79 replies to this topic

[Aegist]

I would vote for Ron Paul. Otherwise, the entire republican party scare me.

Actually, forget that, all of the politicians scare me. Including what I know of the democrats. Just Vote Ron Paul, or vote for a third option or something.

[sentrysnipe]

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.

Giuliani's firm, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, represents Saudi Arabia royalties, Fox News, Hugo Chavez's oil company, and Citra, which is building the NAFTA Superhighway. I'm sure he is not the man for the job.

Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters




http://therealrudy.org/
I support Ron Paul

[apoptosos]

Republicans:
> stemcellophobia
> creationismphilia

You think just these 2 beauties alone don't blow your argument out of the water?

[Futurist1000]

Universal Healthcare a moral imperative

Clinton pointed out that the USA spends more on health care than anyone else in the world - two trillion dollars a year. However, the USA is ranked 31st in life expectancy and 40th in child mortality. "Each year, 18,000 people die in America because they don't have health care. Let me repeat that. Here in America, people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick."

She criticized Medicare's inability to use its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices; making families poorer and drug companies richer. "This is unconscionable, it is intolerable and it is time to put an end to it. It is time for us to come together and to start living up to our own values."

Clinton says that if she becomes President she will call on drug companies and insurance companies to do their part, adding that it is time patients are put first, rather than drug and insurance companies. "That means changing the way they do business. Now clearly with drug companies we have to do more to get generic drugs to market, including the new biologics that are coming into the marketplace and are often extremely expensive. We do have to provide more negotiation to get drug prices down and to import from Canada and other countries that are similar to ours. Because ultimately, the American tax payer pays for the development of a lot of these drugs through NIH grants and other kinds of research grants; we pay for the clinical trials, and then we pay the highest prices in the world. And we're going to begin to rein that in."

My plan puts an end to this. It forces insurance companies to compete based on cost and quality, not how skillfully they can weed out the sickest patients. My plan also has a prevention initiative, requiring the insurance industry and public programs like Medicare and Medicaid to promote wellness as well as treat illness and provide every American with comprehensive preventive care."

I think on the first bold I've already shown that you can't judge the healthcare system on life expectancy (or child mortality for that matter).

The second bold quote is just what I was saying, Hillary Clinton wants to reduce the profits of pharmaceutical companies.

In the third bold quote she saying she will basically force insurance companies to not discriminate on the basis of past medical history. So that means higher costs for insurance if enacted. Healthier people will end up paying more and since it is mandated by government they will have to get insurance even if they don't want to.

I really don't see any of hillary's economic policies as being very sound. She's an intelligent woman, I just don't see why she's pushing more socialism on the U.S. population. Not good in my opinion.
"she will call on drug companies and insurance companies to do their part" I find that quote especially disturbing. What happened to the U.S. being a "free" society. Now freedom means the right to have the government take care of all of your needs on someone elses back. Hillary expects people to "do their part". So Bush took away most of our personal freedoms and now Hillary is going to take away most of our economic freedoms. Thats just great.

> stemcellophobia
> creationismphilia

You think just these 2 beauties alone don't blow your argument out of the water?

I think all government sucks but what can I do. Most people are going to believe in creationism whether or not a democrat is elected. What good are stem cells if no company can make any money? They will never actually be able to get to market if it costs 100's of millions to run clinical trials. If you make the U.S. government in charge of healthcare do you really think they are going to make life extension a priority? Probably not. Death will be required at a specific time so you don't waste the taxpayer's money. Remember, the universe doesn't care if you live or die.

Edited by hrc579, 25 September 2007 - 03:10 PM.

[Futurist1000]

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Reimbursement, and Prescribing News in the Second Quarter of 2007

Following considerable political activity in drug pricing and reimbursement in the world’s major pharmaceutical markets in the first three months of 2007, the second quarter of the year proved to be relatively quiet. In the United States, Medicare Part D’s growing share of the U.S. prescription drug market could be bad news for pharmaceutical companies because employer-sponsored health plans typically offer more generous drug benefit designs. The French government’s pharmaceutical cost-containment strategies—particularly its vigorous promotion of generics—yielded significant savings. German physicians, pharmacists, and patients struggled to adjust to new manufacturer rebate contracts in the generics market. In Italy, a government-imposed price cut reduced pharmaceutical spending in the first four months of 2007. Spain’s new reference pricing system immediately boosted reference-priced drugs’ share of the pharmaceutical market. In the United Kingdom, a Parliamentary inquiry into the activity of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) uncovered serious concerns among drug manufacturers about the institute’s impact on the heath care system domestically and abroad. Following the Japanese government’s announcement that it was considering an overhaul of its drug pricing and reimbursement system in fiscal year 2008, the pharmaceutical industry prepared its proposals for reform.

[Cyberbrain]

Republicans:

1) Are not big fans of Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and Euthanasia
2) Most would prefer to keep the death penalty
3) Most are pro-war for a world police state
4) They're homophobic
5) Most would prefer to teach creationism next to evolution
and intelligent design next to cosmology

I know these were said before, but THESE alone should cause someone to stay clear
of Republicans. Aside from some of their economic theories (which I find somewhat
interesting), the rest of their ideologies are questionable.

[eternaltraveler]

(Scottl)

People IN THE US and their unrealistic expectations are part of the problem. People want:
--Free healthcare
--From baby's born very premature to....very old people.
--We want everything done i.e. no expense spared for our loved ones no matter the age, disease, or prognosis.
--Want want to take no responsibility for our healthcare (well or any other part of our life, but that is another story) and to eat whatever junk we want, consume as many calories, smoke, etc and have medicine save our asses.

(Live Forever)

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

Indeed.

[Futurist1000]

1) Are not big fans of Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and Euthanasia
2) Most would prefer to keep the death penalty
3) Most are pro-war for a world police state
4) They're homophobic
5) Most would prefer to teach creationism next to evolution
and intelligent design next to cosmology

Well I hate to break it to you, but a majority of the U.S. population also thinks these things. The amount of people who don't believe in evolution has INCREASED in the last ten years. Hey I didn't say I was happy with it. If you think your somehow going to make people in this country stop believing in god and all of the nonsense that goes along with it then your dead wrong. Just having the democrats in power won't necessarily change any of that.

[Cyberbrain]

1) Are not big fans of Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and Euthanasia
2) Most would prefer to keep the death penalty
3) Most are pro-war for a world police state
4) They're homophobic
5) Most would prefer to teach creationism next to evolution
and intelligent design next to cosmology

Well I hate to break it to you, but a majority of the U.S. population also thinks these things. The amount of people who don't believe in evolution has INCREASED in the last ten years. Hey I didn't say I was happy with it. If you think your somehow going to make people in this country stop believing in god and all of the nonsense that goes along with it then your dead wrong. Just having the democrats in power won't necessarily change any of that.

Well, yeah in a sense you're right. But I never said that democrats would magical shift societies paradigm.
All I said was that Republicans will simply aid in MORE people becoming this way. More or less America would
need a miracle to change.

[Futurist1000]

Well, yeah in a sense you're right. But I never said that democrats would magical shift societies paradigm.  All I said was that Republicans will simply aid in MORE people becoming this way. More or less America would.

Most of these issues probably won't change any whether a republican or a democrat gets elected. Stem cell research can be left to the states to decide funding. Abortion laws are pretty much set. I mean we've already had a republican president and republican controlled congress and they have yet to completely abolish abortion. The republican party may be against same-sex arrangements, but I know Bush favors civil unions. The war in Iraq will probably continue to some extent even if the democrats get elected. People will try to get creationism taught, but since it isn't science it's going to be very difficult for them to get any where on that front. Euthanasia and the death penalty I really don't care that much about. I think they are minor issues that I doubt the democrats will do anything about. In the short term, I don't think there would be any major changes if a republican was elected again.

To me I think is it a coincidence that the economy started to falter as soon as the democrats got control of congress? They seem to want to increase taxes on people a lot. I believe the healthcare plans they are promulgating will simply not work. I believe a free market solution would be better (however none of the candidates are proposing what I would really like to see). The democrats seem to want to reduce the profits of the pharmaceutical companies. I think this will inevitably lead to fewer products. I also think the economy will be worse off if the democrats gain power of the presidency. These things trump the other issues for me in the short term. Hey, the faster medical technologies can be created the better. To me why risk it when so many breakthroughs seem to be in the pipeline. I mean gene therapy seems like it's finally showing some promise in treating disease. Maybe universal healthcare would help people without insurance, but is it worth it if life extension technologies are delayed even if it was only a few years? I highly doubt that a universal healthcare scheme will speed up the introduction of new medical technologies. That would just fly in the face of all the reading I've done about Europe and Canada and their own universal healthcare systems. Getting medical technologies to market is only done if a company can make enough profits.

[Futurist1000]

From the fightaging blog (Friday September 21). Definitely confirms my own sentiments that government performs poorly when compared to the free market.

Fight Aging

Some good points made in the discussion to a post on the low cost-effectiveness of government-funded medical research:

Writing in The Scientist Frederick Sachs argues that the large increase in funding for the US National Institutes of Health did not produce a commensurate increase in scientific productivity as measured by papers published.
...

Geez. An inefficient, ineffective, socialist, bureaucratic research system (as measured by its failure to cure most anything over 40 years) hits diminishing returns...

Am I the only one not surprised?

Sublimate it as rapidly as possible into a free-market, sink or swim, enterprise and maybe we will see something good come of it.

That point is made at greater length and in greater detail in the comments by those who work inside the system. It's an important point for people with an eye on the next few decades of progress - if you want to see significant results in the advancement of human longevity, merely throwing resources at the problem is inadequate in and of itself. Without the right incentives, accountability, freedom and community, there will be immense waste, and the immense cost of missed opportunity. All spending by centralized government bodies is of that nature; no incentives for progress, no accountability for failure to achieve, and every incentive to keep money flowing above all else. Human nature leads to an inevitable mess - and we should be smarter than that by now.

It should not be at all surprising to see bloated funding and no benefit to show for the increase - that's the story across the board in government programs, and we all suffer for it.

[Futurist1000]

An interesting comment from someone at the end of this blog. The other comments there are interesting as well. Mighty strong opinion about the government.

Future Pundit

Oh for Pete's Sake! "Hopefully Anonymous" misses the point: It IS socialism that is empirically a catastrophe. It IS socialism that is going on here-- in all of its incentive-destroying nonsensical meet-the-regs-screw-the-result -- that is the causal problem here. It IS socialism (and the regulatory environment) that make it impossible to get to life extension therapy, cure for cancer, cure for diabetes, cure for heart disease. It's amazing biologics advances at all and in spite of the barriers thrown in front of it.

Right now -- this very instant -- I know how to make most solid tumors dissolve and can give the cancer patient equivalent survival without chemo or radiation. I can't get the therapy out there because of patents, FDA, and last but not least -- the damn NIH which publicly praises immunotherapy but privately tells everyone within earshot that chemo is the only way to go -- imagine what that does to funding... We do not have a free-market in healthcare.

But perhaps the other posters might want to review the literature surrounding the constantly dropping number of actually useful therapies approved by the FDA or the ever-increasing price of the approval process. Or perhaps the symbiotic relationship that the FDA gives preference to NIH-based initiatives and that the NIH doesn't pursue matters unlikely to garner FDA approval. A double-negative feedback loop based on intentions not facts. The NIH's and FDA's follies are precisely the sort of actions that one expects a powerful government bureaucracy to take--self-serving, irresponsible, heedless of the injuries it causes so long as they are ignored by the news media, and vindictive against whistle-blowers.

Never mind that the existence of large public funding spaces displace and dry up the private funding for private enterprises and prevent dangerous newcomers from accumulating capital and reputation. NASA with the space shuttle essentially prevented the emergence of private space vehicles. SpaceShip One could have been built in 1980 for ten times the cost. The FDA prevents the existence of private third-party review which would be much faster and cutting edge. Why do I have to waste millions in dog trials when I have a stack of papers 6 feet high outlining the whole damn thing including papers documenting human experiments... oh right -- retrospective data is not accepted for approval or post-approval monitoring... How f'ing stupid is that people? The NIH preempts the existence of private labs with all the incentives to aggressively move to market with a working idea. The NIH defacto publishes papers -- therapy is few and far to come by. Note the BMP-7 fiasco where J&J has quietly walked away from the therapy leaving kidney disease sufferers stranded -- even though BMP-7 by every measure available should cause regression of both glomerular and tubulointerstitial disease. Unfortunately there are no small or medium-sized labs outside of NIH that could possible pick up BMP-7 and run with it.

I leave you with two paragraph quotes:

1)Worse, Miller notes, the FDA routinely denies approval to successful products already used in Europe, holding up use in the U.S. of items ranging from injectable antibiotics for resistant pathogens to a vaccine against meningitis. Economists calculate that the number of people who have died or suffered while waiting for useful drugs to be approved by the FDA may outnumber those saved by keeping bad drugs off the market. In a 2000 review of economists' reports on the FDA, Santa Clara University economist Daniel B. Klein reported that he was unable to find a single one who felt the agency approved drugs quickly enough. He found economists' opinions on what to do with the FDA "ranging in degrees from gradual decontrol to outright abolition of the agency."

2)Department of Eating Out -- a great new bureaucracy to improve the pizza experience:

What if we created a fictitious U.S. Department of Eating Out? What would a pizza order look like? Well, they’d ask you for each individual’s social security number, look through their records, and determine that they will send you two medium anchovy pizzas for everyone in your eleven-person party. You argue with them on the phone and you tell them that most of you don’t like anchovies, but it turns out that three of your friends didn’t register with the the department of Eating Out. That’s why you are only getting two medium pizzas. And that’s why they made with anchovies. But don’t worry… Your pizzas will arrive in 120-150 minutes and they are free. That is until you look at how much the government is paying for your two pizzas: each pizza costs 15 dollars, but the total isn’t 30 dollars. The total hidden cost is 570 dollars because the government pays minimum wage and it was just raised to 13.00. The person who made your pizza dropped a bucket of tomato sauce on the floor and his friend slipped and had to be sent to the emergency room.

But who cares right? If it wasn’t for the goverment, we wouldn’t have pizzas. Everyone would have to buy their own pizza, and who would deliver it? Does anybody outside the government even know how to make a pizza? No thanks. We’ll eat our cold and tiny anchovy pizzas and pay 570 dollars for them. We are scared of the consequences of abolishing the Department of Eating Out.

NOW IMAGINE RESEARCH AT THE NIH IN THAT CONTEXT AND YOU WONDER WHY THE PAPER RATE DIDN'T INCREASE.....

It would be ashame if all the technology to end aging existed, but the government beauracracy was just too bloated to allow any of it to get to market.

Edited by hrc579, 28 September 2007 - 06:10 PM.

[biknut]

Republicans:

1) Are not big fans of Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and Euthanasia
2) Most would prefer to keep the death penalty
3) Most are pro-war for a world police state
4) They're homophobic
5) Most would prefer to teach creationism next to evolution
and intelligent design next to cosmology

1) Stem cell research will happen, nobody is a big fan of abortion or euthanasia.
2) Who cares, in the main scheme of things it's not that big a deal
3) Dems are just as bad. Bosnia
4) I'm not gay so I don't care about it one way or the other
5) Big deal, anyone can believe whatever they want, doesn't affect me


Democrats:

1) Never heard of anything they don't want to tax
2) Believe in socialism, and high taxes
3) Want to control all life on earth with taxes

Democrats suck
Republicans suck too

It's a tough choice but I'll take the Republicans, they suck less when it comes to what I want from life, and my pursuit of happiness.

[JMorgan]

Republicans:

1) Are not big fans of Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and Euthanasia
2) Most would prefer to keep the death penalty
3) Most are pro-war for a world police state
4) They're homophobic
5) Most would prefer to teach creationism next to evolution
and intelligent design next to cosmology

I object to this analysis. I am a Republican and none of these describe me at all except #2.

1. Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger aren't Republicans? (Granted, more liberals are in favor of stem cells than conservatives, but this will change.)
2. Fine. I wear this badge with honor.
3. Don't confuse our support for current policies as an always "pro-war" stance. I'm a fan of Thomas Barnett's strategy for a globalized world that will eliminate great power war as we know it. Tyranny, poverty and terrorism go hand-in-hand and eliminating these is necessary for progress. Our security depends on the freedom of people around the world.
4. Senator Craig aside? I think this is inaccurate. There's broad support for civil unions even while there's broad opposition to same-sex marriages.
5. Fundamental Christians yes. All Republicans no. And right now, the front runner for the Republican primary is NEITHER a social conservative nor a fundamentalist. I find that very encouraging.

[Cyberbrain]

Republicans:

1) Are not big fans of Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and Euthanasia
2) Most would prefer to keep the death penalty
3) Most are pro-war for a world police state
4) They're homophobic
5) Most would prefer to teach creationism next to evolution
and intelligent design next to cosmology

I object to this analysis. I am a Republican and none of these describe me at all except #2.

1. Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger aren't Republicans? (Granted, more liberals are in favor of stem cells than conservatives, but this will change.)
2. Fine. I wear this badge with honor.
3. Don't confuse our support for current policies as an always "pro-war" stance. I'm a fan of Thomas Barnett's strategy for a globalized world that will eliminate great power war as we know it. Tyranny, poverty and terrorism go hand-in-hand and eliminating these is necessary for progress. Our security depends on the freedom of people around the world.
4. Senator Craig aside? I think this is inaccurate. There's broad support for civil unions even while there's broad opposition to same-sex marriages.
5. Fundamental Christians yes. All Republicans no. And right now, the front runner for the Republican primary is NEITHER a social conservative nor a fundamentalist. I find that very encouraging.

1. I hope it changes.[lol]
2. The death penalty goes against all our ideologies of life and immortality.
3. I too am for globalization, but through diplomatic solutions, not military force. Thomas Barnett's idea would only be reasonable if it applied to the UN or something. The US does not have the right to invade a country so as to "free" its people.
4. Huh? Show me a conservative who supports equal liberty rights for homosexual marriages and same sex couples.
5. I said most not all Republicans. [tung]

[JMorgan]

Civil unions and domestic partnerships ARE supported by many conservatives as an alternative to same-sex marriage. And, there are many Democrats who take the same position. It's just not popular to support same-sex marriage yet. Give it a decade or so.

However, this whole thread reminds me of John Edwards' recent claim that unless he becomes president, "We’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."

Kinda similar no? The whole "Vote for me or DIE" scare tactic. John Kerry made a similar remark when he said that Christopher Reeve would not walk again unless HE'S president. (This of course came before Reeve died.)

This scare tactic isn't right when the Democrats do it and it isn't right when the Republicans do it either.

[Futurist1000]

Kinda similar no? The whole "Vote for me or DIE" scare tactic. John Kerry made a similar remark when he said that Christopher Reeve would not walk again unless HE'S president. (This of course came before Reeve died.)

This scare tactic isn't right when the Democrats do it and it isn't right when the Republicans do it either.

Yeah I went a little overboard on the title. Just an attention grabber. It is only a forum. I'm not totally against the democrats. I'm more against the inevitable price controls that will come with a universal healthcare system (and the democrats economic plans).

[JMorgan]

I'm not totally against the democrats. I'm more against the inevitable price controls that will come with a universal healthcare system.

Certainly. I don't have health insurance myself and even I don't want government-enforced/provided healthcare. The fact is that it does NOT work in Canada and costs way more than Americans realize or are willing to pay in taxes.

Right now, many Canadians come to the US for surgery because they don't feel like waiting 10 months or more to have a tumor removed. They're willing to pay out of pocket for something they cannot get at home. The Canadian system is not the kind of system we want here. While I agree our current health care system is not perfect, I prefer this than some of the alternatives that have been offered so far.

I don't want a president who *thinks* they know EVERYTHING about taxes AND education AND healthcare AND foreign policy AND every domestic issue. I want a president who understands global economic policy and security... that's it. Let the rest be run by the legislature and the free market.

[Matt]

Yeah I went a little overboard on the title. Just an attention grabber. It is only a forum. I'm not totally against the democrats. I'm more against the inevitable price controls that will come with a universal healthcare system (and the democrats economic plans).

I couldn't believe what I heard the other day on the news. A boy living in the US, the richest country in the world? died because he couldn't get a tooth pulled as he had no money and no health insurance. How sad is that! Everyone should have a free health service.
http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=3120743

[Futurist1000]

I couldn't believe what I heard the other day on the news. A boy living in the US, the richest country in the world? died because he couldn't get a tooth pulled as he had no money and no health insurance. How sad is that! Everyone should have a free health service.

Toothbrush

The toothbrush is an instrument used to clean teeth, consisting of a small brush on a handle. Toothpaste, often containing fluoride, is commonly added to a toothbrush to aid in cleaning. Toothbrushes are offered with varying textures of bristles, and come in many different sizes and forms. Most dentists recommend using a toothbrush labelled "Soft", since firmer bristled toothbrushes can damage tooth enamel and irritate gums as indicated by the American Dental Association.

Yes the toothbrush. Amazing what those scientists can think of. Talk about cutting edge technology. Yes I personally have mastered using the toothbrush. I took several advanced level toothbrushing courses in college. Reading the 200 page text book was difficult, but its well worth it in the long run. The toothbrush is definitely state of the art preventative medicine at its best. Very few people understand how to use this arcane technology. As for floss..... I'm still working on it. I still haven't successfully managed to maneuver a piece of floss between my teeth. Give me a few years though, I'm sure I'll get it eventually.

Driver was entitled to dental coverage under Medicaid, but his struggling mother couldn't find a dentist to treat him even with the help of a lawyer.

"It should not take dozens of calls and dozens of hours to find a dentist for a child who has a tooth abscess," said Laurie Norris of the Public Justice Center.

ABC News went to Medicaid for answers.

"Well, the Medicaid program does in fact cover these services," said Leslie Norwalk, acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Besides, he WAS covered. They just couldn't find a doctor in time.

Maybe we should have a government run agency where dentists would visit your house every day. The dentists would just come to your house and would brush your own teeth for like 5 minutes. Yeah, that's a great idea. Then we could save a lot of money because of reduced dental visits. To pay for this, well just slap all the dentists with a providers fee. But they won't make less money because they will be seeing more patients which the government will reimburse them for. We just need to have a government comittee to oversee all the dentists and schedule the visits. That will only cost an extra 5 billion dollars. Don't want to get your teeth brushed by a government employed dentist? Too bad. Don't want to pay an extra tax so that everyone can get their teeth brushed for "free". You MUST pay so that poor people can also get their teeth brush. As a taxpaying citizen it is your responsiblity to make sure that everyone gets their teeth brushed. You would directly benefit from having poor people's teeth being brushed. Imagine if you had to come in contact with one of these people and they had halitosis. Horrible thought isn't it? Hey were all in this together. We need to take care of one another. We are the richest nation on earth, so that means that people are entitled to your money.

(Don't take this post too seriously [lol] )