79 replies to this topic

[Futurist1000]

****EDIT
I have edited this first post to tone it down. My original post was supposed to be over dramatic and I was partially trying to entertain. I think people are taking me way too seriously. I do think this topic is important though, so I don't want it to detract from my argument.

I hate to make a political statement especially one that's so forceful, but here goes.

I believe that it is necessary to vote for what I believe as being the lesser of two evils. Note, I don't necessarily think the republican party is great, but for the purposes of immortality it may be our best bet.

The Democrats will likely attempt to institute some form of universal healthcare. The Democrats tend to favor price controls and it is very likely that if this is done, it will significantly reduce the innovative capacity of the U.S. medical industry. Europe used to be a leader in medical innovations but now significantly trails the U.S. Today, most of the top 30 drugs come from American companies.

So instituting universal health result in a delay of life extension technologies. I have no way of knowing how much of a delay they could cause. It might be 5, 10, 20 or 40 years. This means, with 2.4 million people dying in the U.S. a year, the democrats may unintentionally kill millions of people.

Rudy Guiliani may be a better choice over Hillary Clinton for this reason.

The Republicans are prone to increasing government as well. We must not give them a free pass either. They will increase government interference sometimes just as much as the democrats. Look at what's happening in California with governor Schwarzenegger's healthcare plan. He has proposed puting a new tax on doctors and hospitals euphemistically calling it a "providers fee" in order to fund universal healthcare. Again this is likely to reduce the innovative capacity of the market.

For me I'm really not too worried whether the democrats get elected or not because I'm fairly young. I'll still be alive 40 years from now.

But if you are over 50, universal healthcare should concern you.

The worst scenario that could happen is if we got a single payer system because if you are 85 and get some disease, I hate to break it to you, the government bureaucracy won't care. They very well could not treat you because it is not cost effective to treat someone who is near the end of their life. So maybe with treatment you could live another 4 years, but because money will ultimately be limited the government will ration care. People who are older will be allowed to die as opposed to draining the system.

The U.S. is the driving force for medical innovation. Just because every other nation has universal healthcare does not make it the right thing to do. Universal healthcare may lead to reduced innovation that has saved so many lives.

**EDIT
The facts outlined in this thread.

1) Being uninsured does not necessarily have any effect on life expectancy.

2) Europe used to be a world leader in medical innovation but now the U.S. is.

3) Europe has price controls, and a less free market when compared to the U.S. This may be the cause of the reduced innovation.

4) The U.S. has created a majority of the current top selling drugs and has created a majority of the top medical innovations.

5) These innovations have probably saved millions of lives because of increased life expectancy. They have also likely lead to an increased quality of life.

6) Some democrats favor more government control on the pharmaceutical industry (like price controls).

7) There is indication that more control of the U.S. will lead to fewer medical products, thus this could ultimately mean more unecessary deaths that could have been prevented.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 04:44 AM.

[Liquidus]

#1 Healthcare system in Canada isn't perfect, but it works, and it's feasible, follow that model. The United States should look at the 'more' advanced societies (Japan, Sweden, etc..) and see what they're doing right, because clearly they do not have even a fraction of the issues that the United States has, and we're only talking politics here.

#2 A Democrat can turn your entire argument around on you. George Bush, Republican, has lead the country into war that's seen thousands (maybe even tens of thousands now) of lives lost for pretty much no logical reason. I could just as easily proclaim that by electing another republican president, the current model of chaotic war with no premise will continue at the hands of fundamentalist Christians (ala George w. Bush is a born again Christian).

While I think that both side of politics are pitiful in the United States, I don't think it's fair to the rest of the democratic states in the world to say that either form of politics is better than the other. If you ask me, the United States of American isn't controlled by politics (the people have been brainwashed into thinking their political discourse is relevant), if you believe it is, you're foolish. As it is, special interests manipulate the American state like no one's business.

There will hardly be a difference if either side wins, neither side has a leader worth respecting, and neither side stands for anything genuinely achievable.

I smell biased propaganda when you insist that millions of people will die. Millions of people are ALREADY dying because they have no health insurance, they have no access to doctors or treatments, and they die. The US has been under Republican leadership the last 7 years, so surely you can't blame that on the Democrats.

I think both sides of the fence (especially in the states) are useless, and are used only to persuade the egotistical patriots who are naive enough to be born, or to choose to 'be' republican or democrat, it really makes no difference since neither actually have power when you look behind the scenes.

I don't want to attack your post, but unless I misunderstood your claims, you sound like a desperate republican follower who's trying to scare everyone into changing their minds, instead of offering positive and constructive analysis/criticism.

I'm not American, but if I was, I'd just vote for Bloomberg, he might be a capitalist elite, but at least he's not a dumb ass wingnut or moonbat. Maybe he'll actually get your country out of the massive useless debt it's dug itself into.

[Shannon Vyff]

I'm an educated liberal. I'm voting Democrat, because we'll likely only have two strong contenders for President. I'm hoping for Barack on the ticket, secondly Clinton.

[advancedatheist]

Why should we vote for the party that opposes stem cell research and inflicted Leon Kass's deathist philosophy upon us? Republicans can't possibly cut your taxes enough to compensate you for your death from potentially preventable causes.

[scottl]

Republicans...well at least this administration are major turkeys. There is only one reason to vote for the Republicans--Democrats. Hell bring back the Sam Nunn/Zell Miller Democrats--I'd vote for them. The far left wing/soft on defense/socialist Democrats need to be kept out of power. Capitalism may be very flawed, but better that and find ways to help the poor/people who need it. than socialism. The state screws up everything it touches. My signature is there for a reason.

hrc579: this place is heavily populated by far left liberals so you're posting in hostile territory.

Edited by scottl, 07 September 2007 - 09:52 PM.

[Futurist1000]

I smell biased propaganda when you insist that millions of people will die. Millions of people are ALREADY dying because they have no health insurance, they have no access to doctors or treatments, and they die. The US has been under Republican leadership the last 7 years, so surely you can't blame that on the Democrats.

I used to believe this too until fairly recently. Upon doing furthur research however I have discovered that this argument may be false. Basically I would consider there to be 2 main measures of health. One is life expectancy and the second is quality of life (free from disability, mental illness etc.).

Hispanics and Asians are more likely to be uninsured but they live longer than whites.

This deflates the argument that millions are dying due to lack of health insurance or that we need universal healthcare because of it.

In 2005
The uninsured rate non-Hispanic whites was 11.3
The uninsured rate for Asians was 17.9 percent
The uninsured rate for Hispanics was 32.7 percent

Life Expectancy

But not until 2006 was it ever mentioned that every estimate of life expectancy which include Asian Americans live longer than anybody else, including the Japanese who are generally given credit for the longest in the world. 

They also neglect to mention that Hispanics also live longer than Whites, even though both Asians and Hispanics have very high rates of lacking health insurance, and Hispanics have very low per capita incomes and high poverty rates. A San Francisco news report slammed lower life expectancy for city blacks, but completely overlooked that at 80.2 years, city Latinos rank among the longest living of any group anywhere in the world.

Oh and anybody for universal healthcare, bring on the comments. I will gladly counter any arguments in favor of it.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 02:49 AM.

[DJS]

Vote Republican or die?

Ummm, how do you reconcile a techno-progressive framework with the current adminstration's handling of stem cell research?

I'd love to hear the pretzel logic to this question. It should be amusing.

[Liquidus]

I see you have fallen for the liberal propaganda.  I had too until fairly recently.  Upon doing furthur research however I have discovered that this argument is egregiously false.  Basically I would consider there to be 2 main measures of health.  One is life expectancy and the second is quality of life (free from disability, mental illness etc.).

Well I don't think I'd say I've fallen for any propaganda, it wouldn't surprise me if the Dems botch the health-care system, but what else do you expect when you look at the last 3 administrations? (who've each done a good job in botching something), I really am impartial to both sides, I've voted conservative and liberal in different federal elections. There truly isn't a political party that fits into my value system, probably because my value system is beyond the primitive nature of Red vs. Blue.

If you look at this situation objectively, and detached from the bias. Your country's biggest swindle point at the moment is universal health-care, which implies that your country can't even provide adequate resources for all of citizens. If you ask me, that's gotta be some kind of joke, you'd think this issue would have been resolved long ago, but of course that's what you get when you elect fundamental religious nut jobs to control the most influential country in the world. The important issues should be alternative energy sources, the conquer of human biology, and social equality. We have more people worried about who's having gay sex in the privacy of their own home, instead of dealing with issues that are actually logically relevant.

It's surprising to me how non-humble most of these candidates are, they still carry that same brash ego that tends to make non-Americans annoyed with obnoxious American people.

[Futurist1000]

Ummm, how do you reconcile a techno-progressive framework with the current adminstration's handling of stem cell research?

Allow companies to get more profits to sell their therapies on a freer market. Government doesn't necessarily need to be in the bussiness of stem cells.

However Rudy Guliani is for Stem cells, so it may not matter.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

Note the highlighted bold quotes. PRIVATE COMPANIES AND HOSPITALS are better commercializing new technologies.

Government has a poor track record in getting therapies to market. U.S. has a very good system where private universities can carry out necessary research, and sell their discoveries to private companies.

The moral being ALLOW COMPANIES TO MAKE A TON OF MONEY. Price controls lead to LESS innovation.

Most pharmaceuticals are created by private companies not by the government. Most gene therapy trials are being done by private companies as well.

Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry.

From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe. Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.  Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States.

The gains from medical innovations are high. For instance, increases in life expectancy resulting from better treatment of cardiovascular disease from 1970 to 1990 have been conservatively estimated as bringing benefits worth more than $500 billion a year. And that is just for the United States.

The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

I'd love to hear the pretzel logic to this question. It should be amusing.

Thanks for the dig there, I don't appreciate it.

While my first post was an obvious attention grabber, and yes it is propagandistic, I think I can make a pretty good case why universal healthcare is a bad thing. I will attempt to make everyone understand my seemingly twisted logic (hopefully).

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 03:16 AM.

[Futurist1000]

The Pharmaceutical Forum group has met twice in order to discuss changes for Europe's pharmaceutical industry.

They have recommended changes in drug pricing and rewards for innovation.

Again, LET THE COMPANIES MAKE MONEY. Socialist will tell you it's a crime that pharmaceutical companies make money, but if they don't there will be NO new medicine.

Delivering better information, better access and better prices

First, the widening gap in pharmaceutical research: Over the last 15 years investment in pharmaceutical R&D has been growing in the US significantly and consistently faster than in Europe[1]. Second, the development of key medicines: In the past, Europe was leading in developing the most successful breakthrough pharmaceuticals. This trend has reversed. In 2004, two thirds of the 30 top selling medicines in the world were developed in the USA.

Price controls stifle innovation. This is another failure of universal healthcare. Being "free" comes at a great cost.

[suspire]

Wow, this site brings out all the crackpots, doesn't it?

*EDIT: You're probably a Laffer Curve, supply-side economics proponent too, aren't you? Perhaps you should read the following article. I doubt it'll penetrate, but hey, you never know:
http://www.tnr.com/d...0&s=chait091007

Edited by suspire, 08 September 2007 - 12:03 AM.

[DJS]

Allow companies to get more profits to sell their therapies on a freer market.  Government doesn't need to be in the bussiness of stem cells.

You obviously don't have the foggiest clue how modern technological innovation takes place.

There is an "event horizon" of between five and ten years for private investment strategies. For more long term R&D (where profit can not be paramount) you need either public funding or private philanthropic* contributions. There's no way around this. IOW, there is often no clear cut profit from conducting *pure* scientific research (which is the reason it often takes place in academia), yet often the discoveries that come from the pursuit of pure science can be used in the private sector in *applied* science. Both public and private funding have their place in tech development.

It strains credibility to deny that cutting eliminating public funding for stem cell research isn't a serious impediment to progress. Perhaps we can leave the ideology in the religion forum?

* Edit

[Futurist1000]

There is an "event horizon" of between five and ten years for private investment strategies. For more long term R&D (where profit can not be paramount) you need either public funding or private philanthropic* contributions. There's no way around this. IOW, there is often no clear cut profit from conducting *pure* scientific research (which is the reason it often takes place in academia), yet often the discovers that come from the pursuit of pure science can be used in the private sector in *applied* science. Both public and private funding have their place in tech development.

We have private universities, people can donate money if they want. If something is important enough, the money necessary for research can usually be found. Government is just another middle man it is not absolutely necessary.

An example would be that Celera a private company sequenced the human genome about the same time as the government. While this is not a great comparison, it does show that the private sector can do things on its own.

Here's an article on privately funded stem cell research.
Rich Donors Help Calif. Fund Stem Cell Research

LOS ANGELES -- Two years after California voters passed a landmark $3 billion bond measure for stem cell research, not a single bond has been sold and not a penny of bond money has been spent. The fund is caught up in court challenges.  But remarkably, the private sector has stepped in to fill the gap with almost unprecedented contributions to state government.  This fall, affluent Californians gave $31 million to the state agency that doles out grants for stem cell research, allowing it to begin functioning. Private money is also building new stem cell labs on university campuses across the state. Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad gave $25 million to the University of Southern California for a stem cell institute, sound-technology pioneer Ray Dolby gave $16 million to the University of California at San Francisco, and local donors are contributing to a $75 million expansion at the University of California at Davis.

Another article.
Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds

Outside the U.S., adult stem cells have been used to treat patients with Type 2 diabetes in Argentina, heart disease in countries including Germany, Thailand and India, and babies with malformed hearts in Japan. Success rates among these treatments are all at least 68% or higher. For the diabetics treated in Argentina, more than two-thirds were able to stop taking insulin and diabetes medications following the stem cell treatment.

"There's an incredible amount of research and a very large sum of venture capital and private investment going into the field," says Dr. Amit Patel, a cardiac surgeon and director of Cardiac Cell Therapy at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Patel has been called by venture capital firms to consult on potential investments. Bush's veto of the stem cell bill on Wednesday "may slow down embryonic stem cell research" adds Patel, but he's optimistic that research will continue nonetheless with private funding. Adult stem cell research will be unaffected.

Note the bold, research will continue with private funding.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 03:18 AM.

[DJS]

Debating politics makes me want to lop off my own arm and beat myself to death with it.

One of these days I'll learn not to respond to these sorts of topics.

[suspire]

Debating politics makes me want to lop off my own arm and beat myself to death with it.

One of these days I'll learn not to respond to these sorts of topics.

Yeah man, I figured that out awhile ago. It doesn't matter what you say; if the person isn't open to a genuine discussion of the facts(which is the case in most situations--they are so invested in their position, they will not change their mind), there is no hope for any real exchange of ideas. You will never change their minds--they will look for irrelevant minutiae to attack in your arguements in defense of their own fanatical ideology.

*EDIT: Here is a clue in deciding whether to bother: If someone starts off with the position that: "This means, with 2.4 million people dying in the U.S. a year, the democrats will sentence MILLIONS of people to DEATH", you know you need to run fast in the opposite direction.

Single issue voters also tend to be a bit scary, especially in their inability to see anything beyond that single issue. Add to that warped perceptions on how those single issues play out/are decided, and you've got a bonafide crazy on your hands.

[Futurist1000]

***EDITED FOR RELEVANCY

It doesn't matter what you say; if the person isn't open to a genuine discussion of the facts(which is the case in most situations--they are so invested in their position, they will not change their mind.

Hey sorry but so far your arguments have had no outside sources to back it up. Most of my evidence so far has at least come from legitimate sources. Neither of you guys have given any source I would consider legitimate yet. Hey I'll admit that sometimes I'm wrong. Nobody is perfect, if you think that you have good data backing up a certain point. Then post it.
You may think I am somehow set in my ways, but that is far from the case. Trust me, I have a very open mind. I hate Bush. I think he is the worst president we have ever had. I did NOT vote for him in the last election. I voted democratic. I am certainly not some republican pit bull.

I happen to think two things, universal healthcare will stifle innovation and it is probable that if a democrat is elected he will lead to a reduction in the market of the U.S.

Besides the whole stem cell branch is stupid anyway.

Rudy Giuliani: Embryonic stem cell research ok if limited properly

The potential Republican candidate is OK WITH STEM CELLS.

Let's not make the logical fallacy of going off topic.

What tends to happen in these forums is that I will make a post, and then someone will pick one small error that has nothing to do really with the overall content of my post.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 03:19 AM.

[niner]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about the terrorist bogeymen who were going to come and kill us all if we elected a Democrat president. Oh well. Why is it that Republicans seem to want people to be scared?

[biknut]

I feel the same way as hrc579, that voting Republican is the lesser of the evil. He's not saying they're great, just that we're better off being lead by them than the Democrats if that's all the choices we get.

My view has softened a little bit from the past. I used to think the Democrats would ruin our country, but now I've seen from experience that there's not really much difference between them. Mainly Democrats and Republicans just lie about different things they're not going to do.

[Futurist1000]

Yes, New Drugs Save Lives

How have medical innovations affected American health? In a study the Manhattan Institute is releasing today -- "Why Has Life Expectancy Increased More in Some States Than in Others?" -- I explain that incremental medical innovations, particularly the use of newer drugs, have played a major role in increasing American longevity in recent years.

I began by looking at the interstate variation in life expectancy. Most Americans would probably be surprised to discover that, on average, residents of Hawaii (81.3 years) and Minnesota (80.3 years) lived six or seven years longer than residents of Mississippi and Louisiana (74.2 years).

And while U.S. life expectancy increased by 2.33 years from 1991 to 2004, some jurisdictions -- the District of Columbia (5.7 years), New York (4.3 years), California (3.4 years) and New Jersey (3.3 years) -- led the way, while others, such as Oklahoma (0.3 years), Tennessee (0.8 years) and Utah (0.9 years), trailed the national average by significant margins. (Between 1991 and 2004, life expectancy in Maryland and Virginia increased by 2.5 and 2.6 years, respectively.)

To find out why this longevity "increase gap" exists, I examined several factors that researchers generally agree affect life expectancy, including medical innovation, obesity rates, smoking and HIV-AIDS infection rates. While each of these factors had an impact on longevity, the most important factor was medical innovation. In particular, I found that longevity increased the most in those states where access to newer drugs -- measured by their mean "vintage," or FDA approval year -- in Medicaid and Medicare programs has increased the most.

According to my econometric model, about two-thirds (63 percent) of the potential increase in longevity during this period -- the increase that would have occurred if obesity, income and other factors had not changed -- can be attributed to the use of newer drugs. In fact, for every year increase in average drug vintage there was an almost two-month gain in life expectancy.

YES U.S. medical innovations do SAVE lives. Not only in the U.S., but the world as well.
And yeah from the content of my posts, I think you would realize I think that BOTH the Democrats and Republicans suck. Just in this case, the Republicans may suck less. I'm not very happy with the choices of ANY candidates in this upcoming election.

[Futurist1000]

Q: Have pharmaceutical companies been unfair to American consumers? No: What U.S. consumers pay for medicines is far outweighed by the lives saved and extended by new drugs coming from the R&D pipeline - SYMPOSIUM

In a June 9 speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Mark McClellan stated: "As a result of changes in health care, millions of heart-attack patients who several decades ago would have died quickly or would be given largely comfort care for heart failure can now expect to live a long and high-quality life. Diabetics who used to see a relentless progression to heart disease, kidney failure or worse can now often throw away their needles. Even cancer patients who often faced long odds and miserable chemotherapy are experiencing longer lives, and fewer and shorter serious side effects of treatment.

"Some economists who have looked closely actually estimate that the value to society of the longer and better lives that have resulted from translating new biomedical knowledge into steps to prevent and slow diseases is worth literally many trillions of dollars in better health in particular, the value of biomedical innovation to our nation equals the value of innovation in all other sectors of the American economy combined."

Numerous studies prove the cost-effectiveness of modern medicines. In a March 2002 study, for example, spending increased fourfold for Alzheimer's patients who were receiving drug therapy, but total health spending for these patients declined by one-third. Average prescription-drug costs for the patients receiving treatment was $1,046 higher than for the control group that did not receive such treatment. However, the patients who received drug therapy had inpatient hospital costs that were $2,883 lower than the costs for patients in the control group.

Note the phrase "millions of heart-attack patients". And this is just in the U.S. The whole world gets a free ride off the backs of the american consumers because of price controls. How many lives have already been saved by U.S. innovation?

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 03:35 AM.

[Live Forever]

I would feel so much more comfortable for Republicans if they weren't the party of crazy fundamentalist religious people.

[niner]

Note the phrase "millions of heart-attack patients". Is my argument looking that crazy now? And this is just in the U.S. The whole world gets a free ride off the backs of the american consumers because of price controls. How many lives have already been saved by U.S. innovation?

That's not the part of your argument that's crazy. The crazy part is the idea that Democrats are going to institute some sort of Stalinist Health Regime and that pharmaceutical innovation will be totally quashed. BTW, most of big pharma is international, not US.

[scottl]

I would feel so much more comfortable for Republicans if they weren't the party of crazy fundamentalist religious people.

I see. So the Bush=Hitler crowd is your model of sanity?

NB: I don't like Bush, but the far left is just as fundamentalist in their own way.

[Futurist1000]

The crazy part is the idea that Democrats are going to institute some sort of Stalinist Health Regime and that pharmaceutical innovation will be totally quashed.

Well I've modified my first post to reflect a more sober assessment.

Here's a summation of several facts I have presented so far.

1) Being uninsured does not necessarily have any effect on life expectancy.

1) Europe used to be a world leader in medical innovation but now the U.S. is.

2) Europe has price controls, and a less freer market when compared to the U.S. This may be the cause of the reduced innovation

3) The U.S. has created a majority of the current top selling drugs and has created a majority of the top medical innovations.

4) These innovations have probably saved millions of lives because of increased life expectancy.

5) Some democrats favor more government control on the pharmaceutical industry.

If you disagree with any of these points so far, then by all means post your evidence.

If democrats are elected, this may lead to more interference in the free market, a reduction in american medical innovation and more deaths in the future that could have been avoided if a freer market was allowed.

If you disagree with these conclusions, then by all means say why.

I would feel so much more comfortable for Republicans if they weren't the party of crazy fundamentalist religious people.

Yes that's one of the reasons I used to dislike the republican party. However Rudy Guliani seems fairly resonable. He doesn't strike me as a religious nut, but I'm not sure if he is the man for the job or not.

[Ghostrider]

Michael Bloomberg all the way:

Bloomberg tends to be liberal about his policies towards many social issues; for instance, Bloomberg supports governmental funding for stem cell research, calling the Republican position on the issue "insanity" (wikipedia: Michael Bloomberg)

[Live Forever]

I would feel so much more comfortable for Republicans if they weren't the party of crazy fundamentalist religious people.

I see. So the Bush=Hitler crowd is your model of sanity?

NB: I don't like Bush, but the far left is just as fundamentalist in their own way.

I never said they were my model of sanity. I am about as libertarian as they come. (as evidenced by just about every post in this forum, lol) I said I would feel more comfortable with the Republicans if they weren't so wackily fundamentalist. (if they were socially more liberal, or at least more moderate) Really, I just wish there was a "libertarian" party that was viable in elections, but I know that is not possible the way the system is set up to favor a two party system. If I could take the half of each party that I like and merge them, that would be spectacular, but as we have seen, the neocons foreign policy perspective is very dangerous in today's world, which makes me scared to vote in their direction as I have usually done in the past.

Yes that's one of the reasons I used to dislike the republican party.  However Rudy Guliani seems fairly resonable.  He doesn't strike me as a religious nut, but I'm not sure if he is the man for the job or not.

Yeah, I don't know. I have just heard too many stories about how crazy he is from people who lived in New York when he was the mayor. I'll give everyone a chance, though. No matter who it is, they definitely need to be more pro-science that the current yohos.

[Live Forever]

Michael Bloomberg all the way:

Bloomberg tends to be liberal about his policies towards many social issues; for instance, Bloomberg supports governmental funding for stem cell research, calling the Republican position on the issue "insanity" (wikipedia: Michael Bloomberg)

That would be nice if he declared. I heard the Unity08 movement is trying to get him on their ticket.

[biknut]

Note the phrase "millions of heart-attack patients". Is my argument looking that crazy now? And this is just in the U.S. The whole world gets a free ride off the backs of the american consumers because of price controls. How many lives have already been saved by U.S. innovation?

That's not the part of your argument that's crazy. The crazy part is the idea that Democrats are going to institute some sort of Stalinist Health Regime and that pharmaceutical innovation will be totally quashed. BTW, most of big pharma is international, not US.

Key word here is mandatory. Next thing you know it'll be against the law to butter a roll.


Edwards backs mandatory preventive care

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 2, 6:30 PM ET



TIPTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care "ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single American?"

"Because if it doesn't they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care," he said. "Because in my view, everybody is worth health care."

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.

Edwards, who has been criticized by some for calling on Americans to be willing to give up their SUVs while driving one, acknowledged Sunday that he owns a Ford Escape hybrid SUV, purchased within the year, and a Chrysler Pacificia, which he said he has had for years.

"I think all of us have to move, have to make progress," he said. "I'm not holyier-than-thou about this. ... I'm like a lot of Americans, I see how serious this issue is and I want to address it myself and I want to help lead the nation in the right direction."

He said he would not buy another SUV in the future.

The Ford Escape, the first hybrid SUV on the market, gets an estimated 36 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway.

http://news.yahoo.co...el_pr/edwards_2

[Futurist1000]

.Price Controls Wrong Prescription for Low-Cost Drugs, Economist Warns
Two differing opinions in this article, but seeing my earlier posts I tend to agree more with the first economist. But they don't totally disagree on the free market.

(CNSNews.com) - Democratic contenders for the 2008 presidential election want to use the federal government to lower the cost of prescription drugs, but while the move may be well-intentioned it could end up costing lives, an economist argued during an event in Washington, D.C.

"If there is a 100 percent chance that Democrats will win the presidency and in two to three years there will be price controls on drugs, there will not be much sense in developing new drugs because the pharmaceutical companies will not be able to pay for it," he asserted.

Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the Economics Policy Institute, a think tank that favors more government intervention in the economy, said he did not disagree with the core argument of Lott's book -- that free markets are "less imperfect" than government control.

This site has some interesting information on the lives saved by the US innovations.

Chronic Disease

Each new drug approved between 1970 and 1991 saves an average of 11,200 life-years in 1991.---
Lichtenberg, Frank R. . "Longer Living Through Chemistry". The Milken Institute Review. Vol. 1st quarter,
The United States would have spent $634 billion less on health care in 2000 without many of the improvements in health and the associated investments that were seen between 1980 and 2000. However, there would have been 470,000 more deaths, 2.3 million more disabled, and 206 million more days in the hospital.

The amount of lives saved due to medical innovation can be substantial when you consider over 50 million people die in the world each year.

Edited by hrc579, 08 September 2007 - 04:09 AM.

[Shannon Vyff]

We need more than two parties here in the U.S., period.

Change is good, if we had Democrats for 8 years--I'd want Republican--mainly I go with whomever (of the two I get to choose from) appears to be smarter. It is hard to tell with their handlers and speech writers, I like to look at what they did in college

Suspire, we don't always get into arguments You can hang in more mellow, optimistic, educational or inspirational threads