Cost of medicine

[aubieRx]

yeah and even though i personally don't like NASCAR that much (course i feel similarly about football) I wouldn't go so far as to say that one of the qualifications for buying a nascar ticket is being a complete idiot. Or a conservative for that matter.

You complain about me disliking liberalism while exhibiting a distaste for anything you feel is "too conservative " at the same time.

If you stood back and thought a minute you'd realize people are always going to have different opinions about things and that they have a right to feel that way. The only reason I mentioned libs in this thread is because govt controlled healthcare is one of their talking points typically.

I didn't sit around and make fun of them like you are bashing me

goldy and bronzey and irony

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[museabuse]

What's wrong with John Deere?

Nothing I just wanted to take a cheap shot at you.

 

[aubieRx]

Nothing I just wanted to take a cheap shot at you.

all u gots cheap shots

and you knows it

 

[ZpackSux]

Nothing I just wanted to take a cheap shot at you.

That's cool.. when you get out of school and hopefully mature a bit, you'll understand the conservatism.. especially when they start to take $30,000 to $40,000 of your hard earned money every year.. heck, if you happen to marry another pharmacist.. double that..

But it's all good...

I too was fairly liberal when I was in school... but people change for the better.

 

[aubieRx]

did you go to sit ins and protest stuff?

 

[museabuse]

muse doesn't have enough sense/politeness to be a michael moore fan

don't take it personally just attacking your political views... not you. I am sure you are a nice person. Thats just one of my hang ups is I can't stand rush and this whole its great to bash a liberal. The only reason I think Michael Moore is ok... is that there really isn't a voice for the other side and he only one who speaks up yet he has been out of lime lite since election over. I am not a complete liberal... I am somewhat middle road like I would like to think most people are. I just don't like when people start blaming things on liberals and stuff like that. I also hate when conservatives start using the term family values... who isn't for family values? I also don't like when conservatives start bringing in religon like all liberals don't go to church or don't believe in God? I know I shouldn't post when people bring up politics but I can't help it... I should spend my time more productively like studying....
Oh ok and I shouldn't compare Aubie to Ann because she doesn't listen to it all the time(I listen to it when there are no good songs on all of my 8 presets) and I also watch fox news well actually i watch every channel for about 10 seconds. But ok I will try and quit attacking your political views if you can stop saying liberal. I am sorry.
Ok and I was just making fun of all Nascar fans just like the talk show hosts make huge generalizations too... I know they are not all idiots... but they do all live in trailors don't they?

 

[ZpackSux]

did you go to sit ins and protest stuff?

No..but thought about immigrating to a socialist/communist country.

 

[aubieRx]

Thats just one of my hang ups is I can't stand rush and this whole its great to bash a liberal.

I think the lady doth protest too much. I only used to word liberal once before it struck a chord and that was to say "i thought liberals were for the greatest good for the greatest number"

when asked about this I commented on the fact that it is a well known fact that most of the people who are for major healthcare system changes are liberals.

I did not liberal bash. I merely stated the situation as it is. Is there anyone who will deny that the major proponents of socialized healthcare are more liberal in beliefs?

You have done far more bashing than i have in this thread and its not even bashing on the topic of healthcare. You have even gone so far as to bash people who live in trailers

 

[ZpackSux]

I know for a fact they may live in trailers.. but their Ranger Bass Boat from Flippin, Arkansas and the matching colored Chevy Silverado which pulls the boat cost more than the trailer.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The only reason I think Michael Moore is ok... is that there really isn't a voice for the other side and he only one who speaks up yet he has been out of lime lite since election over.

I would actually disagree with this on many levels. The lockstep 'leftists' have other hacks like Al Franken, Combs, etc. I would disagree on a more scholarly level as well because the intellectual left has way more weight than the intellectual right. Many people know who Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are and respect their opinions; they are arguably the two most important political science intellectuals living in the US.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

That's cool.. when you get out of school and hopefully mature a bit, you'll understand the conservatism.. especially when they start to take $30,000 to $40,000 of your hard earned money every year.. heck, if you happen to marry another pharmacist.. double that..

But it's all good...

I too was fairly liberal when I was in school... but people change for the better.

I didn't write this, but it's the perfect response to the above. It's by Geoff Price, the smartest man you've never heard of.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/taxation.htm

 

[ZpackSux]

I didn't write this, but it's the perfect response to the above. It's by Geoff Price, the smartest man you've never heard of.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/taxation.htm

OK, I don't like to read copy/pasted long articles. I would rather read the summary of what you got out of the article. Otherwise it becomes a copy and paste war. But I made an exception to read it.

The author proposes a graduated taxation which heavily taxes capital gains and assets. The difference in Bush's plan is that Bush proposes basically a flat tax for the wealthy. A strong motivator to invest in Capital gains.

But what will happen when the capital gains is taxed heavily and unfavorably which shifts away from capital investments (what riches do) and promote consumable expenditure (lower income people do.) ?? Spending less on capital goods and more on consumtion goods can either slow the enhancement of standard of living for all...or even reverse it. Of course this is a the basis of influential Smithian Theory.

Without strong investments in Capital goods by the ultra riches, redistribution of wealth proposed by the author of feel good bring back Robin Hood does nothing more than ill affect our economy. The article is very short sighted..and almost socialistic.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

But what will happen when the capital gains is taxed heavily and unfavorably which shifts away from capital investments (what riches do) and promote consumable expenditure (lower income people do.) ?? Spending less on capital goods and more on consumtion goods can either slow the enhancement of standard of living for all...or even reverse it. Of course this is a the basis of influential Smithian Theory.

Well, it's certainly the basis of supply-side economic theory, too. Which has actually been proven to increase wealth as a whole but simultaneously decrease real wages and increase wealth stratification. This can be illustrated by the stagnation and slight decrease in average hourly wages since the last competent president we've had, Nixon, left office.

Couple this with the fact that the economy since the 80s have been debt-based and it works out for a net loss for the average joe.

Without strong investments in Capital goods by the ultra riches, redistribution of wealth proposed by the author of feel good bring back Robin Hood does nothing more than ill affect our economy.

Actually, it seems to me that the periods of higher taxation (post WWII-70s) where the upper 1% were taxed into the 90% range, coincided with the largest manufacturing base in the history of our country. With supply side economics, you saw a decrease in US manufacturing. Whether or not they are related can certainly be debated, but how the economy has been since Reagan, it certainly wouldn't hold that lower taxes on the capitalist class results in an increase in capital goods. If it did, there wouldn't be an increase in our manufacturing because, you know, it's what capital goods do.

The article is very short sighted..and almost socialistic.

Actually, he is an unabashed Marxist. And a very bright one at that. His plan isn't what I wanted to outline when I posted that, it was his philosophy behind wealth distribution - that wealth is already redistributed on a daily basis. I'm throwing it out there as the antithesis to what seems to be your laissez-faire philosophy. Just because a person is a socialist doesn't mean they are wrong, all thinkers should be listened to,

 

[aubieRx]

wvu....you wrote this in another thread

Honestly, no. I wouldn't be near healthcare if it didn't pay 6 figures. It just happened to be one of many things I'm interested in that actually pays well.

don't you see there is gonna be a conflict between the things that people like this guy tote in this article and that desire for 6 figures +?

also if the healthcare system is changed radically it might bring the 6 fig down too

 

[ZpackSux]

Which has actually been proven to increase wealth as a whole but simultaneously decrease real wages and increase wealth stratification.

Maybe, but your graph doesn't show that.

This can be illustrated by the stagnation and slight decrease in average hourly wages since the last competent president we've had, Nixon, left office.

Do you understand how Nixon was competent? He converted the world 'Gold Standard Economy' to 'Petro-Dollar' standard by convincing the OPEC to trade oil only in Dollars. In a way, as long as we (US) are the only one who can print the $, we are at the heart of the world economy. We can go as far and say.. we really own the oil. Because, the OPEC's $ will eventually come back to the US. Yes, we're the bank that prints money.

This in turn allows us to fall into a tremendous amount of trade deficit with other countries for Americans to consume their product and services. Why? The other countries need our $ to buy oil.

Of course, Nixon did what he had to. We didn't have enough "gold" in the reserves to pay off trade debt.. may have been against France..how brilliant to turn the world currency reserve system to base on $, which we can print. Call it the "printing gold."

it certainly wouldn't hold that lower taxes on the capitalist class results in an increase in capital goods. If it did, there wouldn't be an increase in our manufacturing because, you know, it's what capital goods do.

Capital goods mean, goods, infrastructure, research & development, service..and manufacturing among other things. Not manufacturing only.

Just because a person is a socialist doesn't mean they are wrong, all thinkers should be listened to,

Yes, they are wrong. And Yes, all thinkers should be listened to.

And you.. a smart young man, don't BS a BSer.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

wvu....you wrote this in another thread
don't you see there is gonna be a conflict between the things that people like this guy tote in this article and that desire for 6 figures +?

also if the healthcare system is changed radically it might bring the 6 fig down too

Maybe I just like to put out another viewpoint for the sake of discussion. If you really want to know, I strongly believe in a regulated mixed economy with sufficient social safety nets, but certainly not anything near a Marxist utopia that a guy like Geoff Price I posted above would support.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Maybe, but your graph doesn't show that.

It shows the stagnation of wages since the 70s. Which was my point....

Do you understand how Nixon was competent? He converted the world 'Gold Standard Economy' to 'Petro-Dollar' standard by convincing the OPEC to trade oil only in Dollars. In a way, as long as we (US) are the only one who can print the $, we are at the heart of the world economy. We can go as far and say.. we really own the oil. Because, the OPEC's $ will eventually come back to the US. Yes, we're the bank that prints money.

This in turn allows us to fall into a tremendous amount of trade deficit with other countries for Americans to consume their product and services. Why? The other countries need our $ to buy oil.

Of course, Nixon did what he had to. We didn't have enough "gold" in the reserves to pay off trade debt.. may have been against France..how brilliant to turn the world currency reserve system to base on $, which we can print. Call it the "printing gold."

Then does it concern you that our future major competitor, China, holds many of our Greenbacks? And you are correct, as the world's banker, we are pretty much indestructable economically. But what would happen if a rival, say the Euro, were to gain steam and threaten the hegemony of our dollar? (Thank God it's been down as of late - but for how long?) There have been rumblings about some countries switching for years (like Iraq, but you saw what happened to them.) Then we'd have massive inflation like Argentina and up the proverbial creek w/o a paddle.

Capital goods mean, goods, infrastructure, research & development, service..and manufacturing among other things. Not manufacturing only.

Yeah, yeah, stuff used to make money, but I'm thinking services jobs can't help us that much in an international economics sense. Sure you can buy a cash register for the Abercrombie and Fitch store, but how's that gonna help the trade deficit?

Yes, they are wrong. And Yes, all thinkers should be listened to.

Why are they wrong?

And you.. a smart young man, don't BS a BSer.

Thanks? I think..?

 

[ZpackSux]

There have been rumblings about some countries switching for years (like Iraq, but you saw what happened to them.) Then we'd have massive inflation like Argentina and up the proverbial creek w/o a paddle.

Iraq actually did. That's right. We saw what happened to them. The Axis of Evil speech by Bush.. I recall all of us saying.. Iran & N. Korea? What did they do now? Of course Iran has been and is still considering a switch to oil for Euro. And I believe N.Korea is completely dumping $ in favor of Euro for their reserves.

If $ loses the hegemony, our economy will collapse. Isn't that a good enough reason for us to be in Iraq? Selfish..sure. But I don't think the world can afford the US economy to collapse.

So.. why would u post a Marxist essay as solution to my concerns of our tax bracket?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

So.. why would u post a Marxist essay as solution to my concerns of our tax bracket?

Because I wanted to point out his ideas about wealth distribution and how wealth is already redistributed to the wealthy before taxes are applied. I think he has a very good point. Say what you will, but Marx was a brilliant man and his #1 mantra is spot on - labor IS the source of all wealth. And in a way, all profit is garnered by robbing a laborer of his labor. The capitalist himself does no real labor, he pays people to make him wealth.

From this, you have to justify how you can limit potentially lifesaving and life extending services from people based on economic class. Why should a janitor that works JUST AS HARD as I do, if not harder, and making a NEEDED contribution to society not have access to healthcare just because he was not lucky enough to be born with an IQ of 150 and a janitor is the best he could do?

And the aforementioned 'crazy socialist', Price, actually wrote a essay about the very topic you are touching on, I encourage you to read it (it's part of a HUGE body of work about the Iraq war):

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/what_is_this_war_really_all_abou.htm

 

[aubieRx]

From this, you have to justify how you can limit potentially lifesaving and life extending services from people based on economic class.
]

Because the healthcare services are performed by people with rights of their own.

If it was not for their work there would be no healthcare period.

And in a way, all profit is garnered by robbing a laborer of his labor. The capitalist himself does no real labor, he pays people to make him wealth.

If it was not for the big time capitalists the average worker would have no where to work in the first place. He ought to be grateful there are large companies which can hire him.

 

[ZpackSux]

Because I wanted to point out his ideas about wealth distribution and how wealth is already redistributed to the wealthy before taxes are applied. I think he has a very good point. Say what you will, but Marx was a brilliant man and his #1 mantra is spot on - labor IS the source of all wealth. And in a way, all profit is garnered by robbing a laborer of his labor. The capitalist himself does no real labor, he pays people to make him wealth.

From this, you have to justify how you can limit potentially lifesaving and life extending services from people based on economic class. Why should a janitor that works JUST AS HARD as I do, if not harder, and making a NEEDED contribution to society not have access to healthcare just because he was not lucky enough to be born with an IQ of 150 and a janitor is the best he could do?

And the aforementioned 'crazy socialist', Price, actually wrote a essay about the very topic you are touching on, I encourage you to read it (it's part of a HUGE body of work about the Iraq war):

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/what_is_this_war_really_all_abou.htm

I've already read most of the stuff on the Currency war of Iraq. The most complete one is the one written by W. Clark.

You're not worried about the Janitor.

Marx.. brilliant.. sure. Practical? No..

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Because the healthcare services are performed by people with rights of their own.

If it was not for their work there would be no healthcare period.

That's true of everything. I got free education when I was five years old until I was eighteen, yet the teachers were people with rights of their own. If not for their work, there would be no education at all. What about free protection from the military? Should the poor be put in a designnated kill zone where foreign crazies can attack them because they are not of the upper class?

Or there's a leap of logic in thee I'm not getting.

If it was not for the big time capitalists the average worker would have no where to work in the first place. He ought to be grateful there are large companies which can hire him.

Yeah, but they do no work of their own. They steal the labor from the worker and keep it in the form of profit. If the workers took control of the means of production, the capitalist would still not be needed further - they would have ni function.

 

[ZpackSux]

Yeah, but they do no work of their own. They steal the labor from the worker and keep it in the form of profit. If the workers took control of the means of production, the capitalist would still not be needed further - they would have ni function.

Thought slavery ended. "Steal the labor" is a strong description. The capitalist buys other people's time to duplicate his own effort. It's called providing jobs. If the worker took control, then we would have another 'Animal Farm.'

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I've already read most of the stuff on the Currency war of Iraq. The most complete one is the one written by W. Clark.

You're not worried about the Janitor.

Marx.. brilliant.. sure. Practical? No..

Oh, it's practical, his ideas just need an incredibly intelligent citizenry. Before the Bolsheviks took over in Russia, it was doing pretty good. Then they f'd it all up. Look at the family. That's a perfect Marxist utopia.

In the same sense, anyway, capitalism is impractical, too. It's fair as long as nobody tries to get ahead, but somebody always does, and it always leads to exploitation. Nobody in America can bitch about it because we are the exploitors, even our poor are rich in comparison to the average person the world over. A Somalian would kill to live in the ghetto of Compton, CA. But there's a dark side, too, representative of the failure of capitalism - ask what the kids working in sweat shops in Vietnam what they think about capitalism. It's why I think there should be a minimum wage with every country we trade with (imagine what it would do with US manufacturing.) Mixed economies are where it's at. Enough motivation to keep things rolling, enough of a safety net so nobody can get too unfairly exploited.

 

[aubieRx]

That's true of everything. I got free education when I was five years old until I was eighteen, yet the teachers were people with rights of their own. If not for their work, there would be no education at all. What about free protection from the military? Should the poor be put in a designnated kill zone where foreign crazies can attack them because they are not of the upper class?

Or there's a leap of logic in thee I'm not getting.

The military is a service that is needed for the preservation of a government. Thus it is natural that it would be operated and paid for by the government.

Being a public school teacher is a hard and (occsaionally) thankless job. I don't understand why people would go into education but i digress. I suppose the government made public schools to set everyone on (fairly) equal footing.

The quality of some public schools should make anyone considering public healthcare very worried about the drawbacks!

The truly disadvantaged do have their health care paid for. The rest of the population, provided with their state funded education, ought to be able to find/make sacrfices for this resource for themselves. Just like they get food onto the table.

Yeah, but they do no work of their own. They steal the labor from the worker and keep it in the form of profit. If the workers took control of the means of production, the capitalist would still not be needed further - they would have ni function.

I am not so sure that paying a worker is the same thing as stealing from him. The workers....generally do not all have the competency to control the means of production. The high ranking capitalists are generally bright people who are the brain power behind the whole system. the capitalist does have a function.

In communist russia the laborers still had to work but the conditions of their labor were far worse and the potential for reward for effort was almost extinguised.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Thought slavery ended. "Steal the labor" is a strong description.

Hey, it's what he said in Das Kapital.

The capitalist buys other people's time to duplicate his own effort. It's called providing jobs.

Then should the reward of the worker be similar to the reward for the capitalist? He is buying the person's labor at a fraction of what it is worth.

If the worker took control, then we would have another 'Animal Farm.'

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[aubieRx]

Maybe, maybe not.

has there ever been a truly non-dysfunctional, paradise communist country?

no.

Has a communist-based govt ever created a country (like america) where even the more destitute members of the society own televisions?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The military is a service that is needed for the preservation of a government. Thus it is natural that it would be operated and paid for by the government.

Being a public school teacher is a hard and (occsaionally) thankless job. I don't understand why people would go into education but i digress. I suppose the government made public schools to set everyone on (fairly) equal footing.

Healthcare is a needed service, too. It keeps the work force in maximum working capacity. But it still doesn't explain away the whole thing about them being individuals with rights and such.

The quality of some public schools should make anyone considering public healthcare very worried about the drawbacks!

This may be true, but look at how the military and USPS are ran. Very well and efficiently. I think the problem with schools is more cultural than in structure, to be honest.

The truly disadvantaged do have their health care paid for.

Only until you are 18. Trust me, I know. I was one of those disadvantages folks. (The sad thing is that I make more than my parents at age 22 at an intern job. The cool thing is that I get health insurance through the school at $500/year. W00t.)

The rest of the population, provided with their state funded education, ought to be able to find/make sacrfices for this resource for themselves. Just like they get food onto the table.

I am not so sure that paying a worker is the same thing as stealing from him. The workers....generally do not all have the competency to control the means of production. The high ranking capitalists are generally bright people who are the brain power behind the whole system. the capitalist does have a function.

This is unknowable unless it is actually tried. That's basically the whole theory behind Feudalism, btw. That only those with privlidged blood can hold the "responsibility" of being gentlemen.

In communist russia the laborers still had to work but the conditions of their labor were far worse and the potential for reward for effort was almost extinguised.

One problem, Russia wasn't really a communist state. That would have required rule by the proletariat, not rule by a small group of beaureaucrats.

 

[ZpackSux]

Nobody in America can bitch about it because we are the exploitors, even our poor are rich in comparison to the average person the world over.

I couldn't have said it any better. So let's quit bitchin.

 

[aubieRx]

Healthcare is a needed service, too. It keeps the work force in maximum working capacity. But it still doesn't explain away the whole thing about them being individuals with rights and such.

Is there a problem with the capacity of the working force of the uSA under current conditions?

This may be true, but look at how the military and USPS are ran. Very well and efficiently. I think the problem with schools is more cultural than in structure, to be honest.

Other countries that have put socialist healthcare into practice have run into some pretty rough snags. Their situation is "too many people clamoring for too few appts.".

Only until you are 18. Trust me, I know. I was one of those disadvantages folks. (The sad thing is that I make more than my parents at age 22 at an intern job. The cool thing is that I get health insurance through the school at $500/year. W00t.)

Ah I see your point. Children obviously cannot work for their own healthcare.

This is unknowable unless it is actually tried. That's basically the whole theory behind Feudalism, btw. That only those with privlidged blood can hold the "responsibility" of being gentlemen.

but capitalism gives people at the very bottom the opportunity to rise to the top. In feudalism this was not the case as the purity of the noble blood generally determined who could be top dog. Also in feudal societies, correct me if i am wrong, but they generally did not pay the serfs for their labors.

One problem, Russia wasn't really a communist state. That would have required rule by the proletariat, not rule by a small group of beaureaucrats.

The communist stuff looks good on paper but when attempts are made to transfer it to real life it always seems to go haywire from what it should have been.

Which is very telling as to the usefulness of the economic theory.

capitalism has a much better track record of working out

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I couldn't have said it any better. So let's quit bitchin.

I suppose that's what the lords, barrons, and counts used to do, too. So what if we're exploiting the serfs, we're living the good life! Kind of a but of cognitive dissonance if I want to think that I care about people.

has there ever been a truly non-dysfunctional, paradise communist country?

no.

Has a communist-based govt ever created a country (like america) where even the more destitute members of the society own televisions?

The problem with that is that a true modern communist state has never existed. But socialism has worked well before, case in point the American Indians. They lived nearly complete communal lives.

 

[aubieRx]

I suppose that's what the lords, barrons, and counts used to do, too. So what if we're exploiting the serfs, we're living the good life! Kind of a but of cognitive dissonance if I want to think that I care about people.

I dont think the comparison of someone working in an office for a salary is something that can be applied to a lord's rule over his serfs. The office worker gets to go home and watch his TV set and buy crap.

The problem with that is that a true modern communist state has never existed. But socialism has worked well before, case in point the American Indians. They live nearly complete communal lives.

and why hasn't it ever existed? perhaps because it cannot exist on a large modern scale without becoming twisted

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Is there a problem with the capacity of the working force of the uSA under current conditions?

Easy, just base it off of large copays. If the max you had to pay was $500, then at last people would have ACCESS to needed care. But each ER visit is $50 (or something similar so that people don't go for just anything.) Oh, and if you don't have a job you don't get benefits. If you can't find a job, you do work in your own community. Have kids? We'll give you free childcare, it's what the single welfare queens I'd wager you complain about a lot in private could do. Imagine that, if you work, you are guaranteed the NEEDS of life, if not, well, we obviously don't need you anyway. That's how I would do it, anyway.

Other countries that have put socialist healthcare into practice have run into some pretty rough snags. Their situation is "too many people clamoring for too few appts.".

Depends on how you view it. Infant mortality, as I pointed out earlier, was lower in Scandanavia where the healthcare is totally free. I think having deductables and copays would ease this.

but capitalism gives people at the very bottom the opportunity to rise to the top. In feudalism this was not the case as the purity of the noble blood generally determined who could be top dog. Also in feudal societies, correct me if i am wrong, but they generally did not pay the serfs for their labors.

I would argue that capitalism IS feudalism to those exploited. Ask the folks in Vietnam I mentioned earlier. Also, it is true that people can move up economic barriers, but it's also something like 20 times harder for a poor kid to get into law school than a privlidged youth.

The communist stuff looks good on paper but when attempts are made to transfer it to real life it always seems to go haywire from what it should have been.

The same could be said of capitalism, look at Somalia. That's pure free market capitalism. What you get are stratified pockets of power that exploit the common folk. It's why mixed economies are optimal - kind of like what we have now, only I think it should be a little more socialized than it is now.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I dont think the comparison of someone working in an office for a salary is something that can be applied to a lord's rule over his serfs. The office worker gets to go home and watch his TV set and buy crap.

No, not in America. Americans are the lords, those in the third world making our crap for cheap are our serfs. That's what I'm alluding to.

and why hasn't it ever existed? perhaps because it cannot exist on a large modern scale without becoming twisted

I would argue that it didn't work out because there was never any intention of setting up a communal society, just an authoritarian dictatorship. Just about any case you could come up with would reflect this. USSR, N. Vietnam, Cuba, I could go on...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You two are wearing me out. I'm done for now.

 

[ZpackSux]

I aint did nothin.

I think u wore yourself out.

 

[aubieRx]

No, not in America. Americans are the lords, those in the third world making our crap for cheap are our serfs. That's what I'm alluding to.

I've often thought of this point when I see all the stuff made in 3rd world. You get this terrible image of them slaving over piece after piece of merchandise.

but , would their lives be any better if they weren't working for these companies? Most of them work in sweat shops for money of their own free will. I think the main problem lies with the government of the country. Those people would be leading destitute lives even if it were not for the sweat shops.

But all the stuff that is made in the 3rd world is a little disturbing to me because there is so much of it. Some stuff we have no control over .

I would argue that it didn't work out because there was never any intention of setting up a communal society, just an authoritarian dictatorship. Just about any case you could come up with would reflect this. USSR, N. Vietnam, Cuba, I could go on...

In any government on a large scale someone is going to have to grab hold of the reins to keep order. A passel of ragtag workers will not be able to keep the place together.

I think that even a communist country that started out with the best of intentions would revert to this....

 

[aubieRx]

Healthcare is a needed service, too. It keeps the work force in maximum working capacity. But it still doesn't explain away the whole thing about them being individuals with rights and such.

.

You made a good point and I had to think about this for awhile.

When i said the people who provide healthcare are individuals with their own rights I was alluding to the fact that they are under no obligation to provide their services for free. Therefore, healthcare is never a right. It is a privilege even if it is government healthcare.

If every healthcare worker decided they didnt want to work no one could really force them to (at least not in a free country).

The same thing goes for a public education. I don't think there is anything in the bill of rights guranteeing a public education. It is a privilege.

Apparently, in the united states most people feel that healthcare should not be a privilege given by the government. It is a judgment call. We also feel that the government is not responsible for giving us our food every day.

But I still don't think it is right to say someone has a "right" to healthcare. How silly that sounds when there are people who don't even have anything to eat in the world. surely they should have a "right" to food but things dont always work out like that.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You made a good point and I had to think about this for awhile.

When i said the people who provide healthcare are individuals with their own rights I was alluding to the fact that they are under no obligation to provide their services for free. Therefore, healthcare is never a right. It is a privilege even if it is government healthcare.

If every healthcare worker decided they didnt want to work no one could really force them to (at least not in a free country).

The same thing goes for a public education. I don't think there is anything in the bill of rights guranteeing a public education. It is a privilege.

Well, education is actually manditory, or else the parents are taken to jail for child neglect. It's like saying doing jury duty is a privlidge. The constitution DOES however allow the congress to levy taxes for the public good. This has been used to justify the purchase of stealth bombers, a military, a public education system, a postal system, etc. I suppose the question really does boil down to whether or not healthcare should be considered a human right. I personally believe it is and should be subsidized by society. I also still am not quite getting your logic with the free will worker thing.

Apparently, in the united states most people feel that healthcare should not be a privilege given by the government. It is a judgment call. We also feel that the government is not responsible for giving us our food every day.

That's because we don't have a huge safety net like many other countries. Also, healthcare is a relatively new concept due to new, more efficacious tx, expensive pharmaceuticals, etc. It wasn't even an issue 50 years ago like it is today.

But I still don't think it is right to say someone has a "right" to healthcare.

I do, oh well, people disagree.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Wow I think I made about 50 spelling errors in tis thread trying to keep up with you two.

 

[aubieRx]

I suppose the question really does boil down to whether or not healthcare should be considered a human right. .

No I think its more a matter of whether society should be called upon to foot the bill for a privilege.

If things pertaining to survival/health (like healthcare) were considered "god given rights that we are owed by the govt" then we would also be given free food clothing and shelter by the government. Actually, these items are more important to immediate survival than med care

 

[ZpackSux]

Dang Kids.. were y'all Poli Sci/History/Econ majors?

 

[aubieRx]

Dang Kids.. were y'all Poli Sci/History/Econ majors?

I liked history courses...but not the tests. I liked reading the books but not memorizing every little detail for exam day

 

[WVUPharm2007]

No I think its more a matter of whether society should be called upon to foot the bill for a privilege.

If things pertaining to survival/health (like healthcare) were considered "god given rights that we are owed by the govt" then we would also be given free food clothing and shelter by the government. Actually, these items are more important to immediate survival than med care

I would also squabble over the term 'privlidge.' It is kind of a neccessity to living, and it's kind of hard to do the whole life, liberty, persuit of happiness thing with out the life part. (Of course that's from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal authority...) If healthcare is a privledge, then I could easily argue that a military is a privlidge. Why should I pay for a military for defense when no sane army would attack West Virginia when they could attack NYC or D.C.?

I think anyone who CONTRIBUTES to society should get food stamps, minimal housing allowances, and medical. Not just poor people, everyone, from Donald Trump to the poor anitor I mentioned earlier. Then it would truely be fair and equal. Start everyone out with what they need, period, then let everything else be controlled by the free market. But, again, only if you agree to contribute to society by working. Take away all the excuses for people not working like 'kid at home'. Offer free child care from birth - we already have free child care from age 5, just expand it down 5 years. It's a synthesis between what the liberals want and what the conservatives hate about what the liberals want, the theoretical lazy person that doesn't work.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Dang Kids.. were y'all Poli Sci/History/Econ majors?

No. I do have a huge mountain of political science books in my bookshelf, though. I think I'm up to about 50 or so since I started pharmacy school. Probably what kept me out of Rho Chi. Nothing like reading A People's History of the United States the night before a Pharmacology exam because you're hooked on it. (Actually happened...)

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Dang Kids.. were y'all Poli Sci/History/Econ majors?

I got my BA in political science, but I don't usually talk about politics very much anymore...

 

[aubieRx]

I got my BA in political science, but I don't usually talk about politics very much anymore...

why's that?

 

[aubieRx]

I would also squabble over the term 'privlidge.' It is kind of a neccessity to living, and it's kind of hard to do the whole life, liberty, persuit of happiness thing with out the life part. (Of course that's from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal authority...) If healthcare is a privledge, then I could easily argue that a military is a privlidge.

Yes the military is a privilege in many ways. Not every country in the world is protected by one as strong as the united states. Food is a privilege. We talk of human rights but as soon as you leave the united states and go to some places in the world you can see that what we have in this country are privileges. Not rights...for if they were rights then everyone in the world would have them.



Should everyone in the world have food, clothing and shelter and protection? Yes. But thats not the way the game is played unfortunately. No, the world is a place of squabbling and scrabbling to get what you need.

I think anyone who CONTRIBUTES to society should get food stamps, minimal housing allowances, and medical. Not just poor people, everyone, from Donald Trump to the poor anitor I mentioned earlier. Then it would truely be fair and equal. Start everyone out with what they need, period, then let everything else be controlled by the free market. .

If such a policy were developed, the amount of people willing to take advantage of it would be so large as to be a major burden.

We are given "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The founding fathers certainly did not intend for this to be reworked to mean everyone gets free everything. They meant that everyone should have the opportunity to work for their happiness. By "life" I think they meant that a person's life would not be endangered by the government.

 

[jboogie]

While I agree that an economist/philisopher/incredibly wise person should answer this difficult issue, I think there is something important to point out. I just finished doing a presentation on Cymbalta (Duloxetine HCL). It just came onto market after approval about a year ago. It took over 15 years to do the R&D after its discovery. It took so long to bring to market, the discoverer died. It also cost Lilly 800 million in R&D and they only have 5 years to recoup that money. This is why it is so expensive for medications and why the idea of having scientists work for the people and recieve bonuses makes a little bit of sense.

 

[ZpackSux]

While I agree that an economist/philisopher/incredibly wise person should answer this difficult issue, I think there is something important to point out. I just finished doing a presentation on Cymbalta (Duloxetine HCL). It just came onto market after approval about a year ago. It took over 15 years to do the R&D after its discovery. It took so long to bring to market, the discoverer died. It also cost Lilly 800 million in R&D and they only have 5 years to recoup that money. This is why it is so expensive for medications and why the idea of having scientists work for the people and recieve bonuses makes a little bit of sense.

It's ok. Lilly made enough money from Prozac to finance the Cymbalta project. Too bad Venlafaxine beat them to the punch.