Trump MAGAThread IV: Twixt Scylla & Some Bad Hombres

[Neutraligon]

Do you see that happening on the regular in Canada, or the UK?

No. The answer is no.

Again, stupid fucking argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ting-lists
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/e ... -1.2997726

Can't do that. Republicans get campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

And Democrats don't?

Let me get this straight: instead of wait times in some (not all) single-payer healthcare systems which can sometimes be too long, you'd prefer certain death due to your insurance company denying you coverage at all?

Considering I don't believe healthcare is a right, yes, death is preferable on the basis of principle.

Hope you enjoy it when it happens to you.

[Camicon]

Not to mention that argument is irrelevant to the part of the system being discussed.

Single-payer system, at least as far as it is understood, means publicly funded insurance or hospitals. This is not the same as to how hospitals are administrated. You can have a privately-managed, publicly-funded hospital. See: Parkland medical system.

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

You know Sander's drug price negotiation amendment that turncoat Democrats like Booker killed? The one that would've let you guys buy drugs from Canada, at Canadian prices? Let me explain why the death of that legislation is even more horrific than it might appear at first glance.

Canada determines our drug prices based on a mean average of seven similar states. The USA is one of them. Because prices in the US are so much more than those of the other six, it drags the price of Canadian drugs up, so we sit at a waypoint that is less than the US, but more than the UK or New Zealand. If the US was able to buy drugs from us, at Canadian prices, then our prices would also drop, because the US would no longer be skewing the mean. The US would then be able to buy their drugs at that new price, which would further drop the price of Canadian drugs as our system calculates a new mean average.

I trust you can see where that would lead.

[Neutraligon]

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

You know Sander's drug price negotiation amendment that turncoat Democrats like Booker killed? The one that would've let you guys buy drugs from Canada, at Canadian prices? Let me explain why the death of that legislation is even more horrific than it might appear at first glance.

Canada determines our drug prices based on a mean average of seven similar states. The USA is one of them. Because prices in the US are so much more than those of the other six, it drags the price of Canadian drugs up, so we sit at a waypoint that is less than the US, but more than the UK or New Zealand. If the US was able to buy drugs from us, at Canadian prices, then our prices would also drop, because the US would no longer be skewing the mean. The US would then be able to buy their drugs at that new price, which would further drop the price of Canadian drugs as our system calculates a new mean average.

I trust you can see where that would lead.

I heard about that. Does the same hold true for places like the UK, which base it at least in part on Canadian prices?

[Ifreann]

Considering I don't believe healthcare is a right...

---

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

You know Sander's drug price negotiation amendment that turncoat Democrats like Booker killed? The one that would've let you guys buy drugs from Canada, at Canadian prices? Let me explain why the death of that legislation is even more horrific than it might appear at first glance.

Canada determines our drug prices based on a mean average of seven similar states. The USA is one of them. Because prices in the US are so much more than those of the other six, it drags the price of Canadian drugs up, so we sit at a waypoint that is less than he US, but more than the UK or New Zealand. If the US was able to buy drugs from us, at Canadian prices, then our prices would also drop, because the US would no longer be skewing the mean. The US would then be able to buy their drugs at that new price, which would further drop the price of Canadian drugs as our system calculates a new mean average.

I trust you can see where that would lead.

Free drugs for all!

[Camicon]

Do you see that happening on the regular in Canada, or the UK?

No. The answer is no.

Again, stupid fucking argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ting-lists
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/e ... -1.2997726
The mere existence of waiting lists ought to raise some suspicions of the aforementioned possibilities. I'll find more information as I go along.

Again, waiting for care is better than no care at all, because waiting for something you need to live is better than never being able to get it.

What do you not understand about that?

[Hittanryan]

Can't do that. Republicans get campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

And Democrats don't?

Democrats do receive some campaign contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. However, their party tried to bring about badly-needed healthcare reform. Republicans voted unanimously to block it and are now actively trying to roll it back to 2010 rather than simply letting it lie or fixing it.

Let me get this straight: instead of wait times in some (not all) single-payer healthcare systems which can sometimes be too long, you'd prefer certain death due to your insurance company denying you coverage at all?

Considering I don't believe healthcare is a right, yes, death is preferable on the basis of principle.

I hate Ayn Rand.

Every other First World nation has figured out how to provide universal healthcare. Apparently the US just isn't exceptional enough.

[Camicon]

You know Sander's drug price negotiation amendment that turncoat Democrats like Booker killed? The one that would've let you guys buy drugs from Canada, at Canadian prices? Let me explain why the death of that legislation is even more horrific than it might appear at first glance.

Canada determines our drug prices based on a mean average of seven similar states. The USA is one of them. Because prices in the US are so much more than those of the other six, it drags the price of Canadian drugs up, so we sit at a waypoint that is less than the US, but more than the UK or New Zealand. If the US was able to buy drugs from us, at Canadian prices, then our prices would also drop, because the US would no longer be skewing the mean. The US would then be able to buy their drugs at that new price, which would further drop the price of Canadian drugs as our system calculates a new mean average.

I trust you can see where that would lead.

I heard about that. Does the same hold true for places like the UK, which base it at least in part on Canadian prices?

Not sure about them; haven't looked into it, because they aren't really the reason why Canadian drug prices are higher than they need be.

*snip*

Free drugs for all!

Well, not free, but substantially cheaper drugs.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The mere existence of waiting lists ought to raise some suspicions of the aforementioned possibilities. I'll find more information as I go along.

The problem is that this "waiting list" concept depends on the hospital.

There are hospitals which have longer waiting times than others, and not all hospitals are made equal. Even here in the United States, waiting times in private hospitals differ among each other.

[Neutraligon]

I heard about that. Does the same hold true for places like the UK, which base it at least in part on Canadian prices?

Not sure about them; haven't looked into it, because they aren't really the reason why Canadian drug prices are higher than they need be.

No but if that where the case their own prices might drop which would still slightly lower prices. There are certain precautions that I think would need to be included in a bill like that (no buying drugs that have not passed the FDA) but besides that yeah, it really sucks that the bill was dropped. Imagine if not only the US had passed that law, but also medicare could negotiate prices.

[Hittanryan]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ting-lists
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/e ... -1.2997726
The mere existence of waiting lists ought to raise some suspicions of the aforementioned possibilities. I'll find more information as I go along.

Again, waiting for care is better than no care at all, because waiting for something you need to live is better than never being able to get it.

What do you not understand about that?

Perhaps he's an advocate of population control? The poor die off at higher rates and get the population surplus under control? More jobs to go around, less environmental impact, killing the poor clearly offers many benefits!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I hate Ayn Rand.

Every other First World nation has figured out how to provide universal healthcare. Apparently the US just isn't exceptional enough.

Ayn Rand did a number on Republicans and Libertarians, this is true.

[The United Dark Republic]

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

You know Sander's drug price negotiation amendment that turncoat Democrats like Booker killed? The one that would've let you guys buy drugs from Canada, at Canadian prices? Let me explain why the death of that legislation is even more horrific than it might appear at first glance.

Canada determines our drug prices based on a mean average of seven similar states. The USA is one of them. Because prices in the US are so much more than those of the other six, it drags the price of Canadian drugs up, so we sit at a waypoint that is less than the US, but more than the UK or New Zealand. If the US was able to buy drugs from us, at Canadian prices, then our prices would also drop, because the US would no longer be skewing the mean. The US would then be able to buy their drugs at that new price, which would further drop the price of Canadian drugs as our system calculates a new mean average.

I trust you can see where that would lead.

Although I lean slightly more to the right on most issues, I actually agree with people such as Sanders and yourself. The bill that you're referring to was struck down 46-52, even though thirteen Republicans voted for it. Even President Trump has made clear that pharmaceutical drug prices should go down by allowing the ability to purchase outside the United States. Of course, the bill didn't pass, but this just shows how the establishment on both sides of the aisle are serving the same interests.

Or perhaps it's just a coincidence that Senator Booker has received the most contributions from big pharma than any other sitting senator?

$267,338 to be exact.

Source: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cor ... om-canada/

[Northern Davincia]

Considering I don't believe healthcare is a right...

---

You know Sander's drug price negotiation amendment that turncoat Democrats like Booker killed? The one that would've let you guys buy drugs from Canada, at Canadian prices? Let me explain why the death of that legislation is even more horrific than it might appear at first glance.

Canada determines our drug prices based on a mean average of seven similar states. The USA is one of them. Because prices in the US are so much more than those of the other six, it drags the price of Canadian drugs up, so we sit at a waypoint that is less than he US, but more than the UK or New Zealand. If the US was able to buy drugs from us, at Canadian prices, then our prices would also drop, because the US would no longer be skewing the mean. The US would then be able to buy their drugs at that new price, which would further drop the price of Canadian drugs as our system calculates a new mean average.

I trust you can see where that would lead.

Free drugs for all!

Negative liberties/rights > positive liberties/rights.

[Corrian]

This is why I think Booker would be a terrible idea in 2020. He is not right for the current climate.

[Hittanryan]

You know Sander's drug price negotiation amendment that turncoat Democrats like Booker killed? The one that would've let you guys buy drugs from Canada, at Canadian prices? Let me explain why the death of that legislation is even more horrific than it might appear at first glance.

Canada determines our drug prices based on a mean average of seven similar states. The USA is one of them. Because prices in the US are so much more than those of the other six, it drags the price of Canadian drugs up, so we sit at a waypoint that is less than the US, but more than the UK or New Zealand. If the US was able to buy drugs from us, at Canadian prices, then our prices would also drop, because the US would no longer be skewing the mean. The US would then be able to buy their drugs at that new price, which would further drop the price of Canadian drugs as our system calculates a new mean average.

I trust you can see where that would lead.

Although I lean slightly more to the right on most issues, I actually agree with people such as Sanders and yourself. The bill that you're referring to was struck down 46-52, even though thirteen Republicans voted for it. Even President Trump has made clear that pharmaceutical drug prices should go down by allowing the ability to purchase outside the United States. Of course, the bill didn't pass, but this just shows how the establishment on both sides of the aisle are serving the same interests.

Or perhaps it's just a coincidence that Senator Booker has received the most contributions from big pharma than any other sitting senator?

$267,338 to be exact.

Source: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cor ... om-canada/

Blue Dog Democrats are also to blame for the current state of the ACA. When the ACA was passed, the Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress. A bunch of chickenshits on the health insurance industry's payroll wouldn't go forward on the public option and other reforms. That's how we got stuck with the half-measure that is the mandate, when it really does not work without the public option.

Still doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were unanimous in opposition, or that they are now trying to go back to 2010 where a wart on your foot could be considered a preexisting condition denying you coverage for lung cancer.

[Northern Davincia]

I hate Ayn Rand.

Point being?
Hate her all you want for standing in the way of collectivist nonsense, but your opinion changes nothing.

[The United Dark Republic]

Although I lean slightly more to the right on most issues, I actually agree with people such as Sanders and yourself. The bill that you're referring to was struck down 46-52, even though thirteen Republicans voted for it. Even President Trump has made clear that pharmaceutical drug prices should go down by allowing the ability to purchase outside the United States. Of course, the bill didn't pass, but this just shows how the establishment on both sides of the aisle are serving the same interests.

Or perhaps it's just a coincidence that Senator Booker has received the most contributions from big pharma than any other sitting senator?

$267,338 to be exact.

Source: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cor ... om-canada/

Blue Dog Democrats are also to blame for the current state of the ACA. When the ACA was passed, the Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress. A bunch of chickenshits on the health insurance industry's payroll wouldn't go forward on the public option and other reforms. That's how we got stuck with the half-measure that is the mandate, when it really does not work without the public option.

Fair point, but to their defense; that vote on ACA costed each and every one of them their very seat. Which explains the GOP's 60+ seat gains in the 2010 midterms, one of which came from the district directly next to mine.

[Hittanryan]

I hate Ayn Rand.

Point being?
Hate her all you want for standing in the way of collectivist nonsense, but your opinion changes nothing.

Yes, because "Fuck it, I've got mine" is such a worthwhile philosophical position which when adopted on a wide scale won't cause civil society to unravel at all.

[Frenequesta]

Blue Dog Democrats are also to blame for the current state of the ACA. When the ACA was passed, the Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress. A bunch of chickenshits on the health insurance industry's payroll wouldn't go forward on the public option and other reforms. That's how we got stuck with the half-measure that is the mandate, when it really does not work without the public option.

Fair point, but to their defense; that vote on ACA costed each and every one of them their very seat. Which explains the GOP's 60+ seat gains in the 2010 midterms, one of which came from the district directly next to mine.

That just means that the people in those districts really didn't understand the law.

After all, with so many pages, there's bound to be something suspicious!

[Northern Davincia]

Point being?
Hate her all you want for standing in the way of collectivist nonsense, but your opinion changes nothing.

Yes, because "Fuck it, I've got mine" is such a worthwhile philosophical position which when adopted on a wide scale won't cause civil society to unravel at all.

Pardon my theft of anarchist rhetoric, but civil society is a spook, as is altruism.

[Hittanryan]

Fair point, but to their defense; that vote on ACA costed each and every one of them their very seat. Which explains the GOP's 60+ seat gains in the 2010 midterms, one of which came from the district directly next to mine.

That just means that the people in those districts really didn't understand the law.

After all, with so many pages, there's bound to be something suspicious!

There was plenty of health insurance industry astro-turf at the time. The health insurance industry paid lobbyists to disrupt town hall meetings and the like by spouting lies.

[The United Dark Republic]

Still doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were unanimous in opposition, or that they are now trying to go back to 2010 where a wart on your foot could be considered a preexisting condition denying you coverage for lung cancer.

I am personally opposed to the ACA, but there are a handful of beneficial portions to it. The preexisting mandate being one of the ones that should stay in place once the ACA is repealed, along with being able to stay on your parent's plan up to age 26.

[Neutraligon]

Still doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were unanimous in opposition, or that they are now trying to go back to 2010 where a wart on your foot could be considered a preexisting condition denying you coverage for lung cancer.

I am personally opposed to the ACA, but there are a handful of beneficial portions to it. The preexisting mandate being one of the ones that should stay in place once the ACA is repealed, along with being able to stay on your parent's plan up to age 26.

Do you support medicare also being able to negotiate drug prices? I mean, with that and the Canada thins (with drugs not approved by the FDA not being allowed to be shipped into the US) I would think prices would definitely drop.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I hate Ayn Rand.

Point being?
Hate her all you want for standing in the way of collectivist nonsense, but your opinion changes nothing.

*yawn*

She's the amateur version of Nietzsche, and that's being generous.

Also, "collectivism", in the way Ayn Rand defined it, is very much not a thing. She kept murdering the definitions of words to make it what she wanted them to mean instead of actually learning proper English and using words that were already well-defined.

[The United Dark Republic]

Fair point, but to their defense; that vote on ACA costed each and every one of them their very seat. Which explains the GOP's 60+ seat gains in the 2010 midterms, one of which came from the district directly next to mine.

That just means that the people in those districts really didn't understand the law.

After all, with so many pages, there's bound to be something suspicious!

Well it was also because the Democrats overperformed in 2008, it wasn't an ordinary election year. Regardless of how popular the sitting President is, it's hard to defend that many seats. The Tea party also played a role in stirring up their base, not to mention lower overall turnout.

That's been a recipe for disaster with the Democratic party.