Political discussion, including, but not limited to, the Iraq war and Bush II

[grawk]

I was tempted to respond to a tangential response from one of our canadian members, but thought better of it. Lets just leave it at comparing apples to oranges isn't useful.

[aardvark baguette]

I think you mean FEMA. I have no idea what FIMA would have to do with the Superdome.

Yeah. Another idiot moment of mine.

Plus I tend to make posts quick during the day if its not during lunch break

[saint.panda]

One thing is that America is to be credited for most of the innovation in the medical field, from which other countries benefit. But while R&D is always expensive, it still doesn't explain 16% of GDP.

[aerius]

One thing is that America is to be credited for most of the innovation in the medical field, from which other countries benefit. But while R&D is always expensive, it still doesn't explain 16% of GDP.

A lot of R&D costs are tax write-offs anyway, so the actual cost to the company will be significantly lower than the dollar value, how much depends on how good their accountants are. But guess what the fun part is.

Drug companies spend twice as much on marketing as they do on R&D. Because pimping Viagra on every fucking media outlet will improve the health of Americans.

[aardvark baguette]

Using data from two market research companies, the University of Quebec's Marc-Andr

[grawk]

[aerius]

I dont pretend to be an expert on the subject, but this looks like both numbers were from 2004; if they were advertising something in 2004, chances are the bulk of the money that went into R&D for whatever products they are advertising was spent prior to 2004.

It's a long-term historical trend. Link

Excerpt:

Closely tied to excess me-too drugs are excessive marketing expenditures. For decades, the big drug companies have spent far more on "marketing and administration" (companies have slightly different names for this budgetary item) than on anything else. Throughout the 1990s, for example, the top 10 drug companies in the world consistently spent about 35% of sales on marketing and administration, and only 11% to 14% on R&D.7 (For that decade, they took in profits of 19% to 25% of sales.) Just looking at the top 10 US companies in 2002, expenditures for marketing and administration were 31% of sales, compared with only 14% for R&D.1 That comes to an astonishing $67 billion dollars of their $217 billion in sales.

The 2:1 marketing to R&D spending ratio has held for at least the last 15-20 years, and I wouldn't be surprised if the trend goes a lot further back. I don't have the time to dig up SEC filings for pharmaceutical companies going back 50 years, but someone else has probably done the research already. We do know for a fact that over the last couple decades at least, drug companies have spent around twice as much on marketing as they have on R&D.

[909]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuEdJ0DAGc]YouTube - You Choose '08 Spotlight: Ron Paul on Healthcare[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZS0RPvI1rQ[/ame]

[OverlordXenu]

I would love to see socialized health care in the US, but I just cannot see us doing it. People don't want higher taxes, the government doesn't want to cut the military budget, etc.

If someone could get it to work, I would applaud them.

I have health care through my work, but it's a nightmare...

[grawk]

I hear cuba accepts immigrants.

I would love to see socialized health care in the US, but I just cannot see us doing it. People don't want higher taxes, the government doesn't want to cut the military budget, etc.

If someone could get it to work, I would applaud them.

I have health care through my work, but it's a nightmare...

[slwiser]

Socialize medicine was attempted in Tennessee in the 90s. I has failed badly and almost bankrupted the state. Check it out. They still have it but cover almost nothing today. At least people can still have private insurance to cover themselves under HILLARY THIS WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION.

[ojnihs]

At least people can still have private insurance to cover themselves under HILLARY THIS WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION.

quoted for emphasis.

hillary's universal health care plan is a complete and utter joke.

[909]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2zx3-0zOPs]YouTube - Raw Video: Too Old? 'You Little Jerk,' McCain Laughs[/ame]

[aerius]

At least people can still have private insurance to cover themselves under HILLARY THIS WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION.

If you're going to argue against Hitlery's system, at least you can fucking understand it. Hitlery doesn't outlaw private insurance, rather, her plan forces you to buy healthcare coverage from existing private insurance companies, and if you don't, you get the the shit fined out of you. Her bullshit proposal would give you the worst of all possible systems.

[slwiser]

If you're going to argue against Hitlery's system, at least you can fucking understand it. Hitlery doesn't outlaw private insurance, rather, her plan forces you to buy healthcare coverage from existing private insurance companies, and if you don't, you get the the shit fined out of you. Her bullshit proposal would give you the worst of all possible systems.

I was not talking about the one she is alledged to support today but the one she presented back in the 90s. Do your homework as well.

I remember a quote from her back then when asked if forcing small business to pay for the insurance premiums that the government was going to mandate. She said "I can't help if those bussiness' are undercapitalized." As if they all went under it would be better than those working went on government support. That was a scary thought to me at the time.

I recently heard her say something akind to the fact that the baby boomers have some wealth that can be tapped to support her programs. Turning this around I can her heard say "I can't help if some people are overcapitalized and have to pay more than those that can't."

Who said "from those that have to those in need" (paraphrased)? Marx.

Now how do we defined who is in need? Those that don't want to work and just want to take? When government steps in, people step back. This has been proven time and time again.

[grawk]

I was not talking about the one she is alledged to support today but the one she presented back in the 90s. Do your homework as well.

Some people aren't worth engaging

[tyrion]

Socialize medicine was attempted in Tennessee in the 90s. I has failed badly and almost bankrupted the state. Check it out. They still have it but cover almost nothing today. At least people can still have private insurance to cover themselves under HILLARY THIS WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION.

States are not financially in a position to support a universal healtcare plan or at least they are not in as good a position as the federal government which already has a system set up (Medicare) which is a pretty efficient system. It can be argued whether it is or isn't more efficient than private healthcare. From the limited research I've done, the independent research seems to support that it is more efficent having more of each dollar coming in going to providing healthcare.

If this statement, "At least people can still have private insurance to cover themselves under HILLARY THIS WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION." was referring to Hillary's old plan then it has no relevance to what she would do today so why even mention it. aerious pointed this out and you said in response that you were referring to her old plan from the '90s. If this is true, then why mention it?

[ojnihs]

If this statement, "At least people can still have private insurance to cover themselves under HILLARY THIS WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION." was referring to Hillary's old plan then it has no relevance to what she would do today so why even mention it. aerious pointed this out and you said in response that you were referring to her old plan from the '90s. If this is true, then why mention it?

because both plans show that hillary has no fucking idea what she's talking about. her universal health care plans are undeniably flawed and it shows that she hasn't learned a thing from her first proposal to her new one.

[postjack]

well, looks like i'll be voting for McCain. i'm not in love with his positions, but he seems like a straight shooter. his statement about vaccines and autism was pretty stupid, though. still better than Hillary of Obama, though, i think. i'm a big time small government type, though, so it colors my opinions.

I've been a longer time fan of McCain then any of the other candidates, since he basically is an honest man. I like that he is a conservative without being an idealouge or a slave to social conversativism and evangelicals. The absolute biggest turn off to me about the modern republican party is candidates who drape themselves in the Shroud of Turin like Bush did.

Having said that, I think the only reason McCain is getting the establishment nod is because the Republicans know this is their year to lose, so they might as well let McCain take the hit. After Clinton's Texas and Oklahoma primary wins, I'm back to thinking she'll get the nomination, and after her comments on one of the morning shows today, I'm again hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Yes I said I like John McCain but I dislike Republicans more, so as it stands right now I'll vote for a Democrat in the Fall.

[tyrion]

because both plans show that hillary has no fucking idea what she's talking about. her universal health care plans are undeniably flawed and it shows that she hasn't learned a thing from her first proposal to her new one.

The system now if undeniably flawed. I would take a less flawed plan over the current one, if it means 17,000,000 more people will have access to health insurance. There will never be a perfect plan or system for healthcare or anything else. I'm sorry but it's unacceptable to me that 17 million people don't have access to health insurance in what is supposed to be the greatest, most compassionate country on earth.

Jack, I agree in conclusion with you but my problem with McCain now is that he is a Bush apologist. He is also a hypocrite. He was attacked viciously in South Carolina in '00 by Bush and turns around and is his best friend. That shows a lack of a backbone which surprised me considering he served this country honorably all these years. One of the most important reasons from me not voting for any Republican (there are many bu this is the most important) is that 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justices are likely to retire and if a Republican is in office a women's right to choose will be taken away. I have a daughter and that is absolutely unacceptable to me. A president can only fuck things up for 2 terms, a Supreme Court Justice can do it for generations.

[aerius]

I was not talking about the one she is alledged to support today but the one she presented back in the 90s. Do your homework as well.

I remember a quote from her back then when asked if forcing small business to pay for the insurance premiums that the government was going to mandate. She said "I can't help if those bussiness' are undercapitalized." As if they all went under it would be better than those working went on government support. That was a scary thought to me at the time.

I'm not psychic, I can't read your mind. When discussing current events and healthcare plans, how the fuck am I supposed to know you're talking about something from a decade ago? In any case, Hitlery's plan back then was just as fucked as her current one.

When government steps in, people step back. This has been proven time and time again.

I hear this stated over & over with no proof at all. I guess the industrial revolution period is better than today since governments had practically no regulation over private enterprise, and employees could be worked to death in mines & factories for a penny a day. I suppose the lack of health & safety regulations were a good thing for everyone back then.

Or in slightly more modern times, I suppose letting Standard Oil & the railroad commissions use their monopoly power to run roughshod over all their competitors was a good thing. I mean afterall there's nothing wrong with anti-competitive practices such as taking kickbacks from the railway commission, and furthermore, colluding with the railway commission to tax the shipments of competitors and funneling the money thus collected straight into Rockefeller's pockets. Not to mention putting countless people out of work and bankrupting entire towns.

And as the most recent examples, I guess handing out no-bid open-ended contracts to Halliburton in Iraq is a great thing. So is allowing banks and other financial institutions to package & trade CDO's & other debt based derivatives & investment vehicles without requiring them to put them on the balance sheets. And you wonder why the banks are fucking tanking right now and taking the rest of the market & economy down with them. Lack of government regulation is clearly a benefit to society.

[aerius]

The system now if undeniably flawed. I would take a less flawed plan over the current one, if it means 17,000,000 more people will have access to health insurance. There will never be a perfect plan or system for healthcare or anything else. I'm sorry but it's unacceptable to me that 17 million people don't have access to health insurance in what is supposed to be the greatest, most compassionate country on earth.

Couldn't agree more.

Jack, I agree in conclusion with you but my problem with McCain now is that he is a Bush apologist. He is also a hypocrite.

The funniest part is his stance on torture. McCain claims to be against torture, then he turns around and votes FOR waterboarding and all the other shit that's going down in Gitmo. What a great guy.

[postjack]

Jack, I agree in conclusion with you but my problem with McCain now is that he is a Bush apologist. He is also a hypocrite. He was attacked viciously in South Carolina in '00 by Bush and turns around and is his best friend. That shows a lack of a backbone which surprised me considering he served this country honorably all these years.

One man's lack of backbone is another man's political savvy. I admit McCain's backpedalling on the taxcuts (first they were bad, now they are good) is a turnoff to me as well, but McCain has always been a staunch critic of the Rumsfeld Iraq strategy.

One of the most important reasons from me not voting for any Republican (there are many bu this is the most important) is that 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justices are likely to retire and if a Republican is in office a women's right to choose will be taken away. I have a daughter and that is absolutely unacceptable to me. A president can only fuck things up for 2 terms, a Supreme Court Justice can do it for generations.

This is absolutely true, and another strong reason to vote for a Democrat in the Fall.

[saint.panda]

I would've taken McCain over most of the other Republicans and I think a lot of Europeans, especially liberals would agree.

[ojnihs]

The system now if undeniably flawed. I would take a less flawed plan over the current one, if it means 17,000,000 more people will have access to health insurance. There will never be a perfect plan or system for healthcare or anything else. I'm sorry but it's unacceptable to me that 17 million people don't have access to health insurance in what is supposed to be the greatest, most compassionate country on earth.

I didn't say that our system now was perfect, it's quite flawed. I agree with you. People deserve health care whether or not they can pay for it. I'm not becoming a doctor in this country to take care of those who are rich enough to pay for it so that I can earn a good living. I'm not in it for the money, never have been and never will be. Everyone deserves medical treatment, plain and simple.

But rather than working towards a solution to lower the cost of health care, Hillary is forcing people to have healthcare and fining you if you don't. How does fining someone who can't afford healthcare help the situation? This isn't the right solution, nor is simply having a government subsidized health care system, which as history shows, just doesn't work and is not efficient by any means. There's a reason that the US is the leader in medical technology and practice. We need to work on our current system without losing any of our current medical prowess.