Originally Posted by egofed I'm hesitant, but don't see it as the end of life as we know it. I'm all for spending cuts. Cut the military by 4x its current budget. Cut all foreign aid and corporate welfare. Cut all grants and wasteful endowment programs. You know I dislike welfare, so cut or reduce it as much as possible. Democrats would get their tax raises, and could pass a 250K and under cut later if they wanted. Just do something to get our debt under control. I'd rather go back into a recession now while we are still halfway solvent then suffer the depression that will eventually follow if we continue spending like this. Heck, the two credit downgrades we received already haven't killed us, what's a few more?;-) Do you support Krugman's suggestion to just keep printing money? Do you think its possible that we could lose our standing as the world currency?

What historical examples exist that the US is at the risk of repeating?

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Lets cut things that help us innovate and expand our knowledge. Knowledge has a well known liberal bias anyway, kill that shit.

Yay for anti-intellectualism. But what the hey, just got a $390k federal research grant with some colleagues. Suck on that cons!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cliff/?hpid=z2

Polls show a strong majority would blame Republicans rather than Obama if a deal isn't reached. So, again, glad they're playing hardball.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Yay for anti-intellectualism. But what the hey, just got a $390k federal research grant with some colleagues. Suck on that cons!

Putting Liquid Paper on a bee? That's been done.

Originally Posted by Clak Lets cut things that help us innovate and expand our knowledge. Knowledge has a well known liberal bias anyway, kill that shit.

Socialized single payer healthcare kills medical innovation. Our for profit system pushes new procedures that all of the civilized world eventually benefits from. You still want that socialized healthcare? I want to suspend "wasteful" spending until we get this mess under control. When we are running a surplus again, then we can revisit "Piss Christ" and spotted woodchuck mating ritual research. Anybody want to answer my question about qualitative easing? Just keep printing money as the answer?

As far as history, look up Britian's loss of its standing as the world currency. Its bad, and I believe it could happen to us. A war, another crash, China deciding to screw us....wouldn't we be better off without the debt? Seems like a dumb question, but a lot of people seem to accept it as business as usual.

You call Reagan and a lot of Republicans out, but what about ol Slick Willy and Anthony Wiener? Obama hasn't done much of what he campaigned on, and has gotten caught in a few lies. If the Republicans would stick to financial conservatism and let the whole abortion thing go, then I would maybe rejoin the party. Like the left, they say one thing and do another.

You can call it socialized healthcare all you want , but thats not really what it is now is it? Why even have this discussion anymore? I just cant see how the argument could be made that when suddenly the insurance companies have thousands of new clients and a previously non existent stream of revenue coming in , that the medical field would cease to innovate. Why?
What , you think Doctors go home after the night shift and tinker in their basement?

Plenty of innovation in medicine comes from universities and research centers in the US and abroad that are funded with government dollars rather than private money. For instance, in the US the National Institute of Health invests over $30 billion a year in research.

Having the medical industry for profit is terrible as it leads to drugs being patented and then sold for ridiculous prices (see cancer, HIV regiments that cost in the five figures each month) etc. and drive costs up and overwhelm the health care system--whether private or public in a given country. Plus private drug companies that are profit driven don't have a lot of motivation to find a vaccines or cures as they stand to make a lot more money selling drugs that just prolong life or alleviate symptoms and thus get taken for years by patients, rather than a vaccine or cure a patient pays for once. It's a terrible system.

What? Capitalism is GREAT for medical fields. Finally, everyone in the world will no longer be at the mercy of Restless Leg Syndrome. Also, if your antidepressants don't work, you can take antidepressants to make the antidepressants work. And then when you die because the antidepressants you took to make the antidepressants you took work, it's ok, because YOU'RE DEAD, and therefore no longer depressed!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlech...novation-edge/

"The second component is open access to healthcare markets. In order to put our innovations to the test, doctors and patients need the freedom to choose from all available treatments. A new threat, the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the Affordable Care Act, would take us down a dangerous road of more limited choice. The IPAB gives unelected bureaucrats unprecedented powers to slash Medicare spending. This board would limit patients’ choice of treatment based primarily on cost, with little or no consideration given to those treatments’ life-saving benefits."

I never said Obamacare is socialized healthcare. I do believe that it was established to help send us in that direction. I know several of the normal posters are all for true socialized healthcare. I think there are pros and cons, slowing or killing the innovations we have enjoyed in medicine appears to be one of the cons.

Let's not forget about how prevalent Medicare fraud has become. And not just straight-up fraud for services that were never rendered, I mean the sanctioned kind from management of legitimate companies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50136261n

Would the government do any better? I don't know but I'm not sure it could do much worse. $7.7 billion was recovered under the False Claims Act between 1/09 and 7/12.

That's why we need a payment systems like some other countries with national health care have. Where there's set fees for treating certain diseases, injuries etc., rather than paying various prices for each office visit, each test that's ordered etc. That way physicians don't have incentive to order a bunch of tests that aren't needed, or schedule more follow-ups than needed etc., to make more money.

The pay is the same for every patient with that condition, and they thus have no incentive to order any tests etc. for any reason other than feeling they're truly needed to best treat that individual patient.

Innovation for new drugs doesn't really matter when no one can afford them. Tomorrow someone could release a cure for HIV, but how many HIV patients would be able to afford it? That's our problem, we have great care, if you can afford it.

^ Thats the real argument when it comes to any sort of stance against the IPAB 'bureaucrats'. This is America and if someone with money wants to lose his wad on frivolous tests and unnecessary procedures we should allow it. Just watching that CBS link: Its funny to me that the places where the biggest fraud is taking place never innovate. Medicare has been defrauded by shitty old people homes since its creation. The fact that we never exercised any control over false choices when it comes to something like that is deplorable. Just seems like common sense to me. We pay , we should be allowed to set the standard.

Originally Posted by egofed The IPAB gives unelected bureaucrats unprecedented powers to slash Medicare spending.

That sounds terrible phrased that way!

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 That way physicians don't have incentive to order a bunch of tests that aren't needed, or schedule more follow-ups than needed etc., to make more money.

Oh, that's what they're actually seeking to control by "slashing" Medicare spending.

It sounds so much awful when phrased by the right. Remember that when you think the left are guilty of "scare tactics."

When the left seeks to reign in spending and control waste - i.e., to do what the Republicans claim to be in support of - it's giving "unelected bureaucrats unprecedented powers." LOL.

That sounds pretty similar to how when the right wants to cut social spending, the left characterizes it is "letting them die" and such.

lolz.

The entire charade is so akin to professional wrestling that so long as the two teams oppose each other, their fan base doesn't care which side of the fence they're on.

Originally Posted by egofed Socialized single payer healthcare kills medical innovation.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.;-)

Exactly what kind of education and intellectual acumen does a ing firefighter have to be an expert on medical innovation or science in general?

none, if you've read his posts.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Plenty of innovation in medicine comes from universities and research centers in the US and abroad that are funded with government dollars rather than private money. For instance, in the US the National Institute of Health invests over $30 billion a year in research. Having the medical industry for profit is terrible as it leads to drugs being patented and then sold for ridiculous prices (see cancer, HIV regiments that cost in the five figures each month) etc. and drive costs up and overwhelm the health care system--whether private or public in a given country. Plus private drug companies that are profit driven don't have a lot of motivation to find a vaccines or cures as they stand to make a lot more money selling drugs that just prolong life or alleviate symptoms and thus get taken for years by patients, rather than a vaccine or cure a patient pays for once. It's a terrible system.

I 100% back this statement ^