Ryan's Budget Proposal - It's a Start

[MG1968]

You mean the lasers that were developed within the public sector in universities / military industrial research?

Or do you mean the Russian who invented it during the Brezhnev years or the American researcher using public funds or the physicist working at the government lab????

LASIK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm having a very entertaining day today on VolNation. It has been delicious exploding various myths of received wisdom. lol:

The fact is most high tech is developed on the public dime (to minimize cost and risk) and then, when sufficiently developed, given license for private profit. Almost no fundamental R&D comes from the private sector.

This has been true in electronics, in lasers, in biotech, in pharmaceuticals. You name it.

all hail the government!!! without it we would still be living in mud huts and pissing ourselves in fear every time a solar eclipse occurred.

 

[milohimself]

what would be a fairly "significant" number?

Not to get all tear-jerker here, but I feel bad for my moms. She's in her mid-fifties, smoker, high risk of heart disease and cancer in the family. She owns a small internet marketing firm with her boyfriend, it's just the two of them. They make decent money but nothing great. Neither of them can get approved for private coverage or even swing the money for premiums if they could. Prior to what the ACA is proposing, they have absolutely no means for getting insurance aside from giving up the business they have worked for the last six years on to work for a company who will offer it to them. Not really in line with that American entrepreneurial spirit, is it?

 

[droski]

then they should apply for medicaid.

 

[milohimself]

every individual state already provides insurance for those with preexisting conditions who can't get it. so i'm failing to see the problem here. chosing to work on your own is your choice. if healthcare was important to you you might have to make tough choices. not really our problem. basically you are arguing that YOU aren't happy with it so the rest of us have to pay for YOU. ridiculous. when i was unemployed i got health insurance from blue cross that covered any major problem with no cap for $40 a month. i could have gotten insurance to pay for every little thing wrong with me, but i didn't.

Can't speak to California, but I know that Oregon and Washington have not been able to enroll new people in state-Medicare for quite some time.

So basically, your recommendation to me (or my mother, to go with the bit from above) is to suck it up and become a corporate shill. Awesome.

 

[utvolpj]

Almost no fundamental R&D comes from the private sector.

except in the joint repair/replacement that he mentioned in his post

 

[droski]

Can't speak to California, but I know that Oregon and Washington have not been able to enroll new people in state-Medicare for quite some time.

So basically, your recommendation to me (or my mother, to go with the bit from above) is to suck it up and become a corporate shill. Awesome.

Government Health Insurance Programs in Oregon

And yes suck it up IF it's that important to you. everyone else should pay for you and your mom because you don't want a 9-5 job? life is compromise.

 

[milohimself]

then they should apply for medicaid.

Not available at the moment.

Again, their only options at this time are to liquidate a perfectly fine small business and work for a larger company who will provide it, or avoid needing to go to the hospital for the next ten years until they qualify for Medicare.

 

[utvolpj]

Not really in line with that American entrepreneurial spirit, is it?

not being cold-hearted but it kind of is. They took a shot but aren't making enough to cover basic expenses. The spirit is in trying and not everyone is guaranteed to succeed. Say "corporate shill" all you want but it would provide a better quality of life wouldn't it? Given the choice...

 

[utgibbs]

all hail the government!!! without it we would still be living in mud huts and pissing ourselves in fear every time a solar eclipse occurred.

Don't blame me. I've warned you several times that R&D comes almost exclusively from the public sector. You went there, MG, not me.

However, it was delicious for me nonetheless.

 

[utgibbs]

except in the joint repair/replacement that he mentioned in his post

:lolabove:

Which also came from the British NHS ca 1970.

The modern artificial joint owes much to the work of Dr. Sir John Charnley at Wrightington Hospital; his work in the field of tribology resulted in a design that almost completely replaced the other designs by the 1970s. Charnley's design consisted of three parts—

stainless steel one piece femoral stem and head
polyethylene (originally teflon), acetabular component, both of which were fixed to the bone using
PMMA (acrylic) bone cement

DELICIOUS! I was hoping someone would bite. Thanks so much. :hi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_replacement#History

 

[milohimself]

Government Health Insurance Programs in Oregon

And yes suck it up IF it's that important to you. everyone else should pay for you and your mom because you don't want a 9-5 job?

OHP is severely underfunded and rationed, you can't simply apply for state assistance then get it. Again, she makes decent money, and I don't believe she qualifies for it.

And you somehow seem to be pulling this notion out of thin air that I think health insurance seems to be publicly funded... Although I've said otherwise multiple times (is that what you mean by the rest of you paying for my moms?)

What I've said was the health insurance NEEDS TO REMAIN PRIVATE (making sure you see that this time) but regulated more tightly so that people don't end up SOL.

 

[volinbham]

Let me get this straight. Instead of open-ended Medicare benefits, the plan is to give each senior a set amount of money to spend and then they are done?

And he says that is not a voucher because the money does not get paid to an insurer, but instead goes directly from the government to the provider.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that latter point a ginormous step towards true socialized medicine? And isn't the first step basically a death panel, i.e. you have x amount of money to spend for health care and, when you are out of your share, you are SOL?

Look, I'm not saying what he's proposing isn't ultimately in some form or another inevitable. I'm just saying that it leaves me scratching my head as to whether the same gripes about Obamacare last fall are now equally applicable (if not more so) to this.

Some clarification.

1. The amount provided is to purchase insurance - not HC. It is not a set amount of HC spending for a senior - it works like any other private insurance does.

2. This system is a step away from socialized medicine not towards it. Currently, Medicare is socialized - government pays providers. Ryan is proposing to pay the insurance for seniors.

Why? So they can choose the plan that best fits their needs. It is more akin to the Swiss system than the current one (which is more akin to the Canadian system). My bet is that doctors will like it better too.

Basically, it is moving back towards a consumer-driven system than from a socialized system.

 

[utvolpj]

:lolabove:

Which also came from the British NHS ca 1970.



DELICIOUS! I was hoping someone would bite. Thanks so much. :hi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_replacement#History

the idea but not the one in use today and not the techniques. I can also assure you the much better designs that came from the US were not publicly funded

and since you didn't link (to wikipedia I'm guessing) I can only assume no private money was used

 

[MG1968]

Don't blame me. I've warned you several times that R&D comes almost exclusively from the public sector. You went there, MG, not me.

However, it was delicious for me nonetheless.

word of the day calendar on your desk at the Politburo?

 

[droski]

OHP is severely underfunded and rationed, you can't simply apply for state assistance then get it. Again, she makes decent money, and I don't believe she qualifies for it.

And you somehow seem to be pulling this notion out of thin air that I think health insurance seems to be publicly funded... Although I've said otherwise multiple times (is that what you mean by the rest of you paying for my moms?)

What I've said was the health insurance NEEDS TO REMAIN PRIVATE (making sure you see that this time) but regulated more tightly so that people don't end up SOL.

whether private or not the end game is the same. MY premiums will go up because they have to start taking high risk people they didn't take before. I'm a non smoker. Why should it be my problem that your mother has smoked for 20 years? if you mom's income is high enough to not qualify for those govt programs than perhaps she needs to bone up some premium money. she's making the choice to go uncovered. no one complains that life insurance is more expensive for those who smoke and have health problems.

 

[azVolFan]

Don't blame me. I've warned you several times that R&D comes almost exclusively from the public sector. You went there, MG, not me.

However, it was delicious for me nonetheless.

I accept on trust that you're right about private not providing as much capital for R&D as public does. What if there were no public sector funding? You really think private wouldn't do it themselves?

 

[utgibbs]

the idea but not the one in use today and not the techniques

and since you didn't link (to wikipedia I'm guessing) I can only assume no private money was used

Absolutely the techniques, and he was an NHS doctor.

I've done quite a bit of work in this field, utvolpj.

 

[utvolpj]

Absolutely the techniques, and he was an NHS doctor.

I've done quite a bit of work in this field, utvolpj.

so has my family as one model is still named after a relative. I've heard his story

I also have the scars to prove the techniques have improved dramatically and that didn't come thru gov't funding

 

[milohimself]

not being cold-hearted but it kind of is. They took a shot but aren't making enough to cover basic expenses. The spirit is in trying and not everyone is guaranteed to succeed. Say "corporate shill" all you want but it would provide a better quality of life wouldn't it? Given the choice...

They are succeeding fine, but:

As previously stated they are uncovered because of family history of illness and smoking (the one part is personal choice, I know), not because they can't afford it. The insurance companies have all told them "keep your money."

Again, if this sort of choice is the one any sort of small business or firm has to make, then the old system is for you.

I'm talking:
- Tax breaks for small businesses so health insurance is affordable for small firms
- Better availability of private insurance for the self-employed
- Tightened regulation of practice so that companies can improve consumer prices by improving efficiency
- Improved health education, reduction in malpractice suits and services provided for those unable to document legal presence in the country

Does anybody find any part of this disagreeable or are we all just trying to rabble today? I'm down, nothing like a good, pointless rabble.

 

[volinbham]

You mean the lasers that were developed within the public sector in universities / military industrial research?

Or do you mean the Russian who invented it during the Brezhnev years or the American researcher using public funds or the physicist working at the government lab????

LASIK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm having a very entertaining day today on VolNation. It has been delicious exploding various myths of received wisdom. lol:

The fact is most high tech is developed on the public dime (to minimize cost and risk) and then, when sufficiently developed, given license for private profit. Almost no fundamental R&D comes from the private sector.

This has been true in electronics, in lasers, in biotech, in pharmaceuticals. You name it.

First off you need to understand the difference between R and D. The fact is that most (by a huge amount) of D comes from the private sector. A considerable amount of R does as well.

Second, the basic R that you are speaking of needs considerable (and I mean considerable) D before it is anywhere close to providing a viable solution on a large scale. The government sucks horribly at this.

I've worked in the field of technology transfer (what you are talking about) for over 20 years. The government is absolutely pitiful at bringing innovation forward into anything even remotely resembling a usable solution.

 

[droski]

- Tightened regulation of practice so that companies can improve consumer prices by improving efficiency
-.

specifically what can be done in this area.

 

[utgibbs]

I accept on trust that you're right about private not providing as much capital for R&D as public does. What if there were no public sector funding? You really think private wouldn't do it themselves?

Dubious. Research is high risk and often many years of development with no guarantees of profit.

The only example I can think of in the modern world right now is the Toyota / Ford / Daimler commitment to fuel cells for automotive applications. Even here though, the fundamental work was done in the university. It's all a case of engineering at this stage. And, of course, they receive quite a lot of government funding for the programs, so it's still very iffy.

 

[milohimself]

whether private or not the end game is the same. MY premiums will go up because they have to start taking high risk people they didn't take before. I'm a non smoker. Why should it be my problem that your mother has smoked for 20 years? if you mom's income is high enough to not qualify for those govt programs than perhaps she needs to bone up some premium money. she's making the choice to go uncovered. no one complains that life insurance is more expensive for those who smoke and have health problems.

Okay, forget that cigarettes even exist for a minute.

Others are turned down for private insurance all day based only on family history of disease, genetics and prior treatments/symptoms.

Her exclusion from insurance is partially based on lifestyle choice, but there are plenty, plenty others who are excluded based on things which are not.

 

[utvolpj]

They are succeeding fine, but:

As previously stated they are uncovered because of family history of illness and smoking (the one part is personal choice, I know), not because they can't afford it. The insurance companies have all told them "keep your money."

Again, if this sort of choice is the one any sort of small business or firm has to make, then the old system is for you.

I'm talking:
- Tax breaks for small businesses so health insurance is affordable for small firms
- Better availability of private insurance for the self-employed
- Tightened regulation of practice so that companies can improve consumer prices by improving efficiency
- Improved health education, reduction in malpractice suits and services provided for those unable to document legal presence in the country

Does anybody find any part of this disagreeable or are we all just trying to rabble today? I'm down, nothing like a good, pointless rabble.

so were they covered before they started a business?

and I'm sorry but a business isn't successful if it can't cover the expenses. And if HC is seen as a necessary expense then they aren't really as successful as you think

some of the other things you're listing have been put in plans but dismissed. Things like portability, cross-border competition, etc

 

[droski]

Dubious. Research is high risk and often many years of development with no guarantees of profit.

The only example I can think of in the modern world right now is the Toyota / Ford / Daimler commitment to fuel cells for automotive applications. Even here though, the fundamental work was done in the university. It's all a case of engineering at this stage. And, of course, they receive quite a lot of government funding for the programs, so it's still very iffy.

so why has the majority of health care advancements come from the country without public healthcare?