Wouldn't you right winger's say for the common good?

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> MTV > wrote:
>
> >Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
> >control by government.
>
>
> "Belief" has nothing to do with it; *ethics* are the heart of the
> matter, as in: What moral right do you have to rule me, or I you?
>
> - - -
>
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
> January 20, 2004
>
> What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist
>
> by N. Stephan Kinsella
>
>
> Butler Shaffer's recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted
> discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas
> I've also had along these lines.
>
> Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their
> arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy
> won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these
> attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist
> does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor
> that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a
> pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that
> you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states
> necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the
> aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It 's quite
> simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses
> utilitarians.
>
> Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a)
> aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states)
> do not necessarily employ aggression.
>
> Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens,
> which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense
> agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the
> countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a
> single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists
> think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)
>
> As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is
> justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and
> anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression - the initiation of
> force against innocent victims - is justified. No surprise; it is not
> possible to show this. But criminals don't feel compelled to justify
> aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?
>
> Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the
> grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused.
> Anarchists don' t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for
> one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.
>
> Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that
> private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not
> occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at
> least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be
> with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.
>
> Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone
> could voluntarily choose to respect others' rights. Then there would be
> no crime. It's easy to imagine. But given our experience with human
> nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be
> crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and
> unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to
> my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere
> to reply, "but that's an impractical view" or "but that won't work,"
> "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be
> crime - that not everyone will voluntarily respect others' rights - does
> not mean that it's "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that
> crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the
> proposition that crime is wrong.
>
> Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified,
> it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won't work" or is
> "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is
> unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not
> enough people are willing to respect their neighbors' rights to allow
> anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously)
> support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean
> that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2
>
> Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict
> the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is
> unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the
> initiation of force against innocent victims - i.e., he shares the
> criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need
> is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his
> needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state
> thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or
> condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as
> that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not
> opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else - making sure
> certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost - but not peace and
> cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and
> even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked
> aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the
> same - innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the
> stomach for this; others are more civilized - libertarian, one might say
> - and prefer peace over violent struggle.
>
> As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that
> there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the
> state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously
> accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means
> the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.
>
> It's time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or
> against it?
>
> Notes
>
> Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as
> we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What
> is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that
> minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are
> exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among
> millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply
> don't care much about.
>
> Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or
> "feasibility," any more than the case against private crime depends on
> there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There
> is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within
> government, as pointed out in the seminal and neglected JLS article by
> Alfred G. Cuzan, "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" Cuzan argues
> that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally - the
> President does not literally force others in government to obey his
> comments, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized,
> hierarchical structure. Government's (political) anarchy is not a good
> anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible - indeed, that we never
> really get out of it. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we
> are in "anarchy" with our neighbors. If most people did not already
> have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors'
> rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are
> good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of
> some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the
> degree of goodness could rise - due to education or more universal
> economic prosperity, say - sufficient to make support for the legitimacy
> of states evaporate. It's just very unlikely.
>
> Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston. His website is
> www.StephanKinsella.com.
>
> --
>
> Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
> "An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
> -- Ambrose Bierce

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then why does the US system costs so much. Just compare the drug prices in
> canada with those in the US. Why do American seniors have to buy their
drugs
> from canada if they can?
>

The US does not have free market competition in health care.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> So explain how.
>

It lessens or eliminates free market competition, the very thing that keep
prices low and quality high.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't mind drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE therm
> to put their lives at stake in order to keep in place your favorite
> political system. Then you complain about your right to private property.
> You don't then complain about a person's right to their own private life
and
> the right to not go if they don't wish too, do you, while you will bleat
> rather loudly about your right to your own private property? Some are
forced
> to give their lives by those who resent being forced to pay taxes.
> Hypocrites!
>

Are you speaking of the US?

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
> You don't mind drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE therm
> to put their lives at stake in order to keep in place your favorite
> political system. Then you complain about your right to private property.

Are we talking about Israel or South Korea? Because there is no draft in
the United States.

Jarg

The trouble with Canadian health care is that for the last 10 years or so a
right wing capitalist is the finance minister and he just won't fund
medicare as the medicare act provides for. What he wants to do is say it is
too costly so eventually has to be scrapped. What else can you expect of a
right wing capitalist who is a liar in that he won't admit that he wants to
scrap Canada's uncapitalistic health care system! Also see above post of
mine wherein I show how the right wingers have conspired through the FDA to
outrageously and obscenely raise drug prices so that no system could long
afford to pay for them!
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
news
>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast
cancer
> is a
> > > death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's
> health
> > > care needs.
> >
> > You don't know anything about Canada and health care in Canada, do you?
>
> Sure I do, if a woman goes without tretment for breast cancer for 6
months,
> the Canadian Government will buy her a bus ticket to Vermont. Didn't you
> know?
>
>

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> The trouble with Canadian health care is that for the last 10 years or so
a
> right wing capitalist is the finance minister and he just won't fund
> medicare as the medicare act provides for. What he wants to do is say it
is
> too costly so eventually has to be scrapped.
>

If someone is actually saying this, he's 100% correct. The same will have
to happen in the US eventually.

anytime government gets involved, there are additional costs just because of
the bureaucracy
"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
> So explain how.
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "john" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > So government meddling caused things to cost more?
> > >
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> >
>
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The trouble with Canadian health care is that for the last 10 years or
so a
> > right wing capitalist is the finance minister and he just won't fund
> > medicare as the medicare act provides for. What he wants to do is say it
is
> > too costly so eventually has to be scrapped.
> >
>
> If someone is actually saying this, he's 100% correct. The same will have
> to happen in the US eventually.

I like to believe Amercans are less "fat and easy" than Canadians, but I
suppose you are correct, Steve.

American health care is by no means even near socialism.
You can get many things dirt cheap in 3rd world countries. The
corporations do and then turn around and sell them to us at obscene profits!

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ikke" > wrote:
>
> >> America's health care the best in the world."
> >
> >The US health care may rank among the best.
> >Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
>
>
> American health-care is almost thoroughly socialist now. (When I need my
> teeth worked on, I take a month-long round-trip vacation to the
> Philippines, and have them done there for a tenth the cost.)
>
>
> >The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
> >
> >Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
> >- rising cost
> >- less service
> >- less quality
> >- less safety
> >- less reliability
>
>
> So communism "works better"?
>
>
> >Want examples?
> >Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
> >distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
> >Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
> >wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months
ago.
> >Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
> >investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
> >It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.
>
>
> Nothing can truly be considered "privatized" if "privitization" means
> one is now subject to high tax rates whereas before one was subsidized.
>
> Taxation is simply regulation via other means.
>
> --
>
> Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
> "An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
> -- Ambrose Bierce

In article >, "Jarg"
> wrote:

> "Sara" > wrote in message
> ...
> . When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
> > priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
> > The insurance companies continue to make the same
>
> I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is
> priced
> out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can
> afford
> it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500
> per
> year for good coverage with a HMO.
>
> Jarg
>
>

Try it at a more advanced age, when COBRA-extensions ran out or became
unaffordable. At 55, an HMO would run well over $1000 per month, but
turned out to be unwilling to underwrite due to preexisting conditions
-- not under treatment because of unwillingness to opt in, but
unaffordability or unavailability of coverage.

The irony is that I'm most interested in getting chronic disease
management, maintenance drugs and labs, etc., that demonstrably prevent
the more serious and expensive complications. Yet in my area, the only
clinic programs require demonstration of poverty and have several months
wait. There's a zone for people that would opt in, but where there's
nothing for them to opt into.

Who was it then?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You think the capitalists that instituted medicare really wanted it
to
> > succeed in the long run. They set up a straw man just for it to fail.
When
> > it would fail they'd say socialised medicine doesn't work so may as well
> > have laissez faire capitalism again.
> >
>
> Capitalists did not institute Medicare.
>
>

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Jarg"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Sara" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > . When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
> > > priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
> > > The insurance companies continue to make the same
> >
> > I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is
> > priced
> > out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can
> > afford
> > it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500
> > per
> > year for good coverage with a HMO.
> >
> > Jarg
> >
> >
>
> Try it at a more advanced age, when COBRA-extensions ran out or became
> unaffordable. At 55, an HMO would run well over $1000 per month, but
> turned out to be unwilling to underwrite due to preexisting conditions
> -- not under treatment because of unwillingness to opt in, but
> unaffordability or unavailability of coverage.
>
> The irony is that I'm most interested in getting chronic disease
> management, maintenance drugs and labs, etc., that demonstrably prevent
> the more serious and expensive complications. Yet in my area, the only
> clinic programs require demonstration of poverty and have several months
> wait. There's a zone for people that would opt in, but where there's
> nothing for them to opt into.

I know there are exceptions. But my point is that for most Americans health
care is affordable, and the broad statements Sara made to the contrary are
incorrect.

Jarg

Would you agree thern that what the US has is Pharmaceutical corps having
a monopoly in health care in the US,........ as well as elsewhere?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Then why does the US system costs so much. Just compare the drug prices
in
> > canada with those in the US. Why do American seniors have to buy their
> drugs
> > from canada if they can?
> >
>
> The US does not have free market competition in health care.
>
>

These mambers of Gov't,...are they right wingers or left wingers? Capitalist
or Socialists?

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So explain this Gov't meddling then.
>
> Government medling leads to jobs for friends and larger sums of money
> controlled by Government. Sometimes, Government can create a "black
> market", in certain goods, and members of Government can engage in
> "organized crime". The latter situation being inherently more profitable
> than the first.
>
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "john" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:43:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"john" > wrote in message
> > > > .. .
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care
> > needs
> > > > >> of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of
> during
> > > > >> that period?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> > > > >affordable than it is today.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So wasn't EVERYTHING more affordable then?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > > So government meddling caused things to cost more?
> > >
> > > Usually.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

That's news to me. Can you name these socialists?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The government's that meddled......were they socialist, capitalist or
> what?
> >
>
> Socialist.
>
>
> >
> > I say capitalist, just to **** up what honest leftist were trying to do.
> >
>
> It would have been hard for the capitalists to do, as the socialists were
in
> power.
>
>

I am speaking of Mike1 and all other's who have such a mindset.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You don't mind drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE
therm
> > to put their lives at stake in order to keep in place your favorite
> > political system. Then you complain about your right to private
property.
> > You don't then complain about a person's right to their own private life
> and
> > the right to not go if they don't wish too, do you, while you will bleat
> > rather loudly about your right to your own private property? Some are
> forced
> > to give their lives by those who resent being forced to pay taxes.
> > Hypocrites!
> >
>
> Are you speaking of the US?
>
>

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who was it then?
>

The socialists that controlled the government at that time.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would you agree thern that what the US has is Pharmaceutical corps having
> a monopoly in health care in the US,........ as well as elsewhere?
>

What's a "Pharmaceutical corps"?

There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men and
after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1. In
the meantime the US got it's fighting men through the people being so poor
they didn't have much other choice for economic sustenance.


"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You don't mind drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE
therm
> > to put their lives at stake in order to keep in place your favorite
> > political system. Then you complain about your right to private
property.
>
> Are we talking about Israel or South Korea? Because there is no draft in
> the United States.
>
> Jarg
>
>

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's news to me. Can you name these socialists?
>
Nope. But you might be able to find them online.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am speaking of Mike1 and all other's who have such a mindset.
>

Mike1 is drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE them to put
their lives at stake in order to keep in place his favorite political
system? How can he do that?

In article >, "moveeman1"
> wrote:


> Medicare costs so much because the drugs costs so much! The drugs
> costs
> so much because the big pharma drug companies have to do FDA mandated
> drug
> tests that costs from 200 million to 650 million each and then they can
> patent their useless concoctions

Useless concoctions? Then what are the clinical trials demonstrating?

and have exclusive rights to them and
> then
> literally soak the people with obscene markups in prices. What follows
> is a
> short explanation from the 'Life extension Foundation' on what drugs
> really
> costs!
>
> [ Do you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company to obtain the
> active
> ingredient in a prescription medication? Life Extension did a search of
> offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found
> in
> drugs approved by the FDA.


As you mention, there is a significant cost associated with drug trials.
I freely admit that an obscene amount of marketing expense goes into US
pricing. I also would say that there are significant numbers of
"me-too" drugs introduced that have no real therapeutic benefit over
existing drugs, but allow competition, especially against generics.

In contrast, however, there are new classes of drugs constantly being
developed that have dramatic effects on previously untreatable diseases
-- and aren't cheap. Consider tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors in
rheumatoid arthritis, and, more controversially, for septic shock.
Surfactant for respiratory distress in newborns. Aromatase inhibitors
as an adjunct to tamoxifen in breast cancer.

There are also new treatment paradigms, such as the aggressive diagnosis
and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in ulcers.

what you refer to is raw manufacturing costs, and considers neither
>
> WHAT DRUGS REALLY COST
> BRAND NAME CONSUMER PRICE
> (For 100 tabs/caps) COST OF GENERIC ACTIVE INGREDIENT
> (For 100 tabs/caps) PERCENT MARKUP

[snip long list]

In article >, "Jarg"
> wrote:


>
> I know there are exceptions. But my point is that for most Americans
> health
> care is affordable, and the broad statements Sara made to the contrary
> are
> incorrect.
>
And with all due respect, what would you suggest as the most
cost-neutral way to deal with the exceptions? Given that if I go into a
diabetic crisis, an emergency room must take me, under the unfunded
mandate of EMTALA. It would seem much more cost-effective for me to
have a way to get the drugs and monitoring that would prevent that
crisis from taking place.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
> Who was it then?

I think socialized medicine was one Bismarck's ideas in Germany in the
late 19th century as a means to produce a healthy populace as a source
for conscripts.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Who was it then?
>
> I think socialized medicine was one Bismarck's ideas in Germany in the
> late 19th century as a means to produce a healthy populace as a source
> for conscripts.

Later, Bismark's ideas led to WWI and then WWII.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
> There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
> again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men and
> after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1. In
> the meantime the US got it's fighting men through the people being so poor
> they didn't have much other choice for economic sustenance.


Wow, that's news to me! You should work for the Psychic Network! I hadn't
heard a thing about this new draft.

Until it happens though, shouldn't you stick to actual events in this
discussion?

Jarg

On 01/22/2004 9:01 AM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
> opined:

> "moveeman1" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> The price of an office visit was regulatorily required to be the
>>> same for everyone, with Medicare setting the piece work price.
>>>
>>> Medicare drives up medical costs for everyone.
>>
>> You think the capitalists that instituted medicare really wanted it
>> to succeed in the long run. They set up a straw man just for it to
>> fail. When it would fail they'd say socialised medicine doesn't
>> work so may as well have laissez faire capitalism again.
>
> Of course, the argument is specious because it does work everywhere it
> has been implemented. The US is a holdout and dinosaur in this area
> anmong all the G7 nations. In fact, canada's health care is what made
> it the number one country to live in in the UN poll five years in a
> row.


Why doesn't the UN move to montreal then. Just when I think you can't say
anything more stupid or pompous you surprise me.

It was only when health care was threatened with US-style methods
> that we lost our number one status.

--

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
> These mambers of Gov't,...are they right wingers or left wingers?
Capitalist
> or Socialists?

Each has their own crop to grow.

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > So explain this Gov't meddling then.
> >
> > Government medling leads to jobs for friends and larger sums of money
> > controlled by Government. Sometimes, Government can create a "black
> > market", in certain goods, and members of Government can engage in
> > "organized crime". The latter situation being inherently more
profitable
> > than the first.
> >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "john" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:43:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"john" > wrote in message
> > > > > .. .
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health
care
> > > needs
> > > > > >> of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of
> > during
> > > > > >> that period?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far
more
> > > > > >affordable than it is today.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So wasn't EVERYTHING more affordable then?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > > So government meddling caused things to cost more?
> > > >
> > > > Usually.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"moveeman1" > wrote in
:

> Medicare costs so much because the drugs costs so much! The drugs
> costs so much because the big pharma drug companies have to do FDA
> mandated drug tests that costs from 200 million to 650 million
> each and then they can patent their useless concoctions and have
> exclusive rights to them and then literally soak the people with
> obscene markups in prices.

If you believe that, I have swampland in lower Botswana ou might be
interested in.

The reason drugs cost so much is because the pharmaceutical companies
are refusing to let them be sold at prices set by supply and demand
(and they claim to be kapitalyists).

When drugs are produced in generic formats, as we have found in Canada,
the cost is considerably less to the consumer. The companies claim
they need that money to pay for research, but really, they just want to
make a profit on the misery of humanity.

Our former prime minister, Brilliant Macaroni, as one of his final acts
in 1993, guaranteed the pharmaceutical companies a 7-year extension on
their patents. The fear of generic drugs has not prevented them from
doing research, although they said it would. Capitalists only know how
to lie...wait, scratch that...capitalists only know how to misrepresent
the truth.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:19:56 -0330, moveeman1 wrote:

> There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
> again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men and
> after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1. In
> the meantime the US got it's fighting men through the people being so poor
> they didn't have much other choice for economic sustenance.

Big hint. Its not just the US where that happens.
In any nation that has a volunteer military you are
going to find that those from economically depressed
regions and/or ethnicities are over-represented in the
military. Its a way out and you can get a useful education
if you have the intellectual assets and apply them.
Two kinds of people wind up pushing a rifle, the mud dumb
and the adrenalin junkies, the latter usually tend to go
for the high end stuff like parachute and special forces.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

nobody > wrote:

>RogerM wrote:

>Obesity has everything to do with health care. A nation has to look at the
>total amount spent on healthcare in relation to GDP. Whether private or
>public, it is the total cost that matters to a nation.
>
>The more people are overweight and couch potatoes, the more people will
>require costly heart related health care, as well as hypertension, clogged
>arteries etc.

Isn't there a pretty high correlation in the US between people who
are obese and people who don't have health insurance?

i.e. those at the bottom of the income ladder.

They pull down the average life expectancy by a significant amount
I would think.

--
Stephen

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:19:56 -0330, moveeman1 wrote:
>
> > There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
> > again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men
and
> > after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1.
In
> > the meantime the US got it's fighting men through the people being so
poor
> > they didn't have much other choice for economic sustenance.
>
> Big hint. Its not just the US where that happens.
> In any nation that has a volunteer military you are
> going to find that those from economically depressed
> regions and/or ethnicities are over-represented in the
> military. Its a way out and you can get a useful education
> if you have the intellectual assets and apply them.
> Two kinds of people wind up pushing a rifle, the mud dumb
> and the adrenalin junkies, the latter usually tend to go
> for the high end stuff like parachute and special forces.

Middle class warriors.

Jarg wrote:

>"Sara" > wrote in message ...
>. When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
>
>
>>priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
>> The insurance companies continue to make the same
>>
>>
>
>I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is priced
>out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can afford
>it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500 per
>year for good coverage with a HMO.
>
>Jarg
>
>
>
>
From what I've read, it is mostly families with children who cannot
afford it. If they have their own business, health insurance for a
family of four runs at least $700 per month, and it goes up from there.
That's a lot of money for an average family. Even companies that
provide health insurance now charge a good chunk for spouses and
dependents. A lot of the middle class families just do not have the
kind of disposable income you need to pay for health insurance. And I
know people who stay at jobs they hate just to be able to buy affordable
insurance. Kind of sucks. Since the amount of uninsured in the middle
class keeps jumping hgher every year, it definitely is becoming a trend,
and it certainly doesn't bode for well for the quality of life in the US.

Jarg wrote:

>"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>In article >, "Jarg"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Sara" > wrote in message
...
>>>. When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
>>>
>>>
>>>>priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
>>>> The insurance companies continue to make the same
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is
>>>priced
>>>out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can
>>>afford
>>>it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500
>>>per
>>>year for good coverage with a HMO.
>>>
>>>Jarg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Try it at a more advanced age, when COBRA-extensions ran out or became
>>unaffordable. At 55, an HMO would run well over $1000 per month, but
>>turned out to be unwilling to underwrite due to preexisting conditions
>>-- not under treatment because of unwillingness to opt in, but
>>unaffordability or unavailability of coverage.
>>
>>The irony is that I'm most interested in getting chronic disease
>>management, maintenance drugs and labs, etc., that demonstrably prevent
>>the more serious and expensive complications. Yet in my area, the only
>>clinic programs require demonstration of poverty and have several months
>>wait. There's a zone for people that would opt in, but where there's
>>nothing for them to opt into.
>>
>>
>
>I know there are exceptions. But my point is that for most Americans health
>care is affordable, and the broad statements Sara made to the contrary are
>incorrect.
>
>Jarg
>
>
>
>



New York Times November 16, 2003
For Middle Class, Health Insurance Becomes a Luxury
By STEPHANIE STROM

DALLAS -- The last time Kevin Thornton had health insurance was three
years ago, which was not much of a problem until he began having trouble
swallowing.

"I broke down earlier this year and went in and talked to a doctor about
it," said Mr. Thornton, who lives in Sherman, about 60 miles north of
Dallas.

A barium X-ray cost him $130, and the radiologist another $70, expenses
he charged to his credit cards. The doctor ordered other tests that Mr.
Thornton simply could not afford.

"I was supposed to go back after the X-ray results came, but I decided
just to live with it for a while," he said. "I may just be a walking
time bomb."

Mr. Thornton, 41, left a stable job with good health coverage in 1998
for a higher salary at a dot-com company that went bust a few months
later. Since then, he has worked on contract for various companies,
including one that provided insurance until the project ended in 2000.
"I failed to keep up the payments that would have been required to
maintain my coverage," he said. "It was just too much money."

Mr. Thornton is one of more than 43 million people in the United States
who lack health insurance, and their numbers are rapidly increasing
because of ever soaring cost and job losses. Many states, including
Texas, are also cutting back on subsidies for health care, further
increasing the number of people with no coverage.

The majority of the uninsured are neither poor by official standards nor
unemployed. They are accountants like Mr. Thornton, employees of small
businesses, civil servants, single working mothers and those working
part time or on contract.

"Now it's hitting people who look like you and me, dress like you and
me, drive nice cars and live in nice houses but can't afford $1,000 a
month for health insurance for their families," said R. King Hillier,
director of legislative relations for Harris County, which includes Houston.

Paying for health insurance is becoming a middle-class problem, and not
just here. "After paying for health insurance, you take home less than
minimum wage," says a poster in New York City subways sponsored by
Working Today, a nonprofit agency that offers health insurance to
independent contractors in New York. "Welcome to middle-class poverty."
In Southern California, 70,000 supermarket workers have been on strike
for five weeks over plans to cut their health benefits.

The insurance crisis is especially visible in Texas, which has the
highest proportion of uninsured in the country -- almost one in every
four residents. The state has a large population of immigrants; its
labor market is dominated by low-wage service sector jobs, and it has a
higher than average number of small businesses, which are less likely to
provide health benefits because they pay higher insurance costs than
large companies.

State cuts to subsidies for health insurance to help close a $10 billion
budget gap will cost the state $500 million in federal matching money
and are expected to further spur the rise in uninsured. In September,
for example, more than half a million children enrolled in a state- and
federal-subsidized insurance program lost dental, vision and most mental
care coverage, and some 169,000 children will lose all insurance by 2005.

"These were tough economic times that the legislature was dealing with,
and the governor believed in setting the tone for the legislative
session that the government must operate the way Texas families do and
Texas businesses do and live within its means," said Kathy Walt,
spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry.

She noted that the legislature raised spending on health and human
services by $1 billion this year, and that lawmakers passed two bills
intended to make it easier for small businesses to provide health
insurance for their employees.

Those measures, however, will not help Theresa Pardo or other Texas
residents like her who have to make tough choices about medical care
they need but cannot afford.

Ms. Pardo, a 29-year-old from Houston, said that having no insurance
meant choosing between buying an inhaler for her 9-year-old asthmatic
daughter or buying her a birthday present. The girl, Morgan, lost her
state-subsidized insurance last month, and now her mother must pay $80
instead of $5 for the inhaler.

Rent, car payments and insurance, day care and utilities cost Ms. Pardo
more than $1,200 a month, leaving less than $200 for food, gas and other
expenses. So even though her employer, the Harris County government,
provides her with low-cost insurance, she cannot afford the $275 a month
she would have to pay to add her daughter to her plan.

When Morgan's dentist recently wanted to pull a tooth, Ms. Pardo
hesitated. The tooth extraction proceeded, but: "I had to ask him, if
you pull this tooth, will it cause other problems? Because if it does, I
can't afford to deal with them."

Lorenda Stevenson said her choice was between buying medicine to treat
patches of peeling, flaking skin on her hands, arms and face and making
sure her son could continue his after-school tennis program. "There's no
way I will cut that out unless we don't have money for food," she said.

Mrs. Stevenson's husband, Bill, lost his management job at WorldCom two
years ago, when an accounting scandal forced the company into
bankruptcy. They managed to pay $900 a month for Cobra, the government
policy that allows workers to continue their coverage after they lose
their jobs, but when the cost rose to $1,200, they could no longer
afford it.

When their son, a ninth grader, needed a physical and shot to take
tennis, Mrs. Stevenson turned to the Rockwall Area Health Clinic, a
nonprofit clinic in Rockwall, a city of 13,000 northeast of Dallas. The
clinic charged her $20 instead of the $400 she estimated she would have
paid at the doctor's office.

"I sat filling out the paperwork and crying," she said, tears streaming
down her face. "I was so embarrassed to bring him here."

A salve to treat her skin condition costs $27, and she pays roughly $50
a month for medications for high blood pressure and hormones. She does
without medication she needs for acid reflux, treating the conditions
sporadically with samples from the clinic.

Carol Johnston cannot afford even doctor visits. A single mother in
Houston, she lost her job in health care administration in May and said
she was still unemployed despite filling out 500 to 600 applications and
attending countless job fairs.

Cobra would have cost $214 a month, or more than one-fifth of the $1,028
in unemployment she gets a month. As it is, her monthly bills for rent,
car, utilities and phone exceed her income.

She got a 12-month deferral on her student loans, and Ford pushed her
car payments back by two months. The Johnstons rely on television for
entertainment and almost never use air-conditioning, despite Houston's
muggy, hot climate.

Now Ms. Johnston's 16-year-old son is losing the portion of his
insurance that covered treatment for his learning and emotional
disabilities because of state cutbacks.

Ms. Johnston herself does not qualify for Medicaid, the government
insurance program for the indigent, because her income is too high, the
same reason she qualifies for only $10 a month in food stamps. "I worry,
I worry so much about making sure my son is safe," she said.

As for her own health, Ms. Johnston has two cysts in one breast and
three in another but has had only one aspirated because she cannot
afford to check on the others. "Do I have to move to Iraq to get help?"
she asked. "They have $87 billion for folks over there," she said,
referring to money Congress allocated for military operations and
rebuilding.

Experts warn that allowing health problems to fester is only going to
increase the costs of health care for the uninsured. "As Americans, when
are we going to realize it's cheaper to save them on the front end than
when they get cancer and show up in the emergency room?" said Sandra B.
Thurman, executive director of PediPlace, a nonprofit health clinic in
Lewisville, Tex.

Many hospitals and neighborhood clinics here say that the well-heeled
are now joining the poor in seeking their care. Emergency rooms are
particularly hard hit, since federal law requires them to treat anyone
who walks through their doors for emergency treatment, regardless of
whether they can pay.

Public hospital emergency rooms are even harder hit, since private
hospitals will move quickly to shift uninsured patients to them. And
clinics for the poor are also seeing an increase in demand.

A clinic run by Central Dallas Ministries charges patients $5 for a
doctor visit, $10 for medication and $15 if laboratory work is needed,
but often settles for no payment from many of the 3,500 patients it
treats each year.

"I'm not real optimistic it will get a lot better," said Larry Morris
James, executive director of Central Dallas Ministries. "Demographic and
economic trends tell you that it's probably going to get worse."

For Irma Arellano, the problem has already hit home. Mrs. Arellano is a
secretary in the Royse school district northeast of Dallas, which
provides her health insurance for $35 a month but offers no discounts
for her three children or husband.

Two years ago, the Arellanos paid $269 a month to insure the family. The
price jumped last year to $339 and this year to $780, more than their
monthly mortgage payment.

Her husband works for a small landscaping company that does not offer
insurance. So Mrs. Arellano is insured, but her husband, Jose, and their
three children -- Jackie, 16; Joe, 15; and Anthony, 13 -- are going
without insurance.

The Arellanos' income, which ranges from $2,800 to $3,200 a month, makes
them ineligible for state-subsidized insurance. Their basic expenses run
$2,000 a month or more.

"I'm one of those people in the middle," Mrs. Arellano said. "We don't
make enough to pay for insurance ourselves, but we make too much to
qualify for CHIP," the government-subsidized program for children.

So her children were recently at the Rockwall clinic for the physicals
they need to participate in after-school sports, paying $25 instead of
the $100 or more Mrs. Arellano would have paid at the doctor's office.

The family has catastrophic insurance, but Mrs. Arellano is uncertain
how much longer she can afford it. Mr. Arellano's income typically drops
in the winter, and his wife is hoping the children will then qualify for
the state insurance program.

Even so, newly initiated regulations require families to reapply for the
insurance every six months, rather than once a year, so they are not
likely to qualify for long.

"I'll take what I can get," Mrs. Arellano said.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Jarg wrote:

>"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>In article >, "Jarg"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Sara" > wrote in message
...
>>>. When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
>>>
>>>
>>>>priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
>>>> The insurance companies continue to make the same
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is
>>>priced
>>>out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can
>>>afford
>>>it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500
>>>per
>>>year for good coverage with a HMO.
>>>
>>>Jarg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Try it at a more advanced age, when COBRA-extensions ran out or became
>>unaffordable. At 55, an HMO would run well over $1000 per month, but
>>turned out to be unwilling to underwrite due to preexisting conditions
>>-- not under treatment because of unwillingness to opt in, but
>>unaffordability or unavailability of coverage.
>>
>>The irony is that I'm most interested in getting chronic disease
>>management, maintenance drugs and labs, etc., that demonstrably prevent
>>the more serious and expensive complications. Yet in my area, the only
>>clinic programs require demonstration of poverty and have several months
>>wait. There's a zone for people that would opt in, but where there's
>>nothing for them to opt into.
>>
>>
>
>I know there are exceptions. But my point is that for most Americans health
>care is affordable, and the broad statements Sara made to the contrary are
>incorrect.
>
>Jarg
>
>
>
>





Press Release
Thursday, August 10, 2000


Consumers Union's Washington, DC Office
CONSUMERS UNION STUDY REVEALS A "HEALTH CARE DIVIDE"
Despite U.S. prosperity, financial burden of health care
weighs heavily on the sick, the middle class, and the poor

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Despite the unprecedented growth of the U.S.
economy, the cost of health care continues to place an enormous burden
on Americans who are seriously ill, as well as those who have moderate
and low incomes.

According to Consumers Union, the nation is faced with a "health care
divide," a condition in which the financial burden of health care is
much heavier for the sick, the middle class, and the poor than it is for
the healthy and the wealthy.

The sickest 10 percent of Americans account for 68 percent of the money
spent on health care each year, according to "The Health Care Divide," a
national study by Consumers Union's Washington DC office.

The study was written by Gail Shearer, Consumers Union's Director of
Health Policy Analysis, based on data compiled by the Lewin Group, a
health care policy research firm.

"Our health care system is characterized by divisions," said Ms.
Shearer. "People with health insurance receive more care than the
uninsured, who often cannot afford the care they need. Even among those
with insurance, the healthy are divided from the sick, leaving the sick
to shoulder large financial burdens. The burden of paying for health
care divides people by income, with those at the lower income levels
paying the largest share of income for health care. Until we overcome
these divisions in our health care system, the goal of achieving
affordable, universal health care coverage will continue to elude us."

"The Health Care Divide" finds that the sickest 10 percent of Americans
pay seven times what the average American spends on health care.

The study also examines how much families have to budget for health
care, taking into account what they spend on insurance premiums as well
as out-of-pocket costs. It finds that:
· Families with incomes of at least $100,000 spend 3 percent of their
income on health care. Meanwhile, families making $45,000 spend 6
percent of their income on health care, and families making under
$10,000 spend 17 percent on health care.

In other words:
· Middle-income families spend twice the percentage of income that
wealthy families spend on health care expenses; and

· The poorest families spend six times the percentage of income that
wealthy families spend on health care.

The study also finds that one in six households headed by a person under
65 spends 10 percent or more of family income on health insurance
premiums and out-of-pocket costs. The burden increases dramatically with
age, with one in every two households headed by a person over 65
spending more than 10 percent of family income on health care.

The private marketplace has failed to provide affordable health care to
all Americans. Piecemeal attempts at reforming America's health care
system have not reduced the number of Americans without health
insurance, which stands at 44 million people and rising. Nor have these
incremental approaches addressed the problem of Americans who have
health insurance, but not enough to cover their bills if they become
seriously ill.

"When health care was the federal government's major topic of debate in
1994, many of those who rejected the idea of providing comprehensive
coverage argued that most of the system's problems could be solved by
the marketplace and smaller, limited initiatives," said Ms. Shearer.
"However, this Consumers Union report makes it clear that problems in
our health care system are getting worse instead of better. The 'health
care divide' has only become deeper in the last six years."

Considering these findings and the fact that the federal government now
has a budget surplus estimated at over $4 trillion, Consumers Union
believes that it is time for Washington policymakers to renew
discussions of establishing a system that provides universal health
coverage.

"With its unprecedented budget surpluses, Congress should establish, as
a matter of law, that all people in this country have a right to health
care coverage -- comprehensive, affordable, quality health care
coverage," said Ms. Shearer.

If policymakers are not willing to take a comprehensive approach,
Consumers Union believes that they should address the needs of those who
are most vulnerable in our society. Congress should pass a law to ensure
that all children have comprehensive health coverage. It should approve
a universal Medicare prescription drug plan. Medicare should be expanded
to people between 55 and 64, and Medicaid and the State Children's
Health Insurance Program should be extended to the parents of the
children enrolled in these programs.

Consumers Union also believes that Congress should reject proposals that
perpetuate the failings of the marketplace, such as medical savings
accounts (MSAs), healthmarts, and association health plans. While touted
by some as ways to help more people get health insurance, these programs
would eventually put health insurance out of reach for many Americans.
These programs appeal mostly to people who are healthy and thus pull
healthier people out of traditional insurance programs. As a result,
those left with traditional health insurance would be forced to pay
higher premiums. MSAs, health marts, and association health plans would
only deepen the "health care divide."

Consumers Union's report "The Health Care Divide" is available online in
the Health section on this web site. To obtain a copy of the tables of
health care expenditures compiled by the Lewin Group that serve as the
basis of the study, contact Gail Shearer or David Butler at (202) 462-6262.
**

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:21:39 -0330, moveeman1 wrote:

> The trouble with Canadian health care is that for the last 10 years or so a
> right wing capitalist is the finance minister and he just won't fund
> medicare as the medicare act provides for. What he wants to do is say it is
> too costly so eventually has to be scrapped. What else can you expect of a
> right wing capitalist who is a liar in that he won't admit that he wants to
> scrap Canada's uncapitalistic health care system! Also see above post of
> mine wherein I show how the right wingers have conspired through the FDA to
> outrageously and obscenely raise drug prices so that no system could long
> afford to pay for them!

That is, of course, somewhat exaggerated. Firtst, health is a prerogstive
of the provinces, although historically they were getting federal support.
Federal support was not earmarked for medical insurance, but for a series
of programs that included medical insurance. Anyway, the fight between
the feds and the provinces is ongoing, and it's hard to precisely ascribe
blame, beyond blaming both.

It is of course true that the budget balancing act of the nineties hurt
health care funding. But claiming that it was ideologically driven
(except possibly in Alberta) is a bit of a stretch.

Furthermore, people in Canada are clear: they massively support their
public health program, so that no politician would dare to really go
against. Co-pay notions (the Trojan horse of public health) have been
dealt a massive blow in the recent Romanoc report which is supposed to be
the guiding recipe.

There is of course the other side: population growing older, and as health
care becomes technologically more advanced, it costs more. So that as a
fraction of GNP, the cost of public health is inevitably going up.

Then there are right wing/populist politicians who are beating the no
taxes drum, and sell people the idea that they can have their cake and eat
it too: get free health yet cutting taxes just by "cutting fat." Which
has not been there for quite a while.

Anyway, I do remain reasonably optimistic on the long term survival of
public health in Canada.

What most people don't seem to understand well is how it works. The
medical profession is private. What we have is a public insurance scheme,
at the provincial level.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:11:52 -0330, moveeman1 wrote:

> Would you agree thern that what the US has is Pharmaceutical corps having
> a monopoly in health care in the US,........ as well as elsewhere?

Mostly the medical business, not so much pharmaceutical.

Hospitals, HMOs are large corporations, owned by a small number of wealthy
physicians. Who run a monopoly so they are free to set fees sky-high, and
merrily prescribing use and overuse of expensive equipment.

Insurance just pays. And increases premiums as the medical business
increases their rates. Medicare (laregest socialized medicine program in
the world, I suppose) just pays too. Nice case of public welfare for the
rich. (Presumably largely Rebublican too.)

Socialists have never controlled the Gov't of America.
There are no socialists in american political life, at least not on a
national scale. If there were wouldn't they admit it?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Who was it then?
> >
>
> The socialists that controlled the government at that time.
>
>

That means pharmaceutical corporations. They get monopolies over drugs
they develop and then charge up to 20,000 times and more than what the drugs
cost to produce. Through the FDA they get it mandated that to get a drug or
treatment passed studies costing in the range of $200 to $650 million
dollars per drug and study must be done. As a result the only one's who are
able to get any drugs passed are the big corps because nobody else can
afford those kinds of prices. That's also why the cost of health care is so
high especially in the US. They pass on the cost of these studies to the
consuming public. If it was socialists that implemented US medicare it's
capitalists who nowadays run the whole show and have just about bankrupted
the whole thing! They also won't study any natural remedies because they
can't patent them so what they concentrate on are synthetic unnatural
medicines that they can patent and get a monopoly on(so therefore no
competition) and are many times very dangerous as shown by the great number
of recalls of previously passed drugs!

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Would you agree thern that what the US has is Pharmaceutical corps
having
> > a monopoly in health care in the US,........ as well as elsewhere?
> >
>
> What's a "Pharmaceutical corps"?
>
>