[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-11, 14:15, said:

I'm not inclined to accept at face value that article about "buying the Virginia Senate". I suspect there's a lot more to it than is in the article. But if somebody did buy off this Democratic Senator, that means the Senate, or at least the Senator, is apparently for sale. What does that say about Democrats?

It doesn't say anything about Democrats. It says something about this particular Democrat.

[mike777]

Let me put it this way. People would have far less objection to govt central of health care if when it fails, it fails and it allows outside competition. It allows for example 350.000 or some partial to lose their jobs at the vA. If it means less tax payer money, not more.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2014-June-11, 22:23, said:

You raise to key points but don't really explore them.

1) Is the cost of insuring them too great in terms of money and regulations that inhibit innovation.
2) Quality of care may be worse, not better, but in any event has the cost been too great.

This issue keeps coming back to the govt will not allow for failure and competition. Instead the reward as in the case of the VA more money, more employees, more power to a few a very few in Washington.

If you do bad you don't fail, you get more money, billions more. You get more power concentrated in a tiny few hands.

The ACA regulates insurance companies, forcing them to provide equitable benefits to everyone. The ACA is a tax that allows a choice of buying personal health insurance or paying a tax to the federal government. The ACA has provisions to cut taxes to the poor (by way of healthcare vouchers) in order for lower-income Americans to purchase insurance of their choice.

How any of this has anything to do with competition and failure and innovation I do not understand. Sounds to me more like an incessant rant describing an ideology than a genuine attempt to make an argument.

[humilities]

So much of these debates seem to come down to the same basic question:

Is it desirable to have a system that develops more advanced drugs, treatments, procedures, etc - knowing in advance that only a certain percentage of the population will have access to them? Or is an equitable, but less advanced, system preferable?

Or maybe you think that's a loaded question. Is a strictly regulated system that also maximizes innovation possible? If so, are there any examples of this?

[Winstonm]

humilities, on 2014-August-27, 09:27, said:

So much of these debates seem to come down to the same basic question:

Is it desirable to have a system that develops more advanced drugs, treatments, procedures, etc - knowing in advance that only a certain percentage of the population will have access to them? Or is an equitable, but less advanced, system preferable?

Or maybe you think that's a loaded question. Is a strictly regulated system that also maximizes innovation possible? If so, are there any examples of this?

Fine, but what has that to do with the Affordable Care Act?

[Winstonm]

humilities, on 2014-August-27, 09:27, said:

So much of these debates seem to come down to the same basic question:

Is it desirable to have a system that develops more advanced drugs, treatments, procedures, etc - knowing in advance that only a certain percentage of the population will have access to them? Or is an equitable, but less advanced, system preferable?

Or maybe you think that's a loaded question. Is a strictly regulated system that also maximizes innovation possible? If so, are there any examples of this?

You obviously are not familiar with Bell Laboratories. You might look up their history in a totally regulated market, coming up with innovations for which their parent company was not allowed to profit.

Innovation is not about money; innovation is about curiosity.

If you think that a government-employed scientist in a government-owned laboratory would not work as diligently and keenly as a private sector scientist who is paid in stock options then I would say your head is buried in an ideological sandbar - and, btw, the government-employed scientist has no motivation for short-cutting research or faking results - not so the one who could make millions.

[y66]

Obamacare Appears to Be Making People Healthier