamacare has increased the number of people covered by insurance and has provided additional coverage, it has done nothing to lower the cost of healthcare.

I agree that's a real problem. When government colludes with big business, nasty things happen. Same goes for when government colludes with religion. I'm not a proponent of either. Drug companies have been raping us for years. We can't compete with their lobbyists. That's what happens when free market principles get overridden. If I were you, I'd by the Costco brand of pepcid.

Yes, Costco does have good prices on prescription drugs.

I don't agree that leaving healthcare to the free market is a good idea. Now if we were talking about selling potatoes, I would agree.

If we left healthcare to the free market with no government intervention, healthcare would be provided just like any product in the free market. The best healthcare goes to wealthy. Those who can't afford good healthcare get bad or none. I don't think most people in our society would want to live like that.

Now argument can be made that getting government out of healthcare would bring down prices which is certainly true but even if it cut healthcare cost in half, it would be well above the means of most people. Of course people could turn to insurance. However since insurance would be deregulated it would be designed to maximize premiums and minimize payments which do to complexity of insurance and healthcare, it would make it a bad option for most people.

Lastly, free markets work well only when the customer is able evaluate the quality of the goods or services in relation to price. Due to complexity and the uncertainty of healthcare this would be impossible.

The patent protection is the antithesis of free market. If that were done away with, what would be your complaint then on prescription drugs?

Without patent protection, there would be no new drugs. What drug company is going to spend tens of millions of dollar developing a drug only to have it cloned the day it hits the market.

Really? No new drugs? How certain or you of that? Given that they sell their exact same products at much lower prices in the rest of the world, I seriously doubt there would be no new products.

 

[RealDave]

So you are no longer claiming jobs created when the government contracts for a new building are not jobs & the work has no value. You are progressing here.

I never said they weren't jobs that were created. I said that they were being paid with the money we gave them and that there was no value created by it because the government is inefficient in everything they do. When they get involved in anything, costs go up. They don't have a balance sheet they have to answer to. So if you really need to see this as some victory because your ego is fragile, go for it. That doesn't change what I wrote, or how rational individuals who are not overly emotional will evaluate this exchange.

You believe that corporations will do the right thing.

When did I say that? I said they are accountable to a balance sheet. They are accountable for profits and losses. They must be efficient with their capital. The government doesn't have to be. The federal government which you so dearly love and want to get bigger and bigger and take care of your every need is a lousy creator of value, such that they don't create value at all.

Most intelligent people know that Corporations need to be regulated.

I never said they didn't. The question is one of degree. You love government so much that you want them to control everything. You probably want them to regulate prices, wages and profits, don't you? That's communism.

And cut the right wing crap claiming it is about me waning free stuff. You are being the typical asshat. I have worked all my life & never took any government help along the way. We need a federal government to protect our country, steer it in the right direction by doing things like not polluting the crap out of it so some corporation can add billions to their bottom line. To set regulations to prevent corporations from nearly killing this country again. Corpoirations cry & you are sofa king duped, that you carry their banner. It is people like you who got us a shyster like Donald Trump.

You want the government to be your nanny. There isn't anything you don't want your government to not do.

The religion of socialism worships big government and social policy.

Fuck off. That's all I hear from dumbasses like you. I work for a living & take care of myself. All you people do is blame Government for your miserable little lives.

I think you have that backwards. I'm not the one who wants big government. Therefore, I have no needs that need to be filled. All of us work for a living and take care of ourselves. It's that some, like yourself, believe that more government is better. My life is good without government regulation. Would you like for government to regulate wages, prices and profits? Would you like for government to control all aspects of society?

You accused me of something. Man up & admit it. You want fewer regulations. Under your buddy Trump, you are likely to get just that. Dirtier air, dirtier water, more greenhouse gases emissions, the path to another near financial collapse.

 

[RealDave]

Well, those are my experiences.

My wife and I take prescription drugs that cost $1700/mo or $900 with insurance purchased at Walgreens. We started purchasing these drugs through Canada last year at a cost $294/mo. These drugs are exactly the same medications. In fact they are manufactured in the same plants as the US equivalents.

Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.

So why is there such a huge difference in what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to the rest of world? Several reasons. First, there is no completion because the most popular drugs have 20 year patents that can often be extended. Secondly, most countries have very few organizations buying drugs which allows them to negotiate very low prices. In the US, there are several thousand organizations buying prescription drugs and the largest, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices which puts an upward price bias on every drug sold in the US.

While Obamacare has increased the number of people covered by insurance and has provided additional coverage, it has done nothing to lower the cost of healthcare.

I agree that's a real problem. When government colludes with big business, nasty things happen. Same goes for when government colludes with religion. I'm not a proponent of either. Drug companies have been raping us for years. We can't compete with their lobbyists. That's what happens when free market principles get overridden. If I were you, I'd by the Costco brand of pepcid.

Yes, Costco does have good prices on prescription drugs.

I don't agree that leaving healthcare to the free market is a good idea. Now if we were talking about selling potatoes, I would agree.

If we left healthcare to the free market with no government intervention, healthcare would be provided just like any product in the free market. The best healthcare goes to wealthy. Those who can't afford good healthcare get bad or none. I don't think most people in our society would want to live like that.

Now argument can be made that getting government out of healthcare would bring down prices which is certainly true but even if it cut healthcare cost in half, it would be well above the means of most people. Of course people could turn to insurance. However since insurance would be deregulated it would be designed to maximize premiums and minimize payments which do to complexity of insurance and healthcare, it would make it a bad option for most people.

Lastly, free markets work well only when the customer is able evaluate the quality of the goods or services in relation to price. Due to complexity and the uncertainty of healthcare this would be impossible.

The patent protection is the antithesis of free market. If that were done away with, what would be your complaint then on prescription drugs?

Without patent protection, there would be no new drugs. What drug company is going to spend tens of millions of dollar developing a drug only to have it cloned the day it hits the market.

Really? No new drugs? How certain or you of that? Given that they sell their exact same products at much lower prices in the rest of the world, I seriously doubt there would be no new products.

You mran the research funded by the big bad evil GOVERNMENT? OMG OMG OMG

 

[ClosedCaption]

I take it you missed the recent WTO airbus ruling that proved that the Europeans are subsidizing their exports by the billions to make sure those jobs left here and went there.

Without that cheating, there would be thousands more Boeing jobs in this country today. Hell, there would still be Lockheed and McDonnel-Douglas jobs.


And if that cheating is stopped, or even reduced, many of those jobs will come back.

Is Boeing a coal company or did you just change the topic?

The topic is jobs. Rust belt is mostly manufacturing jobs. West Virginia is mining jobs.

I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post.

But the Coal Jobs will come back. THe demand has been artificially suppressed and once that pressure is removed, coal usage will increase.

I specifically commented on the Coal jobs you referred to in the first post. Once I made the point that they're jobs wont come back either way you flipped to jobs in general, which was not the discussion until you tried to change it

And I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post. Incorrectly. I see that now.

My point on coal jobs stands. Kudos for West Virginia for rejecting the woman who had promised to rip the economic heart out of their state and then sort of kind of walked it back.

Coal's biggest problem is being beat out by natural gas.

Either Correll knows this already and thats why he keeps changing the subject or he doesnt know and believes its the fault of regulations and Hillary. How? He cant explain that part tho

 

[Correll]

Is Boeing a coal company or did you just change the topic?

The topic is jobs. Rust belt is mostly manufacturing jobs. West Virginia is mining jobs.

I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post.

But the Coal Jobs will come back. THe demand has been artificially suppressed and once that pressure is removed, coal usage will increase.

I specifically commented on the Coal jobs you referred to in the first post. Once I made the point that they're jobs wont come back either way you flipped to jobs in general, which was not the discussion until you tried to change it

And I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post. Incorrectly. I see that now.

My point on coal jobs stands. Kudos for West Virginia for rejecting the woman who had promised to rip the economic heart out of their state and then sort of kind of walked it back.

Coal's biggest problem is being beat out by natural gas.

Either Correll knows this already and thats why he keeps changing the subject or he doesnt know and believes its the fault of regulations and Hillary. How? He cant explain that part tho

YOur inability to understand that multiple factors effect something is fairly shocking.

Sure, competition from dropping Gas Prices is a problem for coal production and coal producing regions.

That's factor is a good thing for the nation over all, and is not something we want to change for the benefit of West Virginia.


ON the other hand, government policy and hostility is an artificial factor that hurts coal employment and thus West Virginia, that we can easily fix to the benefit of American citizens in West Virginia.


I'm not sure how this is beyond you. Or are you just playing dumb?

 

[bripat9643]

The topic is jobs. Rust belt is mostly manufacturing jobs. West Virginia is mining jobs.

I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post.

But the Coal Jobs will come back. THe demand has been artificially suppressed and once that pressure is removed, coal usage will increase.

I specifically commented on the Coal jobs you referred to in the first post. Once I made the point that they're jobs wont come back either way you flipped to jobs in general, which was not the discussion until you tried to change it

And I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post. Incorrectly. I see that now.

My point on coal jobs stands. Kudos for West Virginia for rejecting the woman who had promised to rip the economic heart out of their state and then sort of kind of walked it back.

Coal's biggest problem is being beat out by natural gas.

Either Correll knows this already and thats why he keeps changing the subject or he doesnt know and believes its the fault of regulations and Hillary. How? He cant explain that part tho

YOur inability to understand that multiple factors effect something is fairly shocking.

Sure, competition from dropping Gas Prices is a problem for coal production and coal producing regions.

That's factor is a good thing for the nation over all, and is not something we want to change for the benefit of West Virginia.


ON the other hand, government policy and hostility is an artificial factor that hurts coal employment and thus West Virginia, that we can easily fix to the benefit of American citizens in West Virginia.


I'm not sure how this is beyond you. Or are you just playing dumb?

No. He really is that stupid. These leftwing douche bags can only repeat what they are told. They can't figure things out on their own.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The topic is jobs. Rust belt is mostly manufacturing jobs. West Virginia is mining jobs.

I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post.

But the Coal Jobs will come back. THe demand has been artificially suppressed and once that pressure is removed, coal usage will increase.

I specifically commented on the Coal jobs you referred to in the first post. Once I made the point that they're jobs wont come back either way you flipped to jobs in general, which was not the discussion until you tried to change it

And I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post. Incorrectly. I see that now.

My point on coal jobs stands. Kudos for West Virginia for rejecting the woman who had promised to rip the economic heart out of their state and then sort of kind of walked it back.

Coal's biggest problem is being beat out by natural gas.

Either Correll knows this already and thats why he keeps changing the subject or he doesnt know and believes its the fault of regulations and Hillary. How? He cant explain that part tho

YOur inability to understand that multiple factors effect something is fairly shocking.

Here we go...The usual demeaning bullshit citing some lack of intelligence that cant be described....boring

Sure, competition from dropping Gas Prices is a problem for coal production and coal producing regions.

That's factor is a good thing for the nation over all, and is not something we want to change for the benefit of West Virginia.

So after saying I dont understand you agree with what I've said this whole time. Who is the one that doesnt understand again?

ON the other hand, government policy and hostility is an artificial factor that hurts coal employment and thus West Virginia, that we can easily fix to the benefit of American citizens in West Virginia.


I'm not sure how this is beyond you. Or are you just playing dumb?

There you go again, citing feelings like "hostility" or just saying vague things like "government policy". I've said this whole time coal jobs arent coming back. You keep saying I'm wrong then in the same post 2 sentences down you admit I'm right.

You're boring

 

[ClosedCaption]

I specifically commented on the Coal jobs you referred to in the first post. Once I made the point that they're jobs wont come back either way you flipped to jobs in general, which was not the discussion until you tried to change it

And I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post. Incorrectly. I see that now.

My point on coal jobs stands. Kudos for West Virginia for rejecting the woman who had promised to rip the economic heart out of their state and then sort of kind of walked it back.

Coal's biggest problem is being beat out by natural gas.

Either Correll knows this already and thats why he keeps changing the subject or he doesnt know and believes its the fault of regulations and Hillary. How? He cant explain that part tho

YOur inability to understand that multiple factors effect something is fairly shocking.

Sure, competition from dropping Gas Prices is a problem for coal production and coal producing regions.

That's factor is a good thing for the nation over all, and is not something we want to change for the benefit of West Virginia.


ON the other hand, government policy and hostility is an artificial factor that hurts coal employment and thus West Virginia, that we can easily fix to the benefit of American citizens in West Virginia.


I'm not sure how this is beyond you. Or are you just playing dumb?

No. He really is that stupid. These leftwing douche bags can only repeat what they are told. They can't figure things out on their own.

He calls everyone stupid, then admits they're right after that. Then makes sure to end it with pretending the person he just agreed with is stupid again.

 

[Correll]

I specifically commented on the Coal jobs you referred to in the first post. Once I made the point that they're jobs wont come back either way you flipped to jobs in general, which was not the discussion until you tried to change it

And I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post. Incorrectly. I see that now.

My point on coal jobs stands. Kudos for West Virginia for rejecting the woman who had promised to rip the economic heart out of their state and then sort of kind of walked it back.

Coal's biggest problem is being beat out by natural gas.

Either Correll knows this already and thats why he keeps changing the subject or he doesnt know and believes its the fault of regulations and Hillary. How? He cant explain that part tho

YOur inability to understand that multiple factors effect something is fairly shocking.

Here we go...The usual demeaning bullshit citing some lack of intelligence that cant be described....boring

Sure, competition from dropping Gas Prices is a problem for coal production and coal producing regions.

That's factor is a good thing for the nation over all, and is not something we want to change for the benefit of West Virginia.

So after saying I dont understand you agree with what I've said this whole time. Who is the one that doesnt understand again?

ON the other hand, government policy and hostility is an artificial factor that hurts coal employment and thus West Virginia, that we can easily fix to the benefit of American citizens in West Virginia.


I'm not sure how this is beyond you. Or are you just playing dumb?

There you go again, citing feelings like "hostility" or just saying vague things like "government policy". I've said this whole time coal jobs arent coming back. You keep saying I'm wrong then in the same post 2 sentences down you admit I'm right.

You're boring

There are TWO factors in discussion.


1. Competition from Gas. I have readily agreed that that is a part of the issue. I never said or implied otherwise.

2. Government policy. Which is easily changed.


This is not "admitting that the jobs are not coming back".

 

[Dot Com]

Don't mean to rub it in but yeah, rightwinger is correct. You Dem Establ- type and gender voters got shlonged but good. Ignore the salt of the earth/rural populations at your own peril.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And I thought you were referring to the Rust Belt portion of my post. Incorrectly. I see that now.

My point on coal jobs stands. Kudos for West Virginia for rejecting the woman who had promised to rip the economic heart out of their state and then sort of kind of walked it back.

Coal's biggest problem is being beat out by natural gas.

Either Correll knows this already and thats why he keeps changing the subject or he doesnt know and believes its the fault of regulations and Hillary. How? He cant explain that part tho

YOur inability to understand that multiple factors effect something is fairly shocking.

Here we go...The usual demeaning bullshit citing some lack of intelligence that cant be described....boring

Sure, competition from dropping Gas Prices is a problem for coal production and coal producing regions.

That's factor is a good thing for the nation over all, and is not something we want to change for the benefit of West Virginia.

So after saying I dont understand you agree with what I've said this whole time. Who is the one that doesnt understand again?

ON the other hand, government policy and hostility is an artificial factor that hurts coal employment and thus West Virginia, that we can easily fix to the benefit of American citizens in West Virginia.


I'm not sure how this is beyond you. Or are you just playing dumb?

There you go again, citing feelings like "hostility" or just saying vague things like "government policy". I've said this whole time coal jobs arent coming back. You keep saying I'm wrong then in the same post 2 sentences down you admit I'm right.

You're boring

There are TWO factors in discussion.

Oh boy...here you go again. Trying to get me to switch to the topic you want me too again. You've tried this already.

1. Competition from Gas. I have readily agreed that that is a part of the issue. I never said or implied otherwise.

This is the reason I said coal jobs will not be coming back. And after calling me stupid you agreed with me and then called names again.

2. Government policy. Which is easily changed.

Another vague point. Just yelling Government policy isnt addressing anything specific. Its easy like a comedian saying "how do you feel tonight?"

This is not "admitting that the jobs are not coming back".

You've already agreed with me. The same person you call stupid only to agree with then end it by calling someone stupid again.

Your fault not mine