Dennis Kucinich steals the show at pres. debate

Post Reply New Topic

The differences between the nations are not that great. I think that the actual reason is a situation of declining marginal returns as we do offer things in a standard health care package that are not found in more cost controlled areas(and that does not mean that these services are wrong at all, only that they cost money with a lesser health benefit) and we need less subsidization of our health care system, which is a problem I already stated as we have a system that is subsidized where resources are not controlled and in that manner our system is a perversion of both a private and a public system. Frankly, private insurance companies should not even be doing much of the task that they do right now, they are to insure against risk, not provide and the reason that they are so integral is because our government has screwed it up more.

I still don't want their system. In some ways all of their systems are subsidized by ours anyway in terms of pharmaceutical development anyway so really, some of the special opportunities they have are just off of our back. Really, I just think we should cease subsidizing the system as much as we do now, turn health care into a normal market and probably not even manage some of the things that reduce our actual lifespans either as many are just the results of choices by individuals. I mean, to be honest, I don't think that our politicians will be able to consistently implement a good model as the entire reason to nationalize the industry will often be driven by current power players in health care.

As I see it, the foreign health care systems are paying less for drugs because they are negotiating, while some large US government programs are prohibited by law from negotiating or trying to get the lowest priced medicines possible. This is not a situation where we are subsidizing foreign health care, but where the US taxpayers are subsidizing artificially high profit levels of the pharmaceutical companies.


The argument is that Research and development costs are oh-so high for for new pharmaceuticals. This might seem true if an isolated dollar figure is quoted, but the percent of budget that companies spend on R&D is typically less than they spend on marketing and advertising. And the pharmaceutical sector has consistently returned profits above most other sectors. So why not let the drug companies be subject to the haggling of their customers?

I'm not sure that we can turn health care into a normal market - when someone is rushed to emergency room with a heart attack or is diagnosed with cancer and urgently needs treatment, there is not enough information or time to make rational decisions, to shop around, etc. I recall reading that 70-80% of a persons lifetime expenditure on medical services is typically made in their last two years of life - ie, they are not of sound body and less likely to be of sound mind.

The issue is that the profits aren't artificially high, but rather that we subsidize the R&D of pharmaceutical companies. Foreign health care systems are paying less for drugs by forcing companies to sell these products at the point where the cost for the creation of the chemicals is covered but not the rest of the costs and even good economists such as Brad deLong and Richard Schmalensee have both stated that the case is that we subsidize the development of pharmaceutical care for the world.

Because this isn't the haggling of their customers, but rather this is an attempt to control the market through a monopsony. The reason why we see these perversions in the pharmaceutical market is because of the risk averse nature of the FDA. There is not a reason to develop lots and lots of drugs if it is so difficult to get them to market. Really, we need an FDA that is not that risk averse and that doesn't push beyond the scope of safety as the reduced regulation will allow for more competition, more drugs to be created, and thus squeeze out some of the problems within our medical care system. After all, if you are only able of getting a few drugs through the FDA, then you may as well market them as much as possible to get every dime possible.


Heart attacks are partially an issue, but that still does not mean that it cannot be a market. Not only that but cancer patients do often have the ability to be moved around. Rational decisions are always made, shopping around just isn't rational in an immediate care situation. Yes, and if 70-80% of the person's lifetime expenditure is on getting a few additional years of life, then how is a high level of medical expenditure a problem? Most people would PAY more money for more life. You can't take your money with you when you die. Not only that but if one is of unsound mind then often there are measures for taking care of that, by having some form of guardian.

Two quick questions for AG:

1.) Do you have any immediate relatives (mom, dad, brother, sister, etc.) on the patient care end of the healthcare system?

2.) Do you have health insurance?

I'll explain myself once you answer.

I'll be honest when I say that I don't want to answer given that this direction is an easy way to insert anecdote and pathos into an argument that should be more bound by other elements. I will state that I am not defending the current system and I think it sucks; I just also think that the reform you push for is the incorrect one and think that rather than too many markets we suffer from too few. The current health care system is not working as it should for patients, nor is health insurance working as it should either.

Agreed and thanks for not getting sucked into my vortex! My views on the healthcare system are heavily influenced by my mom (a medical assistant for 17 years) and my fiancee (a medical assistant for 1 year), so they can be quite brutal and rigid, including the part about people with insurance.

Your response is one of the most intelligent that I have seen and yes, I do sincerely mean that, because too often times debates like this self-destruct because of the avarice involved. Thanks!

Oh, and by the way, I also agree that we have too few markets when it comes to healthcare.

Oh, ok, I can understand that. I know that the healthcare system is not working properly at all.

Really? Thanks. I know that these debates will often result in some level of claims of bias. Really though, I try to be detached and honestly, I would advocate the removal or privatization of many government programs that do benefit me directly. Then again, I tend to take a relatively strong libertarian stance.

Really? Cool. The healthcare system is really a screwed up system no matter what perspective you take, it has too many private hands for a public system and too many public hands for a private system. The only way to get it to work is to make it either a public or a private system rather than making the American people pay for both.

Your last point about "public/private" is a very good point: a certain amount of streamlining would go a long way to ironing out the creases since 90% of the work that my mom and fiancee do is insurance paperwork (both private health groups and governmental). Patient care, unfortunately, comes second.

Also, I think that is awesome that two people who are opposite ends of the political spectrum can at least find some common ground! Now if only the rest of the American political system worked like this!

Sure, there's health insurance. I think that a national health insurance scheme might help the NHS. It should be a semi-autonomous as well, but the government should have the ability to give orders when it has to, and the two should work closely together. It shouldn't have loads of pointless bureaucrats, either. If most pointless penpushers were to be sacked, it would enable more funds to be diverted to actually funding NHS operations. The NHS used to be very good, but thanks to poor management and politics, it's going through hard times. I blame New Labour. They say that they've put more money into the NHS, but where is it all going? To the armies of bureaucrats, and in all the wrong places. [/rant]

I stand by state healthcare, but the taxpayer maybe shouldn't have to fund all of it. Introduce small contributory fees, cut out the bureaucrats, and make the NHS more effective. Also, the beds and MRSA crisis should have been solved by now. Sure, could make an argument that competing hospitals would have dealt with that already, but laziness is no excuse, and privatisation means that hospitals will care more about money than patients in some circumstances.

democrats drift toward kucinich:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=16912151

I agree with Cyanide, his stances on the 2nd amendment and on illegal immigration are not satisfactory.

They are for a lot of people.

While I don't agree with most of Ron Paul's policies, and I would probably never vote for him, I do believe that he would be a better president than any of the other republican candidates.

Kucinich, on the other hand, seems to be in alignment with most of my political beliefs.

Actually that fact that you stated is really very interesting to me. Many of those on the left seem to have some minor affection for Ron Paul comparative to his republican opponents, the only thing is that even though Ron Paul agrees with them more on social issues and foreign policy; he is so starkly against their economic ideas that I have a hard time seeing him as comparable to other conservatives.

What actually makes Ron Paul better? That he is not mainstream? That he is anti-deficit? Or is it just that the social and foreign policy similarities overwhelm the very very strong economic policy differences? I mean, if I were a left-winger I might prefer Giuliani as he is a social moderate, and even though he is a hawk, his economic policies would not be so starkly different from the center as Ron Paul's. His taste in supreme court justices would probably also be more favorable to liberal interests than I would think Ron Paul's would be.

I am just curious I guess. Part of my problem is that I often see economic issues as dominating all other issues..... this gives me an idea for a thread.

Personally, I think Ron Paul comes across as a person with principles and a very straight-forward, logical set of policies. Once you understand his framework, it is easy to understand where he stands on an issue. In my experience, most Libertarians are like this; the philosophy grows out of a few simple principles that are applied as consistently as possible.

I'm not affiliated with the Libertarian movement and I think it's clarity can lead to simplistic and naive solutions if it were adopted to the nth degree. But a more libertarian government would be good (up to a point).

I think that Ron Paul has taken McCain's place as the 'straight-shooter' in this election ... McCain has hugged Bush too many times after Rove screwed him over with dirty tricks in South Carlolina, and he is trying to make nice with the fundamentalists after he criticized them in the last election. So Paul and Kucinich are the honest outsiders that have a snowball's chance of getting elected.