despite the verbosity, you said very little, and have certainly not added to content of it.

Honestly, I see the falsehoods contained in the original joke. But it was kind of funny.

---

Janice

A Republican wants to teach his 2 children a moral lesson so he reads them a proverb

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

He then gives his best fishing pole to his oldest son and proceeds to teach both children how to fish. When done he wipes his hands and says "Well now that they both know how to fish I think that they'll both do well at fishing."

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Next, 'universal health care' is mentioned. Health Care, depending on exactly what it is, is either a Good (drugs and equipment, etc.) or a Service (physician's treatment, advice, etc.). Health Care is not a Right. Like all other goods and services, it is up to the individual to purchase when desired and if able. One might respond to this statement by mentioning how expensive it is, and that few could afford it. Well, the reason why it is so expensive is Government interference in the market. When I was a child, health care was affordable to almost everyone, and for those it wasn't, there were charities. Then enter massive Govt. involvement both directly (medicare, et. al, as well as massive regulation), and indirectly with tax policy favoring 'health insurance' as a 'benefit' from one's workplace. The result? Health Care that is not affordable anymore.

When you were a child were prescription drugs advertised on TV? You see the UK and many other nations have direct government involvement in health care, yet these nations do not have costs sky rocketing in quite the same way as the US. The US is one of 2 nations in the world that permits the advertising of prescription drugs. Anybody care to hazard a guess at the result of such advertising?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Or the generalized statement about my life experiences... What's wrong with coming to conclusions based on what one witnesses? Is this not the best, most informed opinion? I've been to a lot of places and have seen a lot of things. Check my profile for a list of places I've been. Seen the news about Greece lately? How about what's happening in England right now? I lived on the island of Crete for a year and a half. I lived in England for three years. Don't you think I might have *some* insight into what's causing the riots over there right now?

And about abundant poverty? Dude, I've seen abject poverty. I've been places (Morrocco, for one) that have burned images into my mind which remind me to thank God daily I was lucky enough to be born where I was born. Believe me, there is no *real* poverty here in the states. Sure, there are some folks standing on street corners with signs saying, "will work for food," and homeless sleeping on park benches and underneath bridges and stuff, but I've seen much, much worse. The homeless here *think* they have it bad. Here, there are places the homeless can find a meal and a cot.

You do know that "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" don't you?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

When you were a child were prescription drugs advertised on TV? You see the UK and many other nations have direct government involvement in health care, yet these nations do not have costs sky rocketing in quite the same way as the US. The US is one of 2 nations in the world that permits the advertising of prescription drugs. Anybody care to hazard a guess at the result of such advertising?

One line response: I do know that those commercials are cramked up in volume in comparison to most other commercials.

When you were a child were prescription drugs advertised on TV? You see the UK and many other nations have direct government involvement in health care, yet these nations do not have costs sky rocketing in quite the same way as the US. The US is one of 2 nations in the world that permits the advertising of prescription drugs. Anybody care to hazard a guess at the result of such advertising?

One line response: I do know that those commercials are cramked up in volume in comparison to most other commercials.

If this is anything to go by, it seems that doctors make decisions they have less faith in if a patient requests the drugs to prescribe, rather than one based on their own assessment. Also, it's been estimated that big pharma spends about twice as much on advertising as it does on research and development. So two outcomes of their advertising could be increased costs for the drugs (due to advertising spend) and unnecessary prescriptions (due to doctors acquiescing to patient demand).

Of course any attempt to stop big pharma advertising is an unnecessary restriction on the free market ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

If this is anything to go by, it seems that doctors make decisions they have less faith in if a patient requests the drugs to prescribe, rather than one based on their own assessment. Also, it's been estimated that big pharma spends about twice as much on advertising as it does on research and development. So two outcomes of their advertising could be increased costs for the drugs (due to advertising spend) and unnecessary prescriptions (due to doctors acquiescing to patient demand).

Of course any attempt to stop big pharma advertising is an unnecessary restriction on the free market ...

There is a recent article in Discover magazine providing two or more points of view on big pharma, doctors, and patients. If I can track it down, I'll link it. Sound good?

Next, 'universal health care' is mentioned. Health Care, depending on exactly what it is, is either a Good (drugs and equipment, etc.) or a Service (physician's treatment, advice, etc.). Health Care is not a Right. Like all other goods and services, it is up to the individual to purchase when desired and if able. One might respond to this statement by mentioning how expensive it is, and that few could afford it. Well, the reason why it is so expensive is Government interference in the market. When I was a child, health care was affordable to almost everyone, and for those it wasn't, there were charities. Then enter massive Govt. involvement both directly (medicare, et. al, as well as massive regulation), and indirectly with tax policy favoring 'health insurance' as a 'benefit' from one's workplace. The result? Health Care that is not affordable anymore.

When you were a child were prescription drugs advertised on TV? You see the UK and many other nations have direct government involvement in health care, yet these nations do not have costs sky rocketing in quite the same way as the US. The US is one of 2 nations in the world that permits the advertising of prescription drugs. Anybody care to hazard a guess at the result of such advertising?

No, they weren't, and I agree its a bad thing. Yet, once again its Government Regulation. When I was a child, the Medical Profession was self-regulated, and advertisements (among a great many other things) weren't allowed. Enter the federal government, and then advertising is allowed by physicians. Not long after, the drug companies got in on the act. Ugg.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

[quote]Next, 'universal health care' is mentioned. Health Care, depending on exactly what it is, is either a Good (drugs and equipment, etc.) or a Service (physician's treatment, advice, etc.). Health Care is not a Right. Like all other goods and services, it is up to the individual to purchase when desired and if able. One might respond to this statement by mentioning how expensive it is, and that few could afford it. Well, the reason why it is so expensive is Government interference in the market. When I was a child, health care was affordable to almost everyone, and for those it wasn't, there were charities. Then enter massive Govt. involvement both directly (medicare, et. al, as well as massive regulation), and indirectly with tax policy favoring 'health insurance' as a 'benefit' from one's workplace. The result? Health Care that is not affordable anymore.

<Snip>

No, they weren't, and I agree its a bad thing. Yet, once again its Government Regulation. When I was a child, the Medical Profession was self-regulated, and advertisements (among a great many other things) weren't allowed. Enter the federal government, and then advertising is allowed by physicians. Not long after, the drug companies got in on the act. Ugg.

I fear you take a very one sided view of things. Did it ever occur to you that medical advertising was banned by *Government Regulation* and it was intensive lobbying (read, bribery of politicians) by the "Medical Industry" that resulted in the removal of these restrictions ? Do you *really* believe that self regulation of the Medical Industry, the Stock Market, the Legal Industry, the Media etc. is the answer ? If so you are a very naive person.

Self regulation might have worked once, when the professions were run by honourable people, but unfortunately the institutions that "Self regulate" have become corrupted by greed and consolidation. In such cases it is the Government's DUTY to step in. The results may not be totally effective as the corrupt will do their best to block any real control of their nefarious actions.

I would also dispute with you that medical treatment is not a "Right" !! I loved your statement "If it is affordable". I guess you mean that if you can't afford medical treatment you have the "Democratic Right to Die", and if you do die it's your fault because you "chose" not to be able to afford treatment ?

The answer isn't in "small government". It's in in the general population once again demanding the corrupt are put where they belong.

T.A.

My dad used to say if you haven't got any money and you want to get some you vote Labour. If you've got money and you want to keep it you vote Conservative, if you're a don't know you vote Liberal. Sounds very similar to the Republicans and Democrats you have.

Presumably Vodafone agrees with your dad.

Good job we have had a NHS since 1948, but that is now being underfunded by Government cuts.

I almost believed you when you said the "funding for [the NHS] has been protected", after I stated the British right-wing have, for a long time, wished to dismantle it. I wonder how many more cases of public outcry there will be over the next few years as services become ever more rationed? Will the Daily Mail print made up stories about how cancer victims can't get prescriptions for certain drugs? I say made up because when the ran a story earlier this year (prior to the election) they cited 15 drugs that they said cannot be prescribed, they were wrong about 10 of them. Of course, as I mentioned earlier "data" is not the plural of "anecdote", though it might have been nice for the Mail to have provided some about the effectiveness of the drug in question. Ahh, but why let the facts get in the way?

I'd also say that the Daily Mail is part of the British right-wing establishment...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And the same thing is happening with your health care system. There's only a limited amount of tax payer money to fund health care. It's mathmatically impossible for everybody to get everything they want. What you are probably not being told is that your doctor is being told by the government what he can or cannot do, based on cost of the procedure and the patient's "Quality Adjusted Life Years." You take the average number of years left in the person's life and determine if the cost of the medical procedure is going to be worth it. Our congress is trying to do the same thing here. It sounds good in theory, but when you start looking at who's getting the pricey procedures, there's no real way to objectively determine who deserves it or not. And chances are, if you look at those getting the pricey procedures, they know someone, who knows someone, who knows a member of parliment, or congress. (corruption).

Of course, if the free market drives health care such limitations do not apply, correct? That is, it's mathematically possible for everybody to get everything they want if health care is privately owned and provided? Doctors are not told what they can or cannot do based on the costs of procedures in privately funded health care systems? &c. &c.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobbie, you're being silly. What's your premise? That it's fairer for someone else to determine what you recieve in health care based on how much other people's money is available? That it's fairer for someone else to spend the limited resources on million dollar procedures for someone who cannot pay for it himself; thus, taking away even further resources from me to pay for the cheaper procedures I want? How about letting me determine between me and my doctor and how much I can pay what's best for me? Now, this sounds selfish on the surface, but I'm talking about you also. Wouldn't it be easier for me to accept "end of life counciling" if it was because "I" can't pay for the life sustaining procedure, rather than to blame the burocracy for not wanting to keep me alive?

It would be in order for me to explain free market principles (with some caveats) again here, but I won't bother.

My premise? I was merely filling in the gaps that your previous post implied. I agree, your proposal would be much more acceptable to those who cannot afford life saving procedures, and why should I even care about those that can't afford "end of life counseling"? To hell with children unfortunate to be born with congenital defects whose parents happen to be poor. Right?

Strange as it might seem to you I am dependent upon a large group of people, farmers, shop workers, street sweepers, &c, and many of them may not be able to afford such procedures out of their own pocket. I am aware that "no man is an island".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobbie,

Boy, it's like trying to put two north poles of some magnets together. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that...

I read and re-read and then re-read again your post. The best I can figure the reason you are making these borderline sarcastic remarks is that you have some kind of a preconceived notion that all health care that is available on the market today is available for anybody who wants it. And all that is needed is for some third party to make sure it's distributed to everybody who wants it. This is not true/cannot be true no matter what kind of economic system and/or political system you have. Health care is a combination of goods and services and both are a limited resource. And the only way to achieve fair market value is if you let the individuals with individual freedom force the producers of these goods and services to charge a fair price in a free market (with caveats). People will only buy what they're willing to pay for. Whenever you let a third party, who claims to know what's best, try to determine and set the price of goods and services, you take away individuals freedoms (both the producers and the consumers) and almost always invariably skew the distribution of goods so the rich get more of what they want and the poor get less of what they want. You apparently haven't read any of my previous posts about the free market and its default self-adjusting mechanism that always finds the fairest price. There is no practical way for a third-party to monitor the medical needs of 308M people and make sure everybody gets what they want. It's just not practical.

No, it's not a strange idea that we're dependent on farmers, shop workers, street sweepers, etc. But that's only half of it. They're just as dependent on you, as a consumer, as you are on them. If the consumer wants something, there's a price the consumer is willing to pay. This creates room for someone to become a productive member of society, a business. If you don't want the product, the product is no longer made, because that would be called a failed business. The free market discourages waste. Nobody produces it if nobody wants it.

Well, it's a fact of life that not all people can afford everything they want. This is true for me. It's true probably for you. This is true because we all have different levels of productivity. There is a certain level of tolerance for some redistribution of wealth. But there's a limit. When the more productive members of our society start to get frustrated, they reduce their level of productivity. This reduces the overall productivity of a nation. We are at a tipping point. And the details of this 2,000 page health care bill, which we had to pass to find out what's in it, just may tip us over when we start finding out what's in it.

What am I talking about, you say? Well, let me give you an example. My friend and I were watching the Isle of Man TT races back in 1988 (first two weeks of June). We wanted to finish watching one of the races so we delayed lunch until about 1PM. When we made it to the pub for lunch, the pub had closed its doors. Why? Because they had made enough money serving other people already. If they had made any more money, they said they'd only be paying it in taxes. So, my friend and I went hungry, thanks to the progressive government taxing the rich more fairly, so the government could pay for health care, student tuition, milk, the BBC, and who knows what else.

Guie (See? Two can play at that game). You were the one that posited the idea that individuals should only receive the health care they can afford. I simply took that to logical conclusions. I understand how the markets work, and I understand who has the power to determine the minimum profit margins they are willing to accept for goods and the impact this may have on the wage/salary levels and benefits of that person's employees. I gave you a few examples of where the free market as you described it might lead, and rather than address them you attack me. Interesting.

BTW, I am under no preconceived notion that socialized health care will lead to a utopian redistribution leaving nobody wanting, though I do believe that it may lead to a more equitable distribution than we currently have in the US. Sure there will be losers, though at the same time I believe they will be far outnumbered by the winners. It is for this reason (amongst many others) that the citizens of the UK have not yet given up on the NHS, even after the lies the Daily Mail and others publish about it.

As for you anecdote, if the reasons provided to you were true, I'd say it was pretty short sighted of the pub landlord, for if everybody were to do the same, government would collapse (maybe they were anarchists). When I was responsible for bars that most likely in total sold 4 or 5 times as much beer as that pub, I ensured service was available whenever our license permitted. Oh, and income taxes, VAT, national insurance, &c. do not pay for the BBC, funding for Auntie comes from the TV license fee.

As an aside, "almost always invariably" is not only tautological ("always" and "invariably" are synonymous) some might say it's an oxymoron too.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

THe system we have is greatly flawed.

I've probably mentioned that I work for the largest oncology organization in the US.
We've been notified by Aetna Insurance that it will no longer pay for testing that they consider "experimental" this is another word for "It costs more than we want to pay"
2 tests come to mind and mind you they are very important tools for managing and monitoring a patients treatment
These tests are the Ca 19-9 and Chromagranin A. Both are tumor markers. the Ca19-9 is specific for pancreatic cancer. No other tumor marker checks for Pancreatic cancer. Removing this test from a Doctors list is like tying the Doctors hand behind his back. Honestly the only other way to monitor this Disease is apparently a CT scan which is about 100X more expensive than a simple lab test.

The Chromagranin A is also a Tumor marker but its for different type of tumor. There are several tests that can also help diagnose a patient but with all things more information is better than less. I am honestly appalled with the Insurance decision. I'm also fear that lacking this testing patients are not going to get the full service deserve to have.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

A british woman came in the other day and said a tv stamp is around 300 pounds now. Perhaps one of our British friends can let us know more.

I don't think Corporations should be in the health insurance business at all. It's gambling with peoples health and life. There's no other way I can look at it than licensed gambling. If you are sick or bad health or a woman you can be guaranteed to pay more for your insurance. that is if they don't just deny your application outright. Even if you get Insurance there's no guarantee it's affordable and God forbid they actually pay on claims. Its a fact that certain insurances companies by default reject 10% of all claims. This is a means for them to check to see if they get false claims etc. What it does for the individual is force them to jump through more hoops to get the their claim covered as it should have been in the first place. Just in my office alone we employ 20+ people to check peoples insurance, receive payments/copays, and file/refile claims to insurance companies. Do you realize what a waste of manpower it is for a Company such as where I work to deal with this enormous boondoggle. It seems sp unnecessary when I talk to people from Europe that don't have to worry about that mess. They go to their doctor show their ID which shows they live in the country and they get seem by a doctor. THey never worry about getting a bill and they are done. but you've gotten me on another subject. BTW almost universally people with Cancer wish that had something more like Universal healthcare since they never know when their insurance provider might deny a claim for some chemo drug that can run $10,000+ per week. The ones that complain the least are the Medicare patients. Big surprise, Huh?

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope