birdog1960

no doubt, along with and factors like corruption and incompetence. but that's a long way from enough evidence on which to condemn the entire idea of single payer.

shocking...budgetary problems in italy. next you'll be linking to problems in spain, portugal or greece.

just saw this article as well and was going to link it. this is exactly how it's supposed to work and ultimately, likely will. i'm guessing there will be a few more new yorkers supporting the bill after these numbers become real to people buying insurance in new york. there's a saying that's been around most of my career: "loyalty is a $20 copay". and it's been mostly true in my experience. most people will switch docs if a visit is going to cost $20 more, sometimes even $10 more. that's a choice, not a demand. similarly, they can buy insurance on the exchanges that includes their current physician.. it may not be the least expensive but it's their choice.

most data is what? this was a bald face lie meant to deceive. it was cited here. no one questioned it here til this morning (in fact, several riffed on it). that's the point. show me an analogous situation cited by a progressive here. b man is becoming quite experienced at it and when his citations are shown to be bunk, he just ignores it.

um, not asking to compare sources, i'm asking that you compare relevant data. do you concede that this piece of propaganda making the rounds on the web is based on garbage data comparison?

do you all ever critically exam the shite that your handlers feed you. if you did, you would definitely find some worms....http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

as i've amply demonstrated i have many opinions including on this issue. i however have no further desire to argue them with a dolt like you.

actually it's an appeal to authority. in this case, the authority is the director of the nih, an internist, responsible for much of the success of the human genome project and a phd physicist. it's not fallacious to appeal to a respected expert. now, asking for your credentials and then belittling them, that would be ad hominem. collins has actually been interviewed for multiple stories on this issue. they're readily available and i generally agree with what he's publicly stated in this regard. avail yourself to these sources if you have such a burning interest.

comparing your intellect to collin's is like comparing a gnat to an elephant. he thinks it's a good idea. you don't...nuff said.

yeah, never happened before...http://www.atomicheritage.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_Scientists_behind_the_Manhattan_Project. why would it work now?

don't know about scientits but scientists needn't be (that scientist, freud, would have a field day). fact is that many aren't. francis collins of the nih actually recently proposed a hybrid model where the nih engages in the discovery and industry finishes the development of drugs. seems perfectly logical and very likely effective. but then who would develop the me too's and patent extenders? unsurprisingly, that idea hasn't gone far.

the drug bill passed during the bush administration specifically disallowed medicare from negotiating en masse for drug prices. look it up. i'll make it easy: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/04/tammy-baldwin/uncle-sam-barred-bargaining-medicare-drug-prices-s/ here's that bleeding heart liberal, bruce bartlett commenting on that bill: http://www.forbes.co...e-bartlett.html). that's a subsidy. and big pharma is still saying "thanks george! you know your people when you see em". can we agree that the scientists that make the discoveries and enable the development of new wonder drugs rarely make the big bucks (see the thread on science majors for unsolicited opinions)? can we agree that they almost always give up rights to intellectual property when they sign on (as they do at govt orgs and universities)? can we agree that it would be possible to give them the same or better incentives at the nih of nsf to do the same work but focused on the development of drugs/ devices/procedures that are generally agreed to likely be cost effective and beneficial to society rather than patent extenders or me too's? i suppose we'll agree to disagree.

subsidies, meaning not using enormous (possibly the worlds largest) volume purchases to obtain discounts for buyers. like the VA does. like medicaid does. like nearly every other country on the planet does. these guys can make it on their own. where's that liberterian spirit now?

uh, no. take a look at their balance sheets and huge salaries. got a lot of room to cut subsidies before those are consumed. and that's before they stop advertising and paying drug reps. they make a better mousetrap, er drug, it will be prescribed and they will do just fine. can you think of any other private industry that requires this level of subsidy for r and d? letterman mentioned that he was watching the all star game and his kid kept asking about reptile dysfunction. he sorted him out by explaing that what was being advertised was a perfomance enhancing drug. wouldn't it be great if all those ads just disappeared?

they do very little of that. mostly they decide what basic (not applied) research gets funded at universities. most new drugs are me too's as i described and are produced solely for the purpose of profit by the drug companies. there are very few novel molecules produced. so what happens if we stop? ya think big pharma folds it's tents and goes home?

no more than the fbi is subsidized. hand over drug development to scientists that have no interest in making the 14th version in the same class of cholesterol drugs and you'll get better science and likely better drugs. and a luddite is anti technology. i'm not.

well, yes. so why should we? patents have a finite life. is that not enough incentive alone to develop new drugs? if you think entities like the nih are "subsidized" then i suppose you have an argument. i don't happen to think that they are.

nope. why should americans pay the lions share for this? most drug companies are now multinational, why aren't they subsidized multinationally? why are they subsidized at all? generally a cat just goes at it. they're not known for ruminating. never much cared for cats.

enlighten us, please. and about that data... this is the small fraction. but, the proper question is why should we?

he's not gonna answer, so i'll do it for him. nearly all the highly compensated employees in these systems are paid less than in our system. hospitals, drugs, surgeries, procedures and diagnostics are reimbursed much less. less is spent on administration. there's less utilization since it's regulated. there's no profit. pretty simple. no magic necessary.

hmmm...so how do ya'll interpret this move? at the extreme, one could imagine the republicans voting for this at the behest of big business (reversing the individual mandate has absolutely no chance of passing the senate). they don't want the employer mandate. maybe they don't want to be in the business of providing health care insurance at all anymore as they see no end to escalating costs. so what happens if they start backing away from employer sponsored plans? at the other extreme,maybe it's just more boner theater with a cast of really bad actors. wanna cite some data that supports your position (on health care costs and outcomes, specifically)? don't imagine "shutting down"...more like collapsing under its own unbearably expensive weight.

just at a seminar aimed at hospital and physician execs. one of the first slides was avg health costs vs life expectency graph in various countries that i've linked here. the gist is that the US has middling life expectance at over double the cost of our nearest competitor. speaker asked who didn't believe it (if doc were there his hand would have shot up as he yelled "oooo,ooo". no one put their hand up and he said something to the effect : "good. because industry believes in these numbers and are tired of paying through the nose for poor quality". and the answer to this problem per this speaker: aco's. as i posted earlier, many similar strategies have been employed with very little success. i very much doubt aco's are the answer. and if i'm correct, there will be a frantic search for another answer pushed hard by american businesses. and the one common denominator of nearly all the low cost, high quality systems currently in existence is single payer. there's only so many chances that for- profit medicine will get to solve this. i think they're almost out. doc apparently doesn't. will see...

no, it's not a bad thing. but it would likely lead to single payer since as you say, employer sponsored plans would disappear rapidly and this is curently the source for most private insurance. i suspect that's why it's in the bill. be interesting to see which special interest groups had a hand in writing that part of the bill.

unsurprising that you can't appreciate nuance. if it's not black or white it doesn't exist. while i don't believe in moral relativism, i certainly believe that relativism is a political necessity. the entire system is based on relativism. and i made no comment on the outcome of the fla trial. i merely pointed out that there are few private individuals that have the ability to influence political policy. i actually believe that the trial was fair, the outcome appropriate but the circumstances tragic. the tragedy continues with people on both sided attempting to advance their agendas over this horrible incident.

geez, that's a real knee slapper....it's the law. it's already changed health care appreciably. it will continue to change health care, fundamentally. health care comprises about 17% of the us economy. i'd say "draw your own conclusions" but undoubtedly you'd arrive at invalid ones like it will be rescinded. wow, what a surprise! small employers not wanting to pay for health insurance for employees. who would have imagined that? it's not like anyone has ever seen that before. fortunately, there's an easier solution. it's called single payer.