In the interests of politics...

[darkslayer13]

Like if there was a cure for cancer.

​

1. a cure for cancer isn't really a thing that can exist. cancer is not one specific disease it is a general category for a large number of diseases that all have the symptom of uncontrolled growth of cells. you could create a treatment for one but it would probably only work for that one.
2. do you know how expensive medical research is. pharmaceutical companies aren't charging large amounts of money to be greedy. if they don't charge that much they don't have enough money to do research and they will be unable to survive (and then no one gets medicine). no company in the world can afford to do medical research and not do anything with it if it works. any cancer treatment that works would be sold because it would be the only way to make back the massive amounts of money spent on it (and the 100 treatments they tested that didn't work or had dangerous side effects) before the patents run out and companies who didn't spend a single cent on research can make and sell it.

 

[V]

Well I just got told on FB by some random stranger sticking their nose into a conversation about it that I was a "society-hugging socialist" (is that as bad as a communist? lol) for suggesting that a country is less "third world" in moral terms if you don't just let sick people expire in the street. Or that available health care is probably the cornerstone of a civilization. You know, so all our kids don't have typhus and polio and other fun stuff.This person said that people should die naturally and if he ever had a problem with his organs or a disease, he would not deserve to be a drain on the state.

That's one hell of an attitude. Considering he must still pay the state and all for other stuff, like roads and police and fire departments and armies and wars.

But I think that's what's underneath most opinions against it. It's seen as either a gateway to some horrenous socialist nightmare (like ours, lol) or it's seen as a waste of money to cure all those darned sick people.

This guy also pulled the "undeserving" card, alcoholics, self-abusers, the old, people who copy Jackass. As if there's only a certain type of person that truly deserves 'help' and the rest are just some burden or deserve nothing. The friend I was originally talking to about it is an American EMT, and he's all for improving healthcare availability because his job is to save people, not find reasons not to put them in the ambulance. The other guy? No idea what his problem was. I was apparently too "blinded by the squirting blood from my bleeding heart" to have an intellectual discussion with him. XD

 

[OppressedWriter]

Ok...so next dumb question. As someone who has always lived in a country where there is universal healthcare with taxes to pay for it, why are people so against it in the US? Is it just because of the (presumably) increased taxes it would require or are there other reasons?

I'm a little simple on these matters, as you may have guessed, and cannot fathom why anyone would want to deny people the right to access healthcare?

You're right to be slightly puzzled. There really isn't any logical reason for most Americans to feel the way that they do about universal healthcare (even though "obamacare" isn't even that, I wish it was). Anyway, the thing is they have been brainwashed by decades of propaganda against any legislation that makes our system more fair and equitable to 99% of the population. So, unfortunately, a large percentage of the population wrongly assumes universal healthcare is a gateway to communism (another thing they don't understand, but definitely know is really "bad" :/ ).

Lastly, it needs to be said, that if you ask most American's about individual parts of "Obamacare," they overwhelmingly like the law, but if you just simply ask them if they like "Obamacare" they say they hate it.

Just imagine the following conversation and you'll understand how ignorant so many Americans are. (All of these questions are about things which are inside the "Obamacare" law)

Do you think insurance companies should be able to deny people with prexisting conditions?
"No"
Should children under 26 be allowed to stay under their parents health insurance plans?
"Yes"
Should companies with over 50 employees provide healthcare to their employees?
"Yes"
Should insurance companies be required to use 85% of your premium towards actual healthcare related costs?
"Yes"
Should health insurance be more affordable?
"Yes"

Do you like Obamacare?
"No"

*face palm*

 

[Demi-fiend]

You know...

I could just say right now that the solution to all these problems are small businesses, non-religious (agnostic?) charity, and minimal government involvement -- and that yes, there is indeed a cure for cancer...

http://www.sott.net/article/228583-Scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice

http://www.collective-evolution.com...f-alberta-doctors-discover-a-cure-for-cancer/

http://www.theadvocates.org/libertarianism-101/101-frequently-asked-questions/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynmcclanahan/2012/04/23/is-charity-the-answer-to-healthcare/

... but I get the feeling that that probably wouldn't go down so well, so I won't.

Look, I won't say anything further on the matter, I was honestly just trying to help.

 

[V]

Lol, charity (or the cash in a sick person's pocket) shouldn't be the only thing between a sick person and sickness/death.

If charity and business works so well providing for basic human needs, and the slightly higher needs of a so-called first world society, why does anyone even need a government or taxes at all? Yeah, exactly. Because you can't depend on some nebulous concept of goodwill, or people whose priority is profit, to actually 'deliver the goods'. By definition only a charity would put the person before the profit, not a business, and also by definition a charity isn't guaranteed to have the money to do it.

 

[Laurence Barnes]

theres all of this going on in the american government and then there's just the UK not getting involved with everything and let the other countries fight over which is the most powerful XD (this is pretty much what i read from the telegraph)

 

[Demi-fiend]

snip

Well, like I said before, I'll say nothing further on the matter.

 

[darkslayer13]

Don't be literal that's Not my point.
2. If some deadly disease had a cure i'm saying the possibility of keeping the cure secret only to charge continuously to treat it with an expensive band aid would be strongly considered.

So where do you think all that money for funding comes from, a one time permanent cure or a lifetime of broken promises & costly treatment.

and i am saying no one has the money to research a cure they don't intend to use. if someone is looking for a cure for a disease then once they find it they are going to sell it. pharmaceutical companies are businesses not brain-damaged cartoon supervillains. no one strongly considers wasting money on pointlessly evil actions and it is not profitable to not sell something that costs money to develop. what do you mean broken promises. pharmaceutical companies aren't selling fake medication or claiming that treatments are cures. there are no broken promises. people get what they pay for and pharmaceutical companies sell whatever they can make.

You know...

I could just say right now that the solution to all these problems are small businesses, non-religious (agnostic?) charity, and minimal government involvement -- and that yes, there is indeed a cure for cancer...

http://www.sott.net/article/228583-Scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice

http://www.collective-evolution.com...f-alberta-doctors-discover-a-cure-for-cancer/

interesting but not conclusive, if additional testing shows the same results for all cancers with no dangerous side effects then the world will have one less problem.

http://www.theadvocates.org/libertarianism-101/101-frequently-asked-questions/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynmcclanahan/2012/04/23/is-charity-the-answer-to-healthcare/

... but I get the feeling that that probably wouldn't go down so well, so I won't.

Look, I won't say anything further on the matter, I was honestly just trying to help.

shouldn't we try to get the most out of the government since we can't go without one. government funding could help out with testing that cancer cure you mentioned far more easily then relying on random people giving money but only if the government has the money and power to make it happen. small businesses and independently funded charities don't have the same resources that governments and international corporations do. to make big changes requires power, if no one has any meaningful amount of power then no one can change anything significant and if no one controls what direction things go in things get worse on their own more often then they get better on their own.

 

[Demi-fiend]

shouldn't we try to get the most out of the government since we can't go without one.

Sure.

But I'm an anarchist (or, extreme libertarian, whichever you prefer), and don't necessarily believe in government.

"Believe" being the key word. If you "believe" (ok, I will use the forbidden word: "know) -- no, if you know, within your own mind, that people are better off with government (people who live in cities are better off, one would believe -- however, people who live in rural areas mostly have to rely on themselves and their own small communities -- at least, that's what I've learned from reading about them them), then that's ok by me.

But I have a different sort of belief system. Not "dogmatic faith", but a genuine belief that we don't need any government and are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves.

You can call me crazy, but that's just my own personal opinion.

Anyway, like I said before, it would be better if I didn't say anything else regarding this topic. No offense to you, of course, I know you're just trying to have a debate, but I don't think I'll change my mind about this.

It was just my own personal point of view, and nothing more.

 

[Demi-fiend]

1. So the money for space shuttle fuel appears out of nowhere ?

The money for the space remote control land rovers appears out of nowhere ? ​

I'm saying if the government really wanted to research a cure money won't be much issue.

Wait a minute. You're going to hang me for this, but I think I should tell you what I've read about that.

Yes, the money does indeed "appear out of nowhere". I wish I was making that up. The dollar is the world's reserve currency, so the federal reserve can just print up money and pump it into banks to support the economy -- on toothpicks.

It's not a good system, and the only real solution is to do what Iceland did, and let the banks fail (see my link below).

So yes, the money does "come from nowhere" because the federal reserve prints their fiat currency and calls it "valid".

I know I said I won't say anything else on the matter, but I just thought I should clarify that point of your argument.

Once again, this is just from my own personal point of view. You don't have to believe me, but that's just the way I see things.

---------------------------------------

And yes, V.W. that's right. If you eliminate the cure, you eliminate the demand. Big Pharmaceuticals don't want to eliminate that demand, they want you hooked on their drugs.

---------------------------------------

Edit:

 

[Demi-fiend]

That's why old currency is destroyed i guess. Keeping to many bills in circulation would decrease the overall value of bills.

That's exactly what they're doing. Decreasing the value. That's why everything is more expensive but salaries aren't going up to keep up with the hyperinflation going on today.

 

[Jak]

you know how you and your significant other are having a "heated discussion" and at the end of it all "**** it. i can't talk you anymore" and you leave eachother's company for a little while? same thing...except on a bit of a larger scale.

 

[darkslayer13]

Sure.

But I'm an anarchist (or, extreme libertarian, whichever you prefer), and don't necessarily believe in government.

"Believe" being the key word. If you "believe" (ok, I will use the forbidden word: "know) -- no, if you know, within your own mind, that people are better off with government (people who live in cities are better off, one would believe -- however, people who live in rural areas mostly have to rely on themselves and their own small communities -- at least, that's what I've learned from reading about them them), then that's ok by me.

But I have a different sort of belief system. Not "dogmatic faith", but a genuine belief that we don't need any government and are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves.

You can call me crazy, but that's just my own personal opinion.

Anyway, like I said before, it would be better if I didn't say anything else regarding this topic. No offense to you, of course, I know you're just trying to have a debate, but I don't think I'll change my mind about this.

It was just my own personal point of view, and nothing more.

i won't call you crazy but i will say that you are overly optimistic, most people can be trusted to do the right thing in most situations without being forced but not everyone can and few people can be trusted in every situation.
the basic purpose of government is to enforce a basic, codified, moral standard on people that wouldn't have one or would have an insufficient standard if left to decide things on their own, to create a set procedure to determine guilt, and to set fair punishments for inappropriate actions. large organized societies require this structure to function effectively. the only other option is to leave punishments up to the victim or random people and that results in arbitrary frequently excessive punishments with little to no effort to determine guilt beyond " hey i think that guy did it" any other action by government is extra but the same structures created to create and enforce laws can be expanded to provide other services and there is no reason not to do so other that insufficient resources.

we can take care of ourselves, the problem is when multiple people taking care of themselves get in each other's way.

1. So the money for space shuttle fuel appears out of nowhere ?
The money for the space remote control land rovers appears out of nowhere ?
I'm saying if the government really wanted to research a cure money won't be much issue.
2. You're kidding right.
If it cost me $5,000 to ten XBOXONE systems & i sell each for $500.00 i'd need to sell ten to make back what it cost to make, but if i make systems that last for a week & charge $250.00 for repair i'd get $2.500 just for repairing each of the ten systems once but the systems would continue breaking & i'd get $250.00 every time just to repair it.
Within months i've made back what it cost to make systems & more.
If i sold indestructible systems then what would i make back in profit.
That's the way things are, durable enough to last & gather loyalty but disposable enough to require repair & get return customers.

The world is filled with legal drugs & services

making a game system suck just requires using cheaper parts. curing a disease and treating it without curing it involve completely different drugs. so if a pharmaceutical company discovers a cure for a disease they sell the cure or they sell nothing and selling nothing is not an option. oh and if pharmaceutical companies have some imaginary conspiracy to avoid curing disease why are there drugs that cure diseases. why not only sell treatments since according to you they can afford to do that (is there a fund for corporate evil that pays the expenses for cartoonishly evil acts by corporations so they can profit off of them?).

 

[darkslayer13]

It's about business.
There is no business in a permanent cure unless that cure is expensive, very expensive.

Don't you find it odd that the year is 2013 & the world has come this far in it's lifetime & we've only gotten better treatments & no cures.
Health insurance has increased but no cures only treatments.
They sell the treatments, therapy, rehabilitation, medical expenses.
Your insurance pays for it IF you qualify for it. If not then you're on your own for payments.
IF we qualify, we are given what's needed to make do till the next treatment because that's how money is made in business.
In business if you own a seafood restaurant you don't teach someone to fish, you buy the property the lake is on & you sell fishing licences.

​

​

​

This is from John Q but this is how life works.
No cartoonish evil, just life.

or maybe the reason we don't have permanent cures for everything is not some imaginary conspiracy but the fact that it isn't easy or cheap to look for cures. the way it works is that you put massive amounts of time any money into researching as many things that might work as possible , nearly everything you do ends up being just a waste of time and money and if you find one that works you sell it. a treatment would be more profitable than a cure, that is true. but they don't get to choose what they end up with and they can't afford to ignore any thing available to sell. maybe there is someone horrible enough that they would prefer to make people suffer (sociopaths do very well in corporations but most people in corporations still are not sociopaths.) who decided to go into the pharmaceutical industry for some odd reason but if someone like that was in that situation they would choose to sell the cure over driving their company into bankruptcy looking for a temporary treatment when they have already spent all of their money finding the cure.

and just why would someone who cares only for profit choose a business as difficult and unprofitable as the pharmaceutical industry. selling unhealthy food or making a mindnumbingly bad reality TV show would be a more profitable idea. people go into the pharmaceutical industry because they want to make medicine. they sell it because they need money to live (and to make the medicine, pay their employees, etc.)

people don't die because someone decided to screw everyone over in order to somehow make money not selling anything because the only product they have is less profitable then the imaginary product they would wish they had if everyone in the entire company was a sociopath. people die because that is how life works

no planning, no conspiracy, no greed just life and it's inevitable end.

not every problem can be fixed, not every life can be saved. everyone dies eventually , some people die sooner then others and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it at all. don't look for someone to blame. start looking for something to actually help or just get over it.

 

[V]

I'll remember that next time I see some sick / skeletal kids with "puppydog" eyes on TV.

 

[Angel]

To continue this weird tangent for a moment: I was under the impression that pharmaceutical companies make a shed load of money. Drugs are expensive to purchase which is why the first drug offered to people seeing their GP tends to be the cheapest.

Going back to the topic, with the government still messed up, what is the effect on the economy in the long term going to be, if any?

 

[Demi-fiend]

Going back to the topic, with the government still messed up, what is the effect on the economy in the long term going to be, if any?

America is in it's death throes. Glad I left while I still could.

It was nice knowing you, former land of the free.

 

[Loopy]

America is in it's death throes. Glad I left while I still could.

It was nice knowing you, former land of the free.

If America does go, it's going to take other countries with it, countries that have invested money in what's left of American industry and creativity. It's going to be like a chain reaction of collapse. So, with that in mind, I hope America really is too big to fail.

 

[Demi-fiend]

If America does go, it's going to take other countries with it, countries that have invested money in what's left of American industry and creativity. It's going to be like a chain reaction of collapse. So, with that in mind, I hope America really is too big to fail.

At first, sure.

But more and more people are leaving the states every day. And even if they are in the states, some of them will find a way to survive. That's what those "Paranoid Preppers" you see on TV have been getting ready for.

I really wish you would stop being such a fatalist. Some would say you're being "pragmatic", but I disagree.

I was being pragmatic because I had left. But I wasn't outright negative. That helps absolutely no one.

I'm just trying to find a way to make it through. And if I don't, who cares? Humanity as a whole will survive, regardless. They always have in the past, and I'm pretty sure they can make it through this (I know something will wipe us out in the future, but I don't think it'll be this particular crisis).

Whatever, you're not going to believe me anyway, so I'll just stop here.

America has had its day. Say hello to martial law and civil unrest.

It is no conspiracy, not greed, it is a business.

It's corrupt business. Honest business has been canceled out by big government. Remember, it's only because of government interference that we're in this mess in the first place.

 

[Demi-fiend]

See why people make trips to canada?

They've also been going to Singapore and India as well. That's the real free market talking. If you can't get good service here, you go elsewhere.