The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Does government regulation kill jobs?

Thanks Derid. This is what I started typing before I decided that it is futile to continue pointing out that we do the lion's share of the R&D. That fact doesn't fit into Sinj's paradigm so he's ignoring it.

Why are we going in circles? How many times and in how many threads do I need to address these talking points?

R&D is done everywhere, sure US does more of it in absolute numbers, but this is because US economy is larger. Plus, unless this is academia-based research (and it won't be part of health care expenses, instead it would be under education) results and fruits of this research are not just given away, they are SOLD FOR A PROFIT to these countries.

Your "R&D" argument is not logical, unless you are suggesting US does disproportionally more failed R&D (or one that only applicable to USA) than any other country and this failed research adds to health care costs.




The core problem with your arguments is that you base them on your brand of conservatism that at its core has a faith-based worldview. Any facts or data I present are outright dismissed as "selective", yet anything supporting your point of view is seen as a paragon of integrity. I have yet to see such extreme selective reading outside of political debates.




So what you believe is "the truth" and "entire reality" but what I say is "twisting of the truth". How can we have a factual argument when you show such open bias?

I don't think any of you understand normalization.

Here is how it works:

Country "A" GDP is $10, they spend $1 on R&D - 10% of GDP goes into R&D.

Country "B" GDP is $100, they spend $9 on R&D - 9% of GDP goes into R&D.

Who spends more on R&D ? As part of % GDP - A, in absolute numbers - B.

Thank you professor! I've been struggling with another concept. Would you please deign to help me in your spare time? What is the sum of 2 and 2?

You are no different from every other elitist liberal that I've ever debated. You believe you're the smartest man in the room and as such any disagreement with you must be because us "little people" just don't understand the super duper complicated intricacies of your argument. I call shenanigans. Everyone return here with your brooms in one hour to help sweep away all the bullshit.

If you want to drag this argument down to ad hominem level I would be more than happy to call you conservative hick and a troglodyte. We also could just debate points.

Feel free to tell us how you really think. The sharing of ideas can really only be accomplished when both sides know how the other perceives them. Recognize that not once have I accused you of being less than intelligent, merely misguided, while you just slapped all of us in the face with, "I think I'm smarter than all of you."

You try and say I do not understand the concept of normalization when you do not understand the concept that 200 countries importing USA drugs, treatments and tech results in the USA getting a larger health care industry as % of GDP.

Or are you talking about consumer level spending?

In which case you are ignoring that a foreign country that buys as a bloc essentially as a single buyer and is able to get considerable discounts as they are a secondary market.

You are also ignoring the extreme cases of advanced medicine where the costs of a few procedures/treatments , the retail value is exceedingly high and skew the overall results.

You also havent faced up to the bulk of rebuttals presented.

Also, I wouldnt say someones economics is somehow faith based when you do not even understand the basic concepts of how pricing and economic valuation are reached in the first place.

I had suggested breaking off to a new thread earlier so that the argument could be refocused with clarity, but it appears you want to keep dodging rebuttals and throwing out inconsistent sources. Being inconsistent and unclear and jumping back and forth between arguments may make it hard to pin you down on every independent point, but it doesnt make you right.

I am well aware that treatments and medicine are purchased at a discount by countries with social medicine. How is "single buyer" wholesale purchasing power is not an advantage of socialized medicine? Your earlier point is that socialized medicine is ineffective, now you are contradicting yourself by pointing otherwise.



Are you suggesting that innovative treatments and drugs is the main reason why costs are so high? Do you have any data supporting this?

I was under impression that one of the costs increase sources came from individual doctors doing unnecessary expensive treatments (spine fusion comes to mind) and health insurances not having enough tools to question them.

Because the entire international system isn't socialized, the socialist country in question functions economically like a large corporation. Ergo, it does not have to deal directly with the questions of valuation - those issues are largely settled in the USA. Because neither Canada nor Sweden represent or contain the bulk of the health "means of production" so to speak or the bulk of the world market, Sweden functions economically in regards to health care more as a company of 10 million employees that operate under a comprehensive health plan.

If the "core" health care economy, that is the USA, was socialized then the inherent problems with socialization will come into play. Remember me saying somewhere prior that one upside of socialization here at home, will be higher costs elsewhere in the world?

There are lots of reasons the costs are high here. Partly it being that the USA is the primary market for first line new drugs, that does play a part. New and experimental treatments are EXPENSIVE - to a degree that helps skew overall expenditure. So does the fact that most ultra rich come here for treatment, this adds to the overall health numbers.

There are certainly also structural problems with the way our insurance system works and the way govt regulates it that add unnecessarily to costs, but breaking down an analysis on where the pain points are is outside the scope of me slacking at work to cook up a post. Maybe I will revisit it tonight.

I don't disagree with your assessment. They only way to contain health-care costs is to a) ration b) massively redistribute them. This is exactly what US should be doing.





If you compare US health care to automotive market, the only cars that available are fully-loaded brand new Cadillacs. This works great if you could afford one, but if you are in the market for economy beater market does not serve you well.




Rotten-to-the-core comes to mind. I don't think market-driven system where individual consumers do not have an option of refusing product could exist. How many people would refuse life-saving treatment, regardless of how expensive this treatment is and regardless of how little it extends their life expectancy? If you are doing research on costs, look into end-of-life treatments and effects of redistributing these costs within insurance pool.

This underlying egoistical human nature is why health-care costs will keep going up until decision making is out of hands of individual consumers. Socializing is one way of doing it, perhaps you can think of another?