Libertarian firefighter? Is that an oxymoron?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

"
American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.
These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world."

http://www.cato.org/publications/pol...cal-innovation

"Policymakers should consider the impact of reform proposals on innovation. For example, proposals that increase spending on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage such innovation. Expanding price controls, government health care programs, and health insurance regulation, on the other hand, could hinder America's ability to innovate."


Apologies accepted;-)

Cato lol.

You read through both articles and considered them that fast? Wow.... Thanks for keeping an open mind.

I don't read from "research" institutions that start with their conclusions.

Just like I wouldn't go see a doctor who started with the diagnosis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...al-innovation/

It's comforting to know that the industry in charge of keeping me alive is willing to hold innovation hostage because of a higher tax. Those are definitely the guys I want to be one of the barriers between myself and death.

Originally Posted by egofed American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.

So what I'm seeing there is an argument for strong new regulation. Right? That's how you fix every single one of those problems, right?

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world."

Is there some reason why people wouldn't buy additional insurance on top of Obamacare? Government services are offered across the economic spectrum and yet people go above and beyond. The 401k industry is massive. AFLAC makes tons of money on the workers comp margin. Why wouldn't people also buy more health insurance and why wouldn't that continue to drive innovation?

"Policymakers should consider the impact of reform proposals on innovation. For example, proposals that increase spending on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage such innovation.

That's regulation. You're arguing for regulation.

There is a lot of talk about "innovation" being important in this thread but you need to be a bit cautious with that term in the medical field.

For example: to get a new drug on the market you need to only show that it is better than placebo (of course it stills takes the 5 - 10 years of testing) but it doesn't necessarily need to be compared to existing drugs.

Not saying that a lack of funds is a good thing but it might force us to compare existing treatments and optimize a bit...which also requires funds...

Anyway, Innovations need to occur within the system rather than "make new stuff". The "improved stuff" will come with streamlining.

That's another good point, innovation doesn't mean inventing yet another treatment for something which we already have good treatments for. For example, we don't really need more drugs for ED. We especially don't need more commercials advertising them....

Obama:
I want higher tax revenue based on "loophole reforms" and raising the top tier.

Boehner:
Raising taxes is unacceptable, we most use "loophole reforms".

So, if neither budges we get both. If Obama budges we get reform. If Boehner budges we get reform and different rates for one tier. All this arguing yet they're both going to raise taxes either nominally or by virtue of %. What the people.

Originally Posted by Clak That's another good point, innovation doesn't mean inventing yet another treatment for something which we already have good treatments for. For example, we don't really need more drugs for ED. We especially don't need more commercials advertising them....

Japan has universal healthcare that is famously stingy and that helps drive MRI machines that are like half the costs and probably the size of a cell phone.

Originally Posted by egofed http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...al-innovation/

Shorter article: "innovation in the medical industry is driven by the profit motive. As evidence, I will talk about two computers."

derrrrrrrrrrp.

Don't get angry with me for not reading the Cato article. If this is the best bullshit you can come up with support your arguments, then you are already well aware that you have nothing to support your claim.

(and that's independent of the laughably false converse of your argument: that no medical innovations have ever occurred in single-payer medical industries.)

Originally Posted by Clak For example, we don't really need more drugs for ED. ...

Why ya gotta go and make it all personal. Its not like I'm addicted to Tramadol. I can quit at anytime
Edit : Yeah I derailed this...

Originally Posted by egofed "Policymakers should consider the impact of reform proposals on innovation. For example, proposals that increase spending on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage such innovation. Expanding price controls, government health care programs, and health insurance regulation, on the other hand, could hinder America's ability to innovate." Apologies accepted;-)

If you read the PDF document , they arent advocating an all or none policy (which is actually surprising for Cato)
Cato is talking about a balanced approach.

For example, proposals that increase spending on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage such innovation. On the other hand, imposing price controls on pharmaceuticals and health insurance would tend to reduce innovation

I would say again : The aspect of price controls towards insurance providers are fairly loose. (This Policy Paper was written in 09) So when they're talking about imposing price controls , its a little inaccurate.
It also cites Massachusetts as a failure (which doesnt surprise me at all about Cato) If you're open minded , you'll note the failures in that state run system center around the free market: Taking on the role of controlling costs is the best angle for us.
Nobody can ever explain why we've never based our healthcare on results. We do that with everything else. .. You do it with your Car and your home appliances....

The point that America has generated the greatest innovation in Cancer treatments , but havent seen any results towards actual Cancer Patients and eradicating the disease is moot.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by egofed http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...al-innovation/

Sweet ing Jesus that is one ing stupid article.

Increases in mircoprocessor speed have outpaced every other industry by a wide margin. For example, if cars had kept pace with microprocessor technology we would all be driving cheap flying Ferraris.

That was a really stupid link egofed. Really ing stupid.

So higher taxes and complex, bloated regulation won't slow any companies down? OK, it must be true because you guys said it.;-) Is it also false that the affluent of other socialized healthcare countries routinely come here to enjoy our ease of accessibility to advanced procedures? Question my knowledge on a subject all you want, it helps to broaden my mind, but maybe give your own qualifications also. I have no freaking idea what any of you, other than Bob, do for a living. I had to see a 45 year old lady naked on her toilet last night because she had drank herself to death. Her 4 year old had been living in the house since Monday with his dead mom. This also occurred in government subsidized housing...had to get my jab in at what damage the welfare state is causing.;-)

And not reading Cato but citing Maddow is hypocritical to me Myke. She always has her mind made up in advance also. I'll read it, but here's a hint, use YOUR own judgement to form an opinion. I'll say it again, the left and the right both lie and misrepresent facts.

Originally Posted by egofed And not reading Cato but citing Maddow is hypocritical to me Myke. She always has her mind made up in advance also. I'll read it, but here's a hint, use YOUR own judgement to form an opinion. I'll say it again, the left and the right both lie and misrepresent facts.

Maddow reported on Senate votes.

Cato presented their own research.

apples = automobiles.

Originally Posted by egofed Is it also false that the affluent of other socialized healthcare countries routinely come here to enjoy our ease of accessibility to advanced procedures?

So making the (what I consider very reasonable) assumptions that:

1. The affluent of other countries come here for advanced medical treatment and procedures (your words)
2. Said affluent purchase insurance above their own countries socialized systems, giving them access to our advanced procedures
3. Our own poor, even with Obamacare, will not have access to the most advanced medical treatment and procedures (ie OMG DEATH PANELS)
4. Our own affluent will also purchase insurance above coverage by Obamacare in order to maintain access to advanced medical treatment and procedures

Given those very logical conclusions, where is the money constraint on the part of our healthcare industry that researches advanced medical treatment and procedures? Surely it's not the poor, who won't have access to the new hotness. But they don't now, so nothing changes there. The rich will obviously continue to use these high end services given their current consumption habits. So what part of the market changes? What part of Obamacare fundamentally changes the landscape that creates this future of reduced investment in medical advancement?

I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Clak 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.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xph...e-for-aids_fun

Originally Posted by camoor Sweet ing Jesus that is one ing stupid article. Increases in mircoprocessor speed have outpaced every other industry by a wide margin. For example, if cars had kept pace with microprocessor technology we would all be driving cheap flying Ferraris. That was a really stupid link egofed. Really ing stupid.

It's stupid to even compare the rate of innovation in one industry to another. Some things simply take more time.