A bit lost on a topic - little help here?

a reply to: deadlyhope

Medicine isn't socialized, so if you get a few pills on Medicaid the costs are gouged by hundreds, sometimes thousands of percents.

DING DING DING

Medicaid always pays sticker price.

We need socialized healthcare.

Obama/Romney care is not the solution.

When we allow insurance companies to charge inflated prices to guaranteed funding, only the insurance company wins.

Single payer sounds so bad until you realize what it is.

Well, my prediction was obamacare would fail under it's own costs, and it should have, but congress kept funding it.

So essentially what we have is a single payer system that everyone is required to participate in, but the insurance sellers are not required to keep it affordable. Instead the government will promise the insurance companies payments to compensate. They do that with lots and lots of taxes.

In the mean time, insurance companies are loving life because they just got 300 million guaranteed customers that even if they don't pay, the government will cover the costs, guaranteed.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Not sure I agree, we have a huge amount of money per capita, and that's while systems aren't streamlined. Medicine isn't socialized, so if you get a few pills on Medicaid the costs are gouged by hundreds, sometimes thousands of percents.

If America incorporated a lot of things and attempted an efficient model.... Done by ethical men, I think we could be the number one nation in the world for decades to come.

But an ethical and efficient American government is something to laugh, and cry about, as it's both a joke, and unfortunately will never happen.

I think that can be effectively mitigated by restructuring patent law and an overhauling of the FDA.

Why give a company 20 years to milk the brand name drug for all the profit they can while denying the opportunity for generic, cost effective, versions to come onto the market? I understand a company needs to recoup development expenses and needs to have a return on investment but to restrict competition in the market leads to monopoly pricing.

I believe your last sentence to be truth. It's the reason why I don't believe we should go down that road.

If's are nice to think about but they are not reality.

a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

At the same time, there is also the very real cost of drug research and development to consider. Being married to someone who works in pharma, if only in the vet sector, I see some of the other side. Yes, there is the profit consideration, but it takes a lot of time, money, and effort to bring a drug to market through the current regulatory maze, especially when you consider that the FDA is not the only such structure that must be navigated, nor is it necessarily the most picky and all of them must be satisfied in order to sell a medication. And there are lots of medications that never see the light of day. Husband has seen five failures at his job in 15 years, and he is seeing the destruction of two more that were perfectly viable and did their part to help alleviate world hunger by preventing food animal death due to regulatory changes.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sounds to me like government is once again the issue in this area.

I realize drugs should be made to be safe and such, but the fda does not have a trustworthy track record in the first place. They won't admit many herbs and vitamins - studied in other countries - are more effective than the drugs they'll pass.

a reply to: ketsuko

I understand there is a lot that goes in to bringing a drug to market. Money, man-power, etc.
And you're right, there are great investments that are put into products that never get to market, the cost of which needs to be recouped by those that do.

I do think, however, that there could be/are effective ways to solve the issues that are entirely of our own creation.

Migrating towards socialized medicine, and I believe we agree, would not only not solve the problems our current health care system has but would add countless new ones on top of it.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: ketsuko

Sounds to me like government is once again the issue in this area.

I mean this respectfully, my friend.

You stated you're a Sanders man yet I read this sentence. Why Bernie then?

In Mr. Sanders world view Government IS the answer to the issues we face. With Mr. Sanders you'll get more bureaucracy, more regulation, more of what is causing a great many of the problems we have already.

It just seems contradictory.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I agree we have some horrible people in charge of our country right now, but while we can agree on this I find the idea of Socialism offensive. I am a grown man and I don't want some patronizing Government rationing back the fruits of my labor to me or worse giving it to someone else.

I won't cede control of my life to Government nor do I wish to give them more control which is what will happen when we allow them to choose who loses and who wins through a redistribution of assets and goods.

PLEASE keep Socialism in Europe where it belongs.

I don't want a nanny state here.

a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Look up quality of life in the world. Every country except the USA has socialistic implementations similar to those that Bernie represents.

Look up incarceration rates, pollution, subjective well being, stress, and other factors.. USA is not number one in very many things, we have ways to improve - Why not emulate those that are above us in many factors?

Bernie is that guy.

Our congressman/senators etc are not.

Can anyone give me a link showing me that corporatism has less corruption than social/democratic nations?

Our American model of a capitalistic free market has been proven to be bad in these modern times. Corporatism mixed with a large federal government... Technically I want a libertarian who wants to reduce the size and scope of the fed, but there's not any getting more than 1% of the vote.

That's why Bernie. He desires to emulate proven economies - It's a good step, at the very least, even though not the correct step, at the correct time.

a reply to: Metallicus

I'm curious why Americans are so afraid of socialism.

Those countries you demonize in europe report higher qualities of life in EVERY AREA... Other than money.

Less crime/Less incaceration
Less pollution/More recycling
More renewable/sustainable power
More happiness ( as reported by the people/our people )

The list goes on.

Why do Americans only care about money?

a reply to: deadlyhope

I can agree with some of what you said.

But it still seems contradictory.

You would prefer someone to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government but since there is not you'll vote for someone who will expand and add to the Government you want reduced.

I think Corporatism is a problem, certainly...but I don't believe Socialism is the answer.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I'm curious why Americans are so afraid of socialism.

Typically it is because Americans like to value work in very skewed ways.

a reply to: deadlyhope

It leaves you with hope. But hope doesnt pay the bills. I'd venture to say out of all the great men who became President...and all theyve started and achieved...great things, some not so much...we should all be wealthy, have nice homes and cars and cities and a country that wants or needs nothing.

But? We arent wealthy, all don't have nice homes, cars or a country where all and everything and everyone in it...wants for nothing.

So, theres your answer. Just another election time, another group of promising and not so promising politicians and one business man with zero government experience. They will come and go over and over and over every election into the future as they always have, long after you and I and everyone else is long gone.

And the older I get...I realize how little my choice of candidate has anything to do with who they want to get in. This time around? We're in trouble whomever gets in...but TPTB already have them in....

a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Oh I think we do.

I am not an big proponent of the current system, but I don't want it socialized either. There has to be another way that works better for everyone.

The two products that are being destroyed? They are products that have been in service in the world for 25 and 30 years. They do exactly what they are designed to do in food animals as vaccines. They do it safely and effectively. The problem is that new management in the USDA has suddenly decided that the old testing protocols used for those drugs for all those years are now not good enough.

In order to make the product measure up to the demanded new standards, the product itself must be altered so that it isn't the same. It becomes either less effective, more expensive, or even dangerous to the animals. In short, it is no longer the same product, but one that is not worth bringing to market. So the products are being discontinued. The USDA won't allow them to be sold under the old regime mainly because they don't like the old regime and the product under the new regime is effectively something not worth the effort to sell.

Thank you government. Now several third world countries where these diseases are still a problem in the food animal populations are going to lose those effective means of control.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I'm curious why Americans are so afraid of socialism.

It isn't fear it is loathing and I explained why...it is an offensive system that assumes people can't take care of themselves and puts a Government in place of parents. I don't want or need Government. Socialism makes Government mandatory, necessary and more powerful.

a reply to: Metallicus

Socialized healthcare is not a bad thing. The rest of socialism is bollocks for the most part, but the health care part works.

I'm curious why Americans are so afraid of socialism.

For me it is about control.

Socialism means the government (or other people) are in control of me. They make choices for me. They have control over persons and property.

I was raised and it goes deep to believe that I have a right to those things: person and property.

Socialism must put others in charge of both of those in order to have a fully realized system, and once government starts socializing, it starts tainting and distorting everything around it.

Let's look at the public school system. It is nearly 100% socialized. Everyone pays into the system whether you have children or not. Everything about the system is dictated by government officials: where your children will go to school, what they will learn there, how much you as a parent will be permitted to interfere with that. Quality of the education given, despite the assurances of equality, vary widely from district to district so that the actual value of the education your kid receives can be divided by just a few blocks and nothing else really.

Because they know they have your children coming to the school, there is no real impetus for officials, administrators, or even teachers to work to improve the quality of what they offer. So you are really at the mercy of their whims and their "calling" or lack thereof. Large unions have gotten their hooks so deeply into the system by now, that it's next to impossible to even remove the bad teachers. Instead, they are either shunted from school to school or simply sent to what are called "rubber rooms" to do whatever while they collect salaries paid by taxes. It's cheaper than working through the elaborate and expensive arbitration system to fire them.

Endless waves of bureaucrats work through the system from top to bottom claiming to have the "next big thing" that will create all kinds of education gains in every child. Common Core and all its related gimmicks are simply the latest version of this. Children are not really taken into consideration. Instead, it's so-called experts who may never have even taught or worked with children a day in the life, but somehow know the best way to construct an education program that works for them (see: Gates). Effectively, all our children are just Guinea pigs and may be subjected to two or three or more different systems of pedagogy in their grammar school careers. How on earth do you expect them learn that way?

And when on school, either a charter or small local, does create a system that works for their kids, they are either soon destroyed by the system or everyone tries to copy them and when it doesn't work for everyone, they get discredited even thought they are producing workable, even fantastic results. What does it matter then, if they have a working system? Why denigrate something that works if it only works in one area and not for others? We should be glad it's working and not tear it down. But that is what the system does. Socialism does not tolerate individual results that would imply liberty.

So when the educations system is so tightly controlled, everything related to it is distorted by that control.

a reply to: ketsuko

This is a good response, really, thank you.

What is your response to what countries offer the highest quality of life in the world? Or do you believe your classroom example to apply to entire nations, where America could not emulate their systems with the same success?

I would in part agree with that, if you did make that assessment. America is just huge, we have thirty times the population of Canada, we have more illegal citizens than some countries have total citizens.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I think you are looking at a problem of size, scale, scope, and culture.

Every small town or municipality in the US has some things they do as a community in common. Yes, I am talking about the police, firefighting, and to some degree road maintenance. However, in many places these things are decided upon by bond issues and votes. And the community is small enough that while corruption is still a potential issue, it's effects can be easier to uncover and control. There is overall less a feeling of being compelled into the system.

Then look at the US. It is far larger, far less homogeneous, and even in its white anglo populations its culture is far more fractured than those of most European nations. Basically, when Sanders talks about how we should be like Denmark or Iceland in our socialism, those are countries smaller in land area than most US states! And that's before we even get into comparing populations. Do you think that the average person from Texas, California, and up-state New York are going to agree on most things or even have similar lifestyles once you take their differing climates into account? And that's not even asking you to factor in a possible rural/urban divide at the same time.

To give you one example, when I see people talking about how awesome electric cars are, I think about my current lifestyle ... It wouldn't work. I drive about an hour one way, so does my husband, we live between our jobs. It has never been any different for us despite our best efforts. Electric cars simply would not be at all workable or practical for us. And how do you factor in visiting family who live around 300 miles away which is a day trip now? It becomes a week-long undertaking with an electric car. People who propose that stuff are thinking strictly compact urban, high mass transit lifestyles and nothing else.

Socialism makes these kinds of decisions for people all the time. And for a smaller, mostly homogeneous population, you can much more easily get away with this and satisfy most people. But in a country with such a variety of peoples, cultures, lifestyles and needs, it would be far, far more difficult. You end up compelling people by force into situations they neither need nor want and it breeds a lot of resentment and anger toward the system.

Obamacare should have shown this.

I think the best way to at least slow down the corruption would be to pass a law to put a max term for politicians.

I would love to see a 1 term maximum 4 to 6 years for every politician , it would make for fresh ideas and stop the career politicians.

a reply to: ketsuko

That is a fantastic summary of education. Bravo!

The common core thing is what gets me. I don't get it. We are dumbing down our youth to make math easier. Mathematics is everything, and your brain is either wired to get it or it's not. You can't slowly teach someone advanced mathematics. There also is nothing wrong with not being wired for mathematics, because you will grasp other subjects better than the mathematicians will.

Public education is too focused on a set standard for everyone, but not everyone learns the same. So instead of evolving our educational system to tailor to individual talents, we lower the standards overall so everyone is the same level of stupid.

We hardly focus on advanced classes anymore due to lack of teachers in those fields. We keep setting the bar lower and lower, so everyone can hop over it.

We need our education system to stop being so standardized and start focusing more on each child's educational strength. This has to do with 2 issues currently that plague our youth. Lack of involvement from a parental aspect, and under qualification in teachers. To teach full-time you do not have to know a thing about the subject you teach, just get a degree in teaching and be handed a textbook. That is a huge issue when a child that excels in a subject goes to their teacher and asks questions the teacher cannot answer without looking at the textbook.