TheDredPriateRoberts

can't think of any products or updates to, that the manufacturer/creator doesn't increase costs to recoup those costs or replenish their profits (though i would imagine most of it is done on debt)

The research and development (R&D) expenditures of this industry are staggering—and since they are matters of public record there is no way and no need to exaggerate them.

Only about 10 cents of every U.S. health-care dollar is spent on retail prescription medicines—which is the same share that was spent on prescriptions in 1960. 

 nearly nine out of 10 U.S. prescriptions are filled with generic medicines 

if we equalized drug prices with those countries tomorrow, we would further reduce the economic incentives for new-drug innovation—but we would do essentially nothing to lower the cost of health care.

can we now agree prescriptions and the drug companies are not the problem?

top 10 pharmaceutical companies

10.  U.S.

9     U.K.

8     U.S.

7     U.S.

6     Switzerland

5     U.S.

4     U.S.

3     France

2     Switzerland

1     U.S.

I think all the U.S. companies should charge exactly what they charge in the other countries. so the U.S. citizens don't have to subsidize the rest of the world.  We need to stop the companies from making profits or most of from the U.S. citizens which allows companies to sell the same things much cheaper in other countries.  I'm all for an equal playing field.  What do you think other countries would think of that idea?

no you ignored the question of how well their systems would be if they didn't benefit and take advantage of the U.S. which currently costs them zero.  Since you want to compare other countries who greatly benefit from the U.S. with no cost to them how can you make an honest comparison with health systems?  If the U.S. didn't protect them, bleed foreign aid all over the world, trade deficits, share innovations etc, how good would they systems be then?

would you be in favor of cutting off foreign aid and other foreign entitlements and a zero trade tax world wide and that money is used to fix our current system?

#43

brilliant, which is why he largely ignored it.

it's the choice, however nimby (not in my back yard)

maybe a little, but the larger point is what a corporation is and is not allowed to do and if it's consistent.  I'm not sure you can say they have a right to x but not other rights, or limit them inconsistently.

I'll try to investigate why it's not considered a straw purchase.  I've read it before but it was a while ago and I want to be as accurate as possible.  But istr the ownership is with the trust/corporation but the members have use of the property.  Much like a company car or equipment.  Now if the trust/corporation purchased the item then transferred ownership to someone that would be a straw purchase.  If the trust/corporation is dissolved or whatever then whatever class 3 items they posses would have to be disposed of, transferred according to law.  while you can sell firearms that you own to someone else w/o a background check in many states, I don't think that is true with class 3 stuff as that requires a licence.

the approval is the background check which apparently isn't needed for a corporation or trust, which is the actual owner of the firearm or silencer.  The article isn't unique in it's information.  You don't need 'approval" even as a private citizen, you just need to fill out the requisite paperwork and pay your money.  it's different that getting an ffl licence were there's an interview, that's more about creating a business anyway.

I'm not seeing the "somebody" requirement in this process, other than to create the trust or corporation.

I would dare same some mass shooters "made a difference" in how we now live.

look at all those poor women and children............they only have themselves to blame.

in many ways they do, one of the easiest ways to buy a machine gun or silencer is creating a corporation or trust that 'buys" it.

But if individuals register these firearms to a legal trust or corporation, there is no background check or required approval from local law enforcement officials. 

I remember my parents insurance before HMO required a 20% co insurance for everything.  People tend to be more concerned about price and complain about it when what you have to pay is based on a % of the it.  Who cares about rapid price increases if your flat fee doesn't?

ic, it's a bit complex, though I'm not certain why it should be.  I mean someone(s) speaks for the group so how could they not have free speech, seems rather nit picking of them trying to deny that fact.  Seems a huge waste of court time, but that's government for ya.

nope, Applesauce!  :)

the progressives would be happy with an Orwellian world.  The right, while they have a great disdain for what they consider unpatriotic, their approach is much different.  Not attending or watching football is a stark contrast to the progressive harassment and violence.  Boycotting is fine, you have the right to do it.

you can't put an association/corporation in jail or hold them criminally liable I don't think.  While an association or corporation might have a collective opinion or stance, ultimately it is a person who espouses them for that collective and is therefore individually responsible, or should be anyway.  Anyway things can't have rights, only people.  When you reduce an association or corporation down the the lowest common denominator there is a decision maker that is and should be help responsible, even if they are only carrying out the majority will of the group.

there's plenty of ways and place to save money, competition and more doctors is just one.  anyone who has a UHC theory admits usage will go up and wait times will increase.  it's not just about no insurance, there's also under insured.  When you remove financial barrier people are more demanding and will request testing that they really don't need because it's "free" to them.  This happens already and I see no evidence that a UHC would stop that.

So you agree that both governmental and organizational bureaucracy is keeping the number of doctors lower than it should be?

Since you have identified many areas that could be addressed to lower costs and increase access, why hasn't it happened?

Why is a UHC the only model that can fix these issues?

Is the UHC the only model that will increase the number of doctors?  If so why?  If no then why not?

let's stick with the number of doctors as this is an elephant we are attempting to eat.

this is a tough one.  My initial thought is do the same laws apply to individuals as they do a corporation.  Can a corporation commit libel or slander?  I don't see how.  What's probably more applicable is can the members of a corporation or any group really appoint a person or persons to speak for them collectively, I don't see why not, that sounds like free speech to me.

it would depend on taste, nutritional evidence and any other details that will help me make the most informed decision I can.  Without that knowledge I can't answer how much extra I would pay.  But if we made some assumptions as the taste and nutrition is very similar, I'd pay a couple of bucks extra per pound.  Because I think my wife might eat it, as she only eats chicken and sea food.  Istr they were trying to develop a vegetable burger that tasted like meat by hitting the certain taste receptors, much like the artificial or alternative sweeteners (which I don't like).

Our government is already overburdened with excessive regulations. 

Supply and demand.  The demand for doctors is much too high therefore higher prices due to no competition.  Who controls the number of students accepted into med schools and who provides the funding, can you guess?  Medicare for all will increase demand of an already too limited supply, yep makes sense to me, not!

If I need a to see a dermatologist why do they need to know about delivering babies?  Shouldn't they have to know enough to do their job w/o all the extra stuff they will never use in such a practice?  That would lower their tuition cost and number of years probably.  That could even be disclosed so you could choose to see a dermatologist who has done O.B. care, since I'm a man idgaf.  If it saves me money, let me make that choice.

should a foot doctor need to know how to do a colonoscopy?

deja vu?

just add the links from debateisland lol, can't rehash this again here too.

2 years is not a long time and only time will tell if the relationship lasts.  When looking for a partner many people compromise or lower their expectations to increase the likely hood of meeting someone.  We talk ourselves in to accepting things which later on we realize we shouldn't have and that can end the relationship.  After a time one or both in the relationship will accuse the other of changing.  This is incorrect, they changed before they them met.  You are on your best behavior to impress and court the potential mate. Once they attain a certain comfort level they start acting like themselves, including those things that really bother them.  Prior, they ignored or suppressed their feelings about smoking let's say.  At some point this can cause enough strife to end the relationship.

ah the 'do nothing approach' government's answer to many many things.  They don't wish to relinquish control to any outside group that probably has many good answers, but again that would be giving up control which government is antithetical to.  The school in Florida went with id's and clear backpacks, remember the push back against that?  I believe there is a school perhaps a few in Texas where teachers are armed but non lethal rounds.  Since the gun doesn't have to be hidden for carrying purposes they don't need to be limited by size.  Arming them with guns that fire non lethal rounds seems like a good idea.  While they may not be as effective in every scenerio, it's better than nothing imo.  This should also go along with id's and building controls.

Armed people (not police) protect many things including celebrities, politicians, armored bank cars, banks and certain stores.  If it's good enough for them.......

back in the old days, men did the hunting and women were the teachers.  Discipline was far different than today.  Kids had chores, farm work etc, was no time go get into trouble.  The level of respect was very high back then, now it's all but gone.  Local indoor gun range is offering free and reduced costs for teachers.

I did qualify my statement as not having police and emergency services isn't really possible in any practical sense.  As far as entitlements go they should be kept to a minimum, I can't understand how people on welfare get brand new cell phones (newer that what I have)  This is far different than letting people start.  I work for my luxuries, tax payers shouldn't have to pay for them.

libertarianism is about individual freedom, so my philosophy is about maximum individual freedoms (not total for obvious reasons) and that can't happen when government controls more.

when it comes to the government's role I do subscribe to the libertarian view in that it should be kept as minimal as possible and only for what is actually needed.  It's no longer a safety net that it should be, the role has gotten too big and intrusive.

specifics would require a specific question or topic, otherwise it would require way too much writing, if there's a specif issue like gun control or something that's easier to address.  My philosophy is issue dependent.

Mostly Libertarian, capitalist, nothing else really makes logical sense but them again most people follow........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdHTMLiUAZ8

In the U.S. anyway it should be illegal for a not for profit to preform abortions.  While the claim is that tax payers aren't paying for it, they are.  The time and resources used in an abortion could be used for other things needed by other people.  There is a finite about of time and resources so if you are apply those to an abortion, tax payers are paying for it even if you aren't billing for it.  With that said if any for profit that doesn't receive tax payer money wishes to offer these services at no cost they are free to do so.

not without very good, through training and practice.  Law enforcement also goes through a psychological evaluation, which I think would also be appropriate if you wish to carry in school (only).  What you do outside of school is your own business.

if DDO = Debate Dot Org

then DADC = Debate Art Dot Com