Huckabee opposes health insurance for people with pre existing conditions...

[WickedKitchen]

I want to get in on this thread but I just read it...I'm effing exhausted. Lots of good points here.

[sgreger1]

Without government intervention, what is there to prevent price leadership? We already have large enough, nation-wide corporations that could easily cooperate with each other and absorb competitors which choose not to play along, as I said previously. I don't see how government regulation exclusively causes such to happen.


Likewise you're beating the "big, controlling government" drum. Are you saying that there shouldn't be some sort of drug regulatory agency which ensures that new drugs go through the proper testing procedures? Otherwise we'd still be at the turn-of-the-century mindset with cocaine-laced tonic cure-alls.

The question you don't address is a question of trust. Drug companies spend a ton of money on both research of new drugs before going through testing. Many, many drugs don't see the light of day because once thoroughly studied the side-effects outweigh their intended effect. Of course, this means large potential losses if a drug fails in Phase 3 clinical trials.

Are you willing to trust that a company's drug is deemed safe through their own internal investigations despite a large potential conflict-of-interest? This is why the FDA exists. It exists so your meat is safe to eat, so the drugs you're taking have known, documented side effects that don't outweigh their benefits. Placing trust in a product without an unbiased third-party stamp-of-approval is placing trust in those cocaine tonics to cure everything.


Are you willing to understand your own metabolic processes which clinical researchers spend years studying? Impossible. Even researchers don't know the full extent of every drug interaction given the diversity of our species. You need to place trust in those who have studied the biochemistry of life instead, and I would place faith in a non-profit third party (in this case, the FDA) over a company trying to turn a profit after years of drug development.


Because as humans we have been able to mostly control natural selective process. We aren't animals. It should be our goal to control selection so that as a whole humans don't have to endure the suffering that every other species experiences.

And to answer your point about my personal mindset, no I don't regurtitate talking points of whatever our media tells us these days; I don't even watch what you would probably term the "liberal media". Although it is depressing that you seek to label my own bias instead of discussing arguments I've made with something more intelligble than "big government bad".

The problem is that you guys are trying to seperate BIG business from BIG government, as though they are two seperate entities which both of you are trying to convince the other is the REAL badguy. The problem here is that in today's climate, big pharma and big government work together. Ideally, government regulators should make sure food is safe to eat, make sure that oil rigs don't explode, and make sure that monopolies aren't created etc. The problem is that when companies get big enough they essentially buy out the regulators and it all falls apart.


I agree in many areas we need less regulation, but that certainly does not mean we need no regulation. I feel it is important that we have the FDA regulating drugs, though I don't always agree with how they do it since they essentially just step on the little guy all the time in order to help big pharma. Regulation is necessary, but for some reason works terrible in practice. But no regulation leads to flat out usery by corporations. So i guess between the lesser of two evils, regulation wins the bet here, because at least they will get it right some of the time.


With no regulation: Corporations will get together to screw the consumer to their profit
With over-regulation: Government will get together and screw the consumer and the corporations to their profit.
With some regulation: Corporations will get together with the government and come to a deal on how to screw the consumer in a way that is equally proftable to both parties.

It's really lose lose, you guys are arguing over which greedy dictator would govern us best, when in reality no matter who you vote for you get a greedy dictator that is only in it for their own gain. The big corp vs. big gov thing is like dems vs. reps. They are the same evil and supporting either of them will equally lead to failure. It's just a matter of what flavor of fail you prefer.

[truthwolf1]

Socialized healthcare is traditionally government run, though the most successful systems such as the swiss system involves a highly regulated (almost to the point of nationalization) insurance system. Basically insurance companies must provide everyone a basic package, and they cannot profit off of it. Everyone must buy at least that. The insurance companies however maintain a profit because they sell "better" (supplemental) coverage to those who can afford it. It's like everyone gets basic cable, but if you want HBO you gotta pay for extra.

This is exactly what will happen in the coming years. You will be covered by government or your high deductable work plan but to get your own room, faster surgery, faster chemo treatments, more attention etc.. you will either have to get the "diamond" plan or have enough money on hand to grease the doctors/nurses.

The influx of people that will be coming in for treatment will be huge once this all settles. (Aging baby boomer population comes to mind.) Since absolutely nothing was discussed or done about outrageous medical cost's the costs will just continue to climb.

[WickedKitchen]

High 5 Sgregr. I think that's pretty spot on.

[sgreger1]

This is exactly what will happen in the coming years. You will be covered by government or your high deductable work plan but to get your own room, faster surgery, faster chemo treatments, more attention etc.. you will either have to get the "diamond" plan or have enough money on hand to grease the doctors/nurses.

The influx of people that will be coming in for treatment will be huge once this all settles. (Aging baby boomer population comes to mind.) Since absolutely nothing was discussed or done about outrageous medical cost's the costs will just continue to climb.

Yes, I expect that our infrastructure will be tested when the influx of previously sick people all go to the doctor at once in the same month. It is going to be a ****ign circus.

But truthfully truthwolf, what you described is how things work. You can get basic shit cheap or sometimes free, but to get the premium service you have to pay more. To assume that everyone will get the same service is impossible, as there are always those who are willing to pay for more, and those who are willing to sell it.

This is like giving everyone DSL, but for the super high speed T1 connection you have to pay some money. I do not see that as unfair in any sense.