Indeed. From what I've read, annual spending of medical research into cancer treatment in the U.S. is a tiny fraction of what is spent on similar research into sexual performance enhancing drugs :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Printable View
Indeed. From what I've read, annual spending of medical research into cancer treatment in the U.S. is a tiny fraction of what is spent on similar research into sexual performance enhancing drugs :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
What does competition and free markets have to do with British Rail?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
BTW Passenger Air travel is much cheaper and more efficient than rail. The only reason it is cheaper in some countries is because it is subsidized by governments.
Generic and brand name drugs are identical. The reason that the brand name drugs are more expensive is because the recouperation of multiple years of research and development is included in the cost. Drug companies are provided a limit on the patent life of the drug, generally 10 years or so, during which time they are the exclusive providers. Once the patent period has expired other companies simply copy the drug formula and sell it at a much cheaper cost, since they have no legacy of R&D to pay for. There are dozens of drug companies (e.g. Apotex in Canada) that do just this, i.e. perform no R&D what so ever while waiting for others’ patents to expire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Ditto :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
British railway system was privatised which lead to a disaster. Google it. Passenger air travel is also much more harmful to the environment than rail.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Yes something is wrong with the trains. They are run inefficiently, or too many regs, something. Why should the government subsidise that mess? If they can't compete with air travel, then perhaps it's time for the train to go the way of the horse and buggy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
Not that I have anything against train travel. I just think that if someone can come up with a cheaper, more efficient, etc. means to do something (or sell a product) they should be allowed to. And the more expensive, less efficient, et. product or service needs to either addapt or go away.
You know, Capitalism.
So you don't like free markets?Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
VOP, I think we're on the same page. Maybe my post wasn't clear. I'm for competition, and against government subsidise(sp?).Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
So the government needs to step in and prop up a less efficient, more costly system just so you can feel "green"?Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Isn't that what being green is all about?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
That smug, pretentious feeling one gets when one abandons logic and embraces group think.
A government mandated monopoly is hardly "free market."Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Pretty much. It seems like a choice to me. Either we destroy our economies to "save" our environment (*cough*China, India*cough* ... who said that?). Or we let our economies recover from this recession and slowly work in what we can to clean stuff up. But that being said, we must remember that CO2 is not a pollutant, IT'S PLANT FOOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Ok how did we go from healthcare, to the British Rail System, now to the environment?
Back on topic. There still has been NO ONE who has even taken a serious shot at a plan on how to pay for $1,000,000,000,000 in new government spending. Anybody got a plan? Anyone? Any plan? Anything?
No, because of the environmental damage caused (fact, not something dreamed up to annoy the unthinking right) and the utter absurdity of the situation in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Er... quite a lot. Look it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Efficient how? Certainly not in environmental terms. And long may it go on being subsidised by governments, because the quality of travel thus provided by state rail operators is excellent when the systems are well-run. This is called providing a public service.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I don't know what you guys are on, but anyway, I merely pointed out that in some sectors, government monopoly can actually work. The British privatized their railways which lead to for example terrible maintenance problems whereas here in Finland the state owned railway system works very well and when state controlled the railways in the UK things were better there as well. By the way, over here the state provides free education for all , no private schools etc. and that works well also, we are near the top in PISA scores in the whole world. Nothing is perfect and I'm not saying that things that work around here would work in the States, but the fact is that government-lead things are not always bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program...ent_Assessment
Again, you are commenting on something about which you seem to know little, other than what your pre-conceived notions tell you that you ought to think. The British railways were far better run when they were run by the state. They have been ruined by privatisation, which has introduced competition where once there was co-operation. All it has done is allowed the government to get the railways off its books, even though they probably cost the taxpayer much more on an annual basis now, not something that any of the parties will admit. It is a classic example of how the private sector definitely does not enjoy any form of superiority.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I would suspect that the only reason you think rail travel should maybe be done away with is because those concerned with the environment see it as the way forward, and your own views do not tally with this; therefore, it must somehow be a backward step, and not to be supported. In fact, travelling between Paris and London, and indeed many other European city pairs, by train is quicker than doing so by aircraft, as well as being far more environmentally friendly and far less hassle. In these circumstances, it is air travel that should gradually be done away with — and I say this as an aviation journalist.
Exactly. See above. And also see the many other 'less efficient' means of transport that one could name. How, exactly, have Ferrari or Porsche 'adapted' to changing circumstances? Their products are more expensive and less efficient than other cars. Should they be forced to 'go away'?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Not 'feel green', but 'be green'. There is a significant difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Much as you have done in relation to right-wing political philosophies. There's precious little depth of thinking involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Railways are a 'natural monopoly'. Not a true free market.
Railways in Canada are privately run for frieght, and gov't run for passengers. It works if you are the CNR or CPR, but VIA rail hauling the passengers is a money pit. That said, railways don't work well in the age of the airplane in nations smaller than Canada at times, so I Know they are not a viable option for travellers in Canada.
What works in one country may not work in others. That can be healthcare and all the rest of it....Each nation has to find what works for them, and while I can see the merits of having universal healtcare because I live with it, I can also say the US isn't wrong to not have it, and they cant afford to make that change now in any case. The USA is broke. Like all Social Liberals who want it cant seem to grasp the economic truth of it cant understand this is NOT the time to even have this discussion. I would like a Ferrari, but I cant afford it.....but it would be better in theory than what I am driving. Realism.....what a concept.
It isn't more efficient in a nation like the UK where you can take a train and be across it in 4 hours. When you factor in time getting to and from the airport and delays (something anyone on a plane now can relate to), only longer trips are more efficient on planes. Between larger cities in the UK, rail makes good sense. Just like the only money making lines AMTRAK has likely run between Washington and NYC and on to Boston. Get out of that corridor and time and distance favour aviation.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
The only reason it is messed up in Britain likely is because the privatization was done with all sorts of conditions that made British rail a money loser that were likely put on the private operators. I don't know all the ins and outs, but if I were to guess, the private owners of lines are being obligated to provide money losing services that the government just absorbed the costs of. Just like Via Rail in Canada runs trains to communities that cant really justify a stop. The Gov't has people to answer to beyond a balance sheet.
Wrong..but that is ok, you and I wont agree anyhow. Capitalism and right wing philosophy have done a lot to improve the world, despite your disagreement to the contrary. While you may think this green revolution is necessary, it has to be done in such a way that matters. What is being done now, whether it be the green revolution or pushing the Yank's into public healthcare is emotionally charged nonsense without any intellectual proof or scrutiny. The right may not always get things "right" in your books, but they base a lot of they believe in based on human experience. Look no further than capitalism itself. We saw what happened when you take away human nature for improving one's self economically. The USSR was a total basketcase economically and morally.....There is no soft socialism that works because it all comes back to ignoring human nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
He wasn't saying there was precious little thinking involved in right wing philosophies, he was saying there was precious little thinking involved in Vop's adherence to right-wing philosophies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
So you believe that CO2 is a pollutant? Even though there have been times in earth's past with FAR greater concentrations of CO2, and life THRIVED? Quick question, can man more easilly survive in warm climates or cold?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Maybe, maybe not. You seem to just discount taxes payed. It's not a free lunch even if it's government run.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I don't think it should "be done away with". I just think it's time has passed. I know that sometimes travelling by rail is better, and it should stay in those instances.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
By your logic, shouldn't the horse and buggy have been subsidised by the government? I mean it is more "environmentally friendly". Except maybe all those horse farts?
You apparently don't know about this new concept of market driven economies. You see, in some countries, economics drive the markets. In these so called "markets", consumers make decisions on what they would like to purchase. In your example, Porsche and Ferrari, have a product that enough consumers have decided to purchase that those companies can make enough profit (I know that's an evil word to some) to stay in business. The British Rail system apparently does not do a good enough job to turn much of a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Again, CO2 is not a pollutant. IT'S PLANT FOOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Right-Wing?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
Hardly.
Last I heard the railways actually cost the government ten times as much now than when they were state owned. Just imagine what British Rail could have done with that money. At the moment it is going into the pockets of corporations along the way.
Why would the government be paying for a privatly owned service? That just sounds dumb. Perhaps the gov. should cut ALL subsidies to a service once "privitised"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Suppliers on the other hand, do not supply goods or services where profits can not be made, nor will they lower their prices to the point of affordability for consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
In such circumstances the consumers are either prices takers, because they do not have enough influence on the market to influence prices or alternatively if they simply can not afford it, those consumers do not get those goods and services. The concept is called "market failure".
In the case of healthcare, the public is propping up private firms for a more costly system. And because those same firms have such a sway in Washington, the consumer will continue to have zero influence in determining prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
So you admit you're a lefty engaged in a years long charade just parodying a central casting version of a raving lunatic brainless unthinking right winger cliché
and that talk about sipping wine with a mass murderer just a couple of weeks ago was just trolling for reaction.
Figured.
Nobody not in a padded cell could really believe the funny stuff you dream up.
Good laugh.
What is wrong with profit? I don't understand why so many seem to think that companies making profits are evil. Government isn't much better. Although they don't make a profit, they do have to contain costs. Unless you're the US government and then apparently you can just keep spending until the whole thing blows up. How long until that happens?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
If a company can not provide a good or service at a price the market can bear, then they go away. What's wrong with that? If a consumer truely needs a product they will have to pay what the company is charging. Or one of these consumers may come up with a better/cheaper way to provide that good or service. That's how we get new and improved products/inventions. There has to be a need to drive improvement. What's wrong with improvement?
Why is it better for the government to provide said service at a "lower" price? Rember, there is no free lunch. Somone is paying, through taxes. So maybe if the people didn't have to pay so much tax, they could afford the "expensive" product/service they couldn't afford in the first place.
The consumers have no influence in the healthcare market because employers control the system. I can not choose the insurace provider that I feel fits my circumstances best (Well I could, but I loose the tax breaks. And as I am a relatively healthy young man, it doesn't effect me too much, yet. So it doesn't make economic sense for me right now.). I am stuck with what my employer feels is best for me. Also we can't buy insurance accross state lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
So even though there are about 13,000 insurance providers in this country, there really isn't too much competition. So the thing I don't understand is, how is having no competition now going to change when we set up a "Public Option"? That doesn't drive any competition. In fact that will make my situation (and many other's) much worse. Because my employer has already told us that if there is a "Public Option" that they will drop our coverage. And why wouldn't they? That makes a lot of sense business wise. So now I really don't have much of an "Option" do I?
And none of this does anything to address the issue of how do we pay for a new system that is going to cost an additional $1,000,000,000,000 to the Public Debt? Anyone? Come on, how many times to I have to ask before either you guys admit that it can't be done, or come up with a plausable plan?
Profits by themselves aren't evil, but who exactly is the system designed to benefit? Obviously not the people who need medical services.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...can-Healt.aspx
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me..._update_v2.pdf
the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.
That's surely worth paying 7 grand a year for isn't it. :D
I conceed. The cost you're already paying is worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/paren...mothers.index/
A trillion dollars to fix a system which clearly works perfectly would be money wasted.
I have NEVER said the system doesn't need fixing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
That is $1,000,000,000,000 above and beyond what we are already paying. And don't kid yourself, there are horror stories in EVERY system. Do I need to go find those? Do you really believe that once the US government takes over the system that everything will be rosey? Come on this is the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Again, NO ONE is saying that our current system is perfect. Far from it. It needs to be fixed. But why does that "fix" need to be taken care of by the government WHO CAN NOT AFFORD IT? Why can't INDIVIDUALS own their own healthcare? Wouldn't that drive competition, at NO, ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA cost to the government? Isn't that the very thing the Democrats are saying the "Government Option" will address? Shouldn't that be the plan, to actually boost competition?
In my humble opinion individuals are too stupid to own/take care of their healthcare. We could see a pandemic spread because the uninsured think it's too expensive to see a doctor. That's a totally possible scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
There you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
The exact reason I despise Liberals.
They actually believe they know how people should live their lives better than the individual.
Let's use Swine Flu as an example. If the CDC really thinks that this will be a pandemic, I wouldn't (and I don't know who would) have any problem with the gov. giving out free vaccinees(sp?) to anyone who wants them. That would be a heck of a lot cheaper than taking over the entire system. And actually accomplish something.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
You still haven't address how to pay for the $1,000,000,000,000 in new government spending.
You clearly don't know much about the subject, given your present tense reference to British Rail for a start. And what exactly do you know, without looking it up on Wikipedia, about the financial status of British Rail when it was in existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The same could be said for your opinions on CO2 emissions. What makes you believe one set of scientists rather than the other? Self-interest, that's what.
If you don't consider yourself to be right-wing — in fact, a very long way to the right — then words absolutely fail me.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
You are correct, I don't know much about British Rail. All I know is that you guys on here keep saying that it was gov. run. Then it went private, was poorly run, and cost the gov. 10x more than when it was gov. run. In my mind that is absolutly insane. If I have that wrong, please let me know.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I look at ALL the data. The data is very inconclusive on wether or not global warming is actually happening. It is even more inconclusive when it comes to a cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Do you not believe that CO2 is plant food?
How much of the CO2 emmisions per year are man made?
How much of that CO2 will be stoped, even with full emplimentation of Kyoto?
How much of an effect will that have on the environment?
Is CO2 a leading or lagging indicator of temperature?
At what temperature does man, plants, animals, etc. start to be adversly effected? How?
Let's take this to a new thread.