Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

[Slade3200]

There is a big difference between somebody that makes a fortune from entertaining people versus a company that is making money from inflating the prices of medicine that could save the lives of human beings. Where people who can not afford to pay for their products suffer and/or die. Common, you know that analogy is BS.

Not one bit of difference. Both provide a product that people want. One is entertainment and one is medicine.

You don't think there is a difference between entertainment and medicine?

Y'all are crazy, consumer products are one thing, the health and well being of our citizens, of all human beings, is something that is completely different. Not everybody needs a new Porsche or pair of air Jordan's, but if somebody is sick and suffering and we have the resources and ability to ease the pain or save a life then we sure as hell better do it.

Not when it comes to the issue being discussed. None, whatsoever.

You know what this gives you bleeding hearts ANOTHER opportunity to do. Prove you have compassion for those that say they can't afford something and buy it for them with your money. You won't because your answer is always government, government, government.

You say No, then throw out a generic insult... Want to try again to make a valid point?

Are you saying that you think compassion can come from anything but a willful act by the giver? Are you saying the government should stay out of this issue?

I made a point. You refused to accept the truth of it.

There was no truth to your point... You make false assumptions and know nothing about me. I do a tremendous amount for charity and my local community. I give what I can to others. You try to paint me as something that I am not to make a pompous partisan point and you just make yourself look stupid. The government has a role to play in this whether you like it or not. They are not the end all be all solution, as I said, there is a balance. You seem unable to understand this point.

 

[Afterword]

You handle yourself well, Slade3200.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not seeing where regulations are causing the problem. It appears to be a large backlog of applications due to an ineffective department in need of an overhaul

What about the SIZE of the application required? Why do you think it takes so long to go through one of the damn things?

The size of an application isn't really a regulation, but I can see where that could make the application process run quicker... Have you seen an application? Do you know how big it is and what areas you feel are unnecessary to analyze?

The amount of regulations dictates the size and complexity of the package.

I am not intimately familiar with FDA protocols, But I deal with regulations when it comes to construction and wastewater treatment, and even those are needlessly complex and require inane amounts of reporting.

I'm just not seeing it man... Your statements seem to be based on assumptions not on fact. You can complain about the regulations in construction and wastewater management if thats what you have experience in but without knowing the FDA process you can't make an educated critique.

Personally, I don't mind a thorough application for things like drugs, construction, and utilities that directly effect the health and safety of our public. I have family that works for one of the largest water companies in the US and I understand the pain in the ass that regulations cause. I watch the city council meetings and hear the debates. In a democracy we have a responsibility to listen to the concerns of the people so if a group wants to limit development because of environmental reasons or otherwise their voices get to be heard. I don't always like it and understand the frustrations but we don't just say screw you we are a private company and we get to do whatever we want whether you like it or not.

Again, no one is saying "no regulations", the issue is government keeps adding new crap without removing the old stuff or at least incorporating it, or considering the impact of it.

Look at the boondoggle with the new "improved" portable gas containers to see the impact of "fuck you" regulations.

I'm all for reducing regulations and making them as efficient as possible. We don't talk about the details though... the specific regulations that are holding things up. It always seems to be a generic partisan debate about Big Government over regulating liberals vs. Free market capitalistic conservatives... It's an ineffective debate.

You haven't mentioned NO Regulations but others on this thread have...

 

[Dragonlady]

How are doctors and hospitals greedy?

How is big oil greedy?

Spending more than we bring in is how debt occurs.

While I'm not a big fan of lawyers, I thought whether or not you committed a crime determined guilt.

As for career politicians, that goes totally against what the founding fathers intended.

Doctors will charge whatever the traffic will bear. Similarly, for profit hospitals are beholding to their shareholders. A stay in hospital can easily rack up a bill of $100,000 in a week. Everyone wants good, cheap, fast health care. You can have two of three, but you can't have all free. Americans have opted for good and fast. And they're willing to pay twice as much as anyone else for it. Or was that the only choice they've been given?

Big oil makes the most money and pays the least taxes of any of the "bigs". Oil being so necessary to the economy and all. But I disagree that $40.00 a barrel oil should do more than cut the price of gas in half. Americans already have some of the cheapest petroleum products in the world. While the price of crude has dropped substantially, the costs of refining it haven't gone down. So I'm good with $2.40 gas.

No, cutting taxes without first balancing the budget is going to increase the debt. It happened under Reagan, it happened under W. Creating new programs or departments without specific taxes to pay for them, increases the deficit, e.g. Department of Homeland Security created under W's administration, massive budget, all on the credit card, Medicaid Part D - another unfunded program which continues to add to the deficit.

And let's be really, really clear - Republican Presidents increase the deficit, like the sun rising in the east. Reagan was very critical of Carter's deficits and promised to balance the budget after he'd been in office for two years. Instead, he doubled the deficit, and by the end of his second term, tripled it. The last President to have a balanced budget, Bill Clinton, managed to do so while raising both taxes and the minimum wage - two things conservatives tell us kill jobs and reduce revenues.

And what does Trump propose to do - cut taxes and spend, spend, spend.

 

[Wyatt earp]

With no FDA how do we prevent dangerous drugs from flooding the market?

That's a good question.

Think if there were no federal agency regulating electrical appliances and devices? Millions would die from electrocution and fires each year, because ONLY government cares for you..

Oh wait, there in fact IS NO SUCH FEDERAL AGENCY...

So millions MUST be dying from electrical appliances, I mean, ONLY government can save us from the greedy capitalist pigs..

Except that who REALLY does it is something called "Underwriters Laboratories." Any appliance you buy has a U/L registration number on it. U/L is 100% voluntary and 100% private.

HOW CAN THIS BE? Only government can save us - as you have repeatedly claimed. To be 100% safe we need 100% government - it's the democrat credo. Yet U/L, with a record of success hundreds of times better than the FDA is voluntary, and private.

The answer is simple, consumers demand safe products, We don't want to die in electrical fires, and the greedy running dog capitalist pig insurance companies didn't want to pay life and fire insurance claims for electrical fires. So the UNDERWRITERS of the insurance policies developed a system of testing and rating that is vastly more effective than government efforts such as the FDA.

I'm not doubting the the FDA creates a long approval process and has much room for better efficiency but I haven't heard one person site specifically what "red tape" measures are erroneous, per this discussion.

What if the generic epipens were failing and dangerous?

Once again, U/L and IEEE have far better records of protecting public safety than the Phen-Fen FDA does.

Its nice that you have such faith in companies and consumers but your scenario is just not reality. Look at history and look at other countries that have no regulations. You use electronics as an example? How about you review something that is an actual risk or threat to life and health... Medicine, Food, Transportation, Energy etc.

We aren't talking about protecting people from a malfunctioning iPhone, we are talking about human lives.

Look at examples, like:

Contaminated Medicine that has resulted in many deaths around the world:
List of medicine contamination incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polluted food and water sources causing Typhoid fever and other illnesses resulting in death and illness:
The 10 Deadliest Outbreaks in U.S. History -- Revisited | Food Safety News

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:
Policy Impact: Seat Belts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

The nuclear weapons plant in Colorado that illegally dumped and polluted the surrounding land with radio active waste:
Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:

One seat belts don't "save a life" it prolongs it

Two it's bull shit that seat belt use had any effect on people's lives. in fact it makes people more reckless drivers.


Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts



John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

 

[Slade3200]

Its nice that you have such faith in companies and consumers but your scenario is just not reality. Look at history and look at other countries that have no regulations. You use electronics as an example? How about you review something that is an actual risk or threat to life and health... Medicine, Food, Transportation, Energy etc.

We aren't talking about protecting people from a malfunctioning iPhone, we are talking about human lives.

Look at examples, like:

Contaminated Medicine that has resulted in many deaths around the world:
List of medicine contamination incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That can't be! You have your beloved government to protect you.

Polluted food and water sources causing Typhoid fever and other illnesses resulting in death and illness:
The 10 Deadliest Outbreaks in U.S. History -- Revisited | Food Safety News

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:
Policy Impact: Seat Belts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

The nuclear weapons plant in Colorado that illegally dumped and polluted the surrounding land with radio active waste:
Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But GOVERNMENT is that answer to all questions, how is it possible that adulterated food and drugs exist with our crack FDA on the case?

Oh and moron, U/L deals with electric stoves, pool pumps, electric heaters, etc. Stuff that will kill you dead in an instant if it malfunctions.

Unlike your beloved government - U/L has a sterling record. As does the IEEE who designed the grid that carries 480 volt power to you apartment and the government agency you're employed with.

Another cop out answer... I've said multiple times that the government owns a big part of the problem. But you keep painting me with that ignorant partisan brush... I'm about done with you

 

[Conservative65]

You don't think there is a difference between entertainment and medicine?

Y'all are crazy, consumer products are one thing, the health and well being of our citizens, of all human beings, is something that is completely different. Not everybody needs a new Porsche or pair of air Jordan's, but if somebody is sick and suffering and we have the resources and ability to ease the pain or save a life then we sure as hell better do it.

In what regard?

Entertainment doesn't take decades of research and development to create, medicine does.

You Communists are killing to goose laying to golden eggs. Yes, you can nationalize Epipens and all other life saving drugs. You can crow about how GLORIOUS PEOPLES STATE gives to all what the running dog capitalist pigs would charge for.

Oh but that cancer treatment that the "greedy" drug companies were working on? It will never come about - because the only reason that the creators wracked their brains to makes these life saving marvels was to make a buck.

You Communists can steal what exists, and it's clear that you will - but it all stops here. There will be no more progress, because those with the talent and brains won't create knowing you will just steal anything they create.

This happens every time you greedy fucks get power. You steal everything that isn't tied down and then wonder why people quit producing?

Your world, the kleptocracy you are building, will never stand. It never does.

Why is everything so extreme with dumbshits like you? You don't consider the reality that there is balance and everything. Express one bit of opinion that the government should regulate or participate in the safety and well being of its citizens and we are communist? Wake up. You say that entertainment and medicine are equal? Consumer products the same as life-saving products? I guess if you walk by somebody being raped on the side of the street you can choose to stand there and watch or just keep on walking or you can do something about it. There is no rule stating that you need to intervene in that case, however it is a matter of good and evil, right and wrong. There's an element of humanity that's involved in medicine and helping those who suffer. I guess you don't possess that element.

It's not just one opinion, it's EVERY opinion that the government should take care of things.

You say there is balance but the problem is people like you are the ones that want to make the determine of when it's balanced while expecting the rest of us to simply agree with you.

Both are consumer products. Purchased by consumers. Used by consumers.

Funny how you say there is an element of humanity involved in medicine yet your answer is the other guy should be the one to take the hit. You claim you have that humanity yet your answer is for the other guy to do something rather than you purchasing those items for someone that says they can't afford them. You can't show the humanity you claim by placing the action on someone else. For you to show yours, you have to take the action personally.

Do you really not hold the company responsible at all for inflating the price, cornering the market and taking advantage of consumers and our healthcare system? If they played this one fair nobody would be complaining. They're actions clearly take a potentially life saving device out of the hands of many many people who need it. Nothing about that seems wrong to you?

It's actions like these that cause uproar by citizens and lead to the strangling regulations and/or government interference that you all complain about.

I never said that the company didn't raise the price. Companies raise prices all the time.

Funny how you think it's your place to define fair. You equate fair with your opposition to the price and they aren't the same.

I've proposed a way for you bleeding hearts to offset this. Use your own money to purchase them. Your answer is government action to set price limits.

 

[Conservative65]

The greedy right wingers have proved this thread beyond any doubt. When you face your karma remember.....I told you so.

You bleeding heart Liberals have shown that your automatic answer to everything is government, government, government. There is a way to resolve this without government. YOU can buy how many ever you want to buy and hand them out. Problem solved.

 

[Conservative65]

Why is everything so extreme with dumbshits like you? You don't consider the reality that there is balance and everything. Express one bit of opinion that the government should regulate or participate in the safety and well being of its citizens and we are communist? Wake up. You say that entertainment and medicine are equal? Consumer products the same as life-saving products? I guess if you walk by somebody being raped on the side of the street you can choose to stand there and watch or just keep on walking or you can do something about it. There is no rule stating that you need to intervene in that case, however it is a matter of good and evil, right and wrong. There's an element of humanity that's involved in medicine and helping those who suffer. I guess you don't possess that element.

Yeah, I mean, why do we have to tell the truth? Why do we have to name what it is that you are, and what it is that you're doing? We spoil everything.

ok, I'll appease your pea brain for a second, explain how my point of view is communist

You said there needs to be a balance in everything. However, your pat answer when it comes to balance involves the government doing everything to create what you call balanced.

I would love for government to be as little involved as possible with private business. When I see abuse and wreckless was from powerful companies that directly effects consumers the government understandably steps in. This is the balance that I'm talking about

In other words, exactly what I said. When YOU think it's out of balance, YOU think the government should step in and the rest of us are supposed to accept it. That's the problem. You say there should be balance and conveniently want to decide when and how that balance should occur.

 

[Dragonlady]

What about the SIZE of the application required? Why do you think it takes so long to go through one of the damn things?

The size of an application isn't really a regulation, but I can see where that could make the application process run quicker... Have you seen an application? Do you know how big it is and what areas you feel are unnecessary to analyze?

The amount of regulations dictates the size and complexity of the package.

I am not intimately familiar with FDA protocols, But I deal with regulations when it comes to construction and wastewater treatment, and even those are needlessly complex and require inane amounts of reporting.

I'm just not seeing it man... Your statements seem to be based on assumptions not on fact. You can complain about the regulations in construction and wastewater management if thats what you have experience in but without knowing the FDA process you can't make an educated critique.

Personally, I don't mind a thorough application for things like drugs, construction, and utilities that directly effect the health and safety of our public. I have family that works for one of the largest water companies in the US and I understand the pain in the ass that regulations cause. I watch the city council meetings and hear the debates. In a democracy we have a responsibility to listen to the concerns of the people so if a group wants to limit development because of environmental reasons or otherwise their voices get to be heard. I don't always like it and understand the frustrations but we don't just say screw you we are a private company and we get to do whatever we want whether you like it or not.

Again, no one is saying "no regulations", the issue is government keeps adding new crap without removing the old stuff or at least incorporating it, or considering the impact of it.

Look at the boondoggle with the new "improved" portable gas containers to see the impact of "fuck you" regulations.

I'm all for reducing regulations and making them as efficient as possible. We don't talk about the details though... the specific regulations that are holding things up. It always seems to be a generic partisan debate about Big Government over regulating liberals vs. Free market capitalistic conservatives... It's an ineffective debate.

You haven't mentioned NO Regulations but others on this thread have...

During his first term, the Obama administration set about going through all of the existing codes, rules and regulations and combining, rewriting, and reducing them, in order to assist business, reduce red tape, and the cost of government. The Republican talking point that Obama created tens of thousands of new regulations is true, but they leave out the part of how many more thousands of outdated and useless rules and regulations have been stricken as a result.

The program has been hugely beneficial to business, Republican Party propaganda to the contrary.

 

[Conservative65]

No, nothing like that... I never said anything about seizure or confiscation, or distribution by the state... You made that up to try and label me as a communist.
Do you have comprehension problems? I say one thing and then you try to restate it in a completely distorted way. Is that really how your brain works? Are you sincere or just trying to be an ass?

The owner of a good sets the price that the good will sell for, If the state sets the price for Epipens or any other good, then the state is the owner.

Mylan is gouging, people can be assholes and these people are. The reality of a market is that the greed of Mylan creates an opportunity for competitors to market an alternative product. Someone will, the market doesn't leave money on the table.

But of course you ARE a Communist and instead of allowing market mechanisms to correct the disequilibrium caused by the departure of Mylan's sole competitor, you demand that the state nationalize the entire industry and have bureaucrats with no stake set the prices that drugs will sell for.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth. It just makes you look like even more of an idiot. I never said that I wanted the state to control the price of Mylans product. If the government and FDA is holding up the process of creating an affordable generic then they are part of the problem. If this is the case then Mylan and the gov are feeding the problem.

Mylan has nothing to do with whether or not the FDA approves a generic. You said it's the government and FDA. Mylan sells their product.

 

[Conservative65]

Yeah, I mean, why do we have to tell the truth? Why do we have to name what it is that you are, and what it is that you're doing? We spoil everything.

ok, I'll appease your pea brain for a second, explain how my point of view is communist

You said there needs to be a balance in everything. However, your pat answer when it comes to balance involves the government doing everything to create what you call balanced.

I would love for government to be as little involved as possible with private business. When I see abuse and wreckless was from powerful companies that directly effects consumers the government understandably steps in. This is the balance that I'm talking about

So, no gov interference, ie no regulations? But at the same time, you want to protect the consumer?....lol....really?

It's not an all or nothing... I support the purpose of government intervention through regulation to protect the consumer. I just wish our companies could be responsible enough to not need much of it. If Companies keep abusing their power all its going to do is grow gov involvement. It is very unfortunate

The government wants to be involved. There are plenty that want the government to be involved regardless of what a business is doing.

Do you support government regulation in the Mylan case?

 

[Conservative65]

Not one bit of difference. Both provide a product that people want. One is entertainment and one is medicine.

You don't think there is a difference between entertainment and medicine?

Y'all are crazy, consumer products are one thing, the health and well being of our citizens, of all human beings, is something that is completely different. Not everybody needs a new Porsche or pair of air Jordan's, but if somebody is sick and suffering and we have the resources and ability to ease the pain or save a life then we sure as hell better do it.

Not when it comes to the issue being discussed. None, whatsoever.

You know what this gives you bleeding hearts ANOTHER opportunity to do. Prove you have compassion for those that say they can't afford something and buy it for them with your money. You won't because your answer is always government, government, government.

You say No, then throw out a generic insult... Want to try again to make a valid point?

Are you saying that you think compassion can come from anything but a willful act by the giver? Are you saying the government should stay out of this issue?

I made a point. You refused to accept the truth of it.

There was no truth to your point... You make false assumptions and know nothing about me. I do a tremendous amount for charity and my local community. I give what I can to others. You try to paint me as something that I am not to make a pompous partisan point and you just make yourself look stupid. The government has a role to play in this whether you like it or not. They are not the end all be all solution, as I said, there is a balance. You seem unable to understand this point.

I understand that unless what you want happens, you don't see it as a balance.

Unless you can do up to the level you'd have the government force others to do, you're not doing enough.

 

[Slade3200]

With no FDA how do we prevent dangerous drugs from flooding the market?

That's a good question.

Think if there were no federal agency regulating electrical appliances and devices? Millions would die from electrocution and fires each year, because ONLY government cares for you..

Oh wait, there in fact IS NO SUCH FEDERAL AGENCY...

So millions MUST be dying from electrical appliances, I mean, ONLY government can save us from the greedy capitalist pigs..

Except that who REALLY does it is something called "Underwriters Laboratories." Any appliance you buy has a U/L registration number on it. U/L is 100% voluntary and 100% private.

HOW CAN THIS BE? Only government can save us - as you have repeatedly claimed. To be 100% safe we need 100% government - it's the democrat credo. Yet U/L, with a record of success hundreds of times better than the FDA is voluntary, and private.

The answer is simple, consumers demand safe products, We don't want to die in electrical fires, and the greedy running dog capitalist pig insurance companies didn't want to pay life and fire insurance claims for electrical fires. So the UNDERWRITERS of the insurance policies developed a system of testing and rating that is vastly more effective than government efforts such as the FDA.

I'm not doubting the the FDA creates a long approval process and has much room for better efficiency but I haven't heard one person site specifically what "red tape" measures are erroneous, per this discussion.

What if the generic epipens were failing and dangerous?

Once again, U/L and IEEE have far better records of protecting public safety than the Phen-Fen FDA does.

Its nice that you have such faith in companies and consumers but your scenario is just not reality. Look at history and look at other countries that have no regulations. You use electronics as an example? How about you review something that is an actual risk or threat to life and health... Medicine, Food, Transportation, Energy etc.

We aren't talking about protecting people from a malfunctioning iPhone, we are talking about human lives.

Look at examples, like:

Contaminated Medicine that has resulted in many deaths around the world:
List of medicine contamination incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polluted food and water sources causing Typhoid fever and other illnesses resulting in death and illness:
The 10 Deadliest Outbreaks in U.S. History -- Revisited | Food Safety News

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:
Policy Impact: Seat Belts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

The nuclear weapons plant in Colorado that illegally dumped and polluted the surrounding land with radio active waste:
Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:

One seat belts don't "save a life" it prolongs it

Two it's bull shit that seat belt use had any effect on people's lives. in fact it makes people more reckless drivers.


Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts



John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

If you've ever been in a car accident then common sense and logic would tell you otherwise. My life has literally been saved by a seatbelt and an airbag. If not for those I would either be in a wheelchair or 6 feet under right now. I've seen both sides of the seatbelt argument and understand that there are some cases where they have caused death etc. This is a different debate that we can have on another thread of you like.

 

[Divine Wind]

Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

What about Socialist greed? Is that bad too? Personal greed?

 

[Dragonlady]

The solution in both cases is to figure out a way to simplify (and thus cost reduce) the process of generic approvals in these cases, thus getting other manufacturers involved, and breaking the monopoly.

These monopolies were originally put into place at the behest of drug companies to enable them to have exclusive rights to their own discoveries for a period of time so that they could recoup the costs of research, development, testing and approval. Every country does this, but the US has the longest competition free period of any First World country, and because of its size and wealth, Big Pharma uses the American market as a cash cow.

You want a for profit medical system, you pay for it.

 

[Conservative65]

How are doctors and hospitals greedy?

How is big oil greedy?

Spending more than we bring in is how debt occurs.

While I'm not a big fan of lawyers, I thought whether or not you committed a crime determined guilt.

As for career politicians, that goes totally against what the founding fathers intended.

Doctors will charge whatever the traffic will bear. Similarly, for profit hospitals are beholding to their shareholders. A stay in hospital can easily rack up a bill of $100,000 in a week. Everyone wants good, cheap, fast health care. You can have two of three, but you can't have all free. Americans have opted for good and fast. And they're willing to pay twice as much as anyone else for it. Or was that the only choice they've been given?

Big oil makes the most money and pays the least taxes of any of the "bigs". Oil being so necessary to the economy and all. But I disagree that $40.00 a barrel oil should do more than cut the price of gas in half. Americans already have some of the cheapest petroleum products in the world. While the price of crude has dropped substantially, the costs of refining it haven't gone down. So I'm good with $2.40 gas.

No, cutting taxes without first balancing the budget is going to increase the debt. It happened under Reagan, it happened under W. Creating new programs or departments without specific taxes to pay for them, increases the deficit, e.g. Department of Homeland Security created under W's administration, massive budget, all on the credit card, Medicaid Part D - another unfunded program which continues to add to the deficit.

And let's be really, really clear - Republican Presidents increase the deficit, like the sun rising in the east. Reagan was very critical of Carter's deficits and promised to balance the budget after he'd been in office for two years. Instead, he doubled the deficit, and by the end of his second term, tripled it. The last President to have a balanced budget, Bill Clinton, managed to do so while raising both taxes and the minimum wage - two things conservatives tell us kill jobs and reduce revenues.

And what does Trump propose to do - cut taxes and spend, spend, spend.

You can't have all three unless you're someone using MedicAID. Then, you get it as good, as fast, and for free.

The budget should be balanced. However, doing so shouldn't cut what the Constitution specifically authorizes while maintaining or increasing spending on things for which it doesn't.

 

[Conservative65]

Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

What about Socialist greed? Is that bad too? Personal greed?

To those that support socialist programs, they don't consider someone getting what they didn't earn while someone else earning is forced to pay for it as greedy. They're completely satisfied that the non-productive person is handed what the productive person has to do something to get.

 

[Divine Wind]

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:

One seat belts don't "save a life" it prolongs it

Two it's bull shit that seat belt use had any effect on people's lives. in fact it makes people more reckless drivers.


Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts



John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

A seat belt prolonged my life twice; once saving me from serious injury and a second time from certain death.

That said, I'm against mandatory seat belt and helmet laws because it goes against God's Law of Evolution.

IIRC, 68% of all traffic deaths in Texas are from lack of wearing a seat belt despite laws requiring them. As Ron White once said, "You can't fix stupid". I wish we'd stop trying to do so with silly laws.

OTOH, as far as pharmaceutical drugs go, if I follow the directions on a box of medicine and it seriously injures me or kills a family member, then I should have the right to shoot the motherfucking snake-oil salesman marketing it. Therefore, it's either best to let people serve vigilante justice to snake-oil salesmen or set laws preventing snake-oil salesmen from being in business.

 

[Dragonlady]

Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

What about Socialist greed? Is that bad too? Personal greed?

Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins as outlined in the Bible. I know conservative Christians think that the Kingdom of Heaven is to be on earth but Jesus was pretty clear that wealth was a problem for him, and government had nothing to do with his teachings or his spirituality.

When Jesus was born, the Jews were waiting for a Messiah to lead them against the Romans and Jesus was very clear that he had no interest in politics, or in being King of the Jews, in the secular sense. His Kingdom was not of this earth, so all of these Dominionists and other cults, are just not reading the same Bible as the rest of us.