****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.