Ryan's Budget Proposal - It's a Start

[utvolpj]

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

dude, lasik :geek:

 

[droski]

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.

i personally don't have a problem with those who cost more paying more for health insurance. seems fair no?

 

[MG1968]

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

you're joking, right? gsgibbs has proven that the Cuban health care system has revolutionized (pun intended) modern medicine. The US has merely copied that success.

 

[utgibbs]

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.

Your point about D has some merit, but it is clearly not as cut and dry as you point out. I gave the fuel cell example, for instance. The government funds a lot of D, even if it is carried out by the private sector. I'm heavily involved in technology transfer now, and have been for some time, although not as many years as you.

You are right to point out some qualifications for D, but my primary point is the public subsidizes cost and risk for almost all of our high technology, but the profits are privatized.

 

[milohimself]

specifically what can be done in this area.

Something similar to what the Swiss have, mentioned in another thread. Bar any insurance group from declining coverage to somebody based on prior condition or from dropping them once added, remove claim caps.

Look at car insurance, it's compulsory in nearly every state in the country. Once you've got a larger pool of contributing premiums, the cost of claims become easier to absorb. In the case of vehicles, you already have to pay higher premiums overall because of the uninsured, and high-risk groups.

 

[utgibbs]

i personally don't have a problem with those who cost more paying more for health insurance. seems fair no?

I'd like to see some data on that. Right now the Russians and the British have given us Lasik and hip replacements....

Actually, you are missing the reason within this very thread. Check out the other conversation going on here right now.

It has to do with the public carrying the cost and risk of research while corporations are then given access to privatize the profits when technologies reach a certain maturation.

 

[MG1968]

Something similar to what the Swiss have, mentioned in another thread. Bar any insurance group from declining coverage to somebody based on prior condition or from dropping them once added, remove claim caps.

Look at car insurance, it's compulsory in nearly every state in the country. Once you've got a larger pool of contributing premiums, the cost of claims become easier to absorb. In the case of vehicles, you already have to pay higher premiums overall because of the uninsured, and high-risk groups.

car insurance is compulsory only if you 1.)own a car that 2.)you plan to drive on public roads

 

[volinbham]

Your point about D has some merit, but it is clearly not as cut and dry as you point out. I gave the fuel cell example, for instance. The government funds a lot of D, even if it is carried out by the private sector. I'm heavily involved in technology transfer now, and have been for some time, although not as many years as you.

You are right to point out some qualifications for D, but my primary point is the public subsidizes cost and risk for almost all of our high technology, but the profits are privatized.

No. Prior to increased commercialization efforts the vast majority of basic research findings sat unused or were commercialized by foreign entities.

Increased efforts at commercialization has yielded royalty flow back to funding agencies and tax revenues to the treasury. They have created jobs and have advanced medical care, etc. etc.

The government has an abyssmal record of moving basic research forward on it's own. Partnering with the private sector yields much more return to the public than the alternative.

 

[milohimself]

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

No, they were not. She used to be covered under my dad's plan when was at Intel, before retirement. They then got divorced 8 years ago, she's been on her own since then.

i personally don't have a problem with those who cost more paying more for health insurance. seems fair no?

That's fine, you again seem to be assuming I'm saying things, like we all need to be paying the same premiums.

Again, on the car insurance model, it's compulsory for everybody to have it (do firms have to offer insurance to anybody with a license? I forget), but once you increase the size of the pool, then it softens the blow of claims and reduces prices for everyone.

 

[utvolpj]

Something similar to what the Swiss have, mentioned in another thread. Bar any insurance group from declining coverage to somebody based on prior condition or from dropping them once added, remove claim caps.

are you forcing them to buy? If not there's no need to ever carry insurance. Then there's the whole Constitution thing

 

[droski]

Something similar to what the Swiss have, mentioned in another thread. Bar any insurance group from declining coverage to somebody based on prior condition or from dropping them once added, remove claim caps.

Look at car insurance, it's compulsory in nearly every state in the country. Once you've got a larger pool of contributing premiums, the cost of claims become easier to absorb. In the case of vehicles, you already have to pay higher premiums overall because of the uninsured, and high-risk groups.

failing to see how baring people from declining coverage could do anything but significantly increase premiums.

last time i checked when you get sick i don't suffer the damage unlike a car crash. and you are talking about adding high risk and low income pools, so how is that going to increase the pool of premiums per capita? you'd be right if you were adding rich low risk people.

 

[utgibbs]

you're joking, right? gsgibbs has proven that the Cuban health care system has revolutionized (pun intended) modern medicine. The US has merely copied that success.

Interestingly we have bent the embargo rules so private US companies could benefit from Cuban biotechnology advances:

Bartering for biotech

 

[milohimself]

car insurance is compulsory only if you 1.)own a car that 2.)you plan to drive on public roads

All the same, a necessity for many walks of life.

 

[NEO]

I think reducing the highest tax brackets while eliminating loopholes is a good idea. I also agree with VBH on this, it is definitely a good start. The repubs deserve some credit here.

Totally agree with this. It is not fair that the tax brackets are on a sliding scale. 15% federal across the board on personal income. No exceptions.

 

[droski]

Again, on the car insurance model, it's compulsory for everybody to have it (do firms have to offer insurance to anybody with a license? I forget), but once you increase the size of the pool, then it softens the blow of claims and reduces prices for everyone.

if you are high risk (dui etc) you are required to buy govt insurance and trust me it isn't cheap. i doubt your mom would be happy with being forced to buy that type of insurance.

 

[utgibbs]

No. Prior to increased commercialization efforts the vast majority of basic research findings sat unused or were commercialized by foreign entities.

Increased efforts at commercialization has yielded royalty flow back to funding agencies and tax revenues to the treasury. They have created jobs and have advanced medical care, etc. etc.

The government has an abyssmal record of moving basic research forward on it's own. Partnering with the private sector yields much more return to the public than the alternative.

Not the experience I have seen, although my experience has been largely in the "every idea is a spinout" phase.

I agree a lot of D is done in the private sector, however, a lot of that D is still funded on the public dime. This is almost universally what I have seen, however, that is anecdotal. Do you have some data on the issue?

 

[MG1968]

Interestingly we have bent the embargo rules so private US companies could benefit from Cuban biotechnology advances:

Bartering for biotech

that article is 7 years old, has there been any followup on the efficacy of these supposed cancer treatments?

edit: a quick check on google doesn't show anything, although CancerVax, the American company that sought to develop the Cuban drugs, failed in several areas of drug research and eventually merged with a German firm.

 

[droski]

It has to do with the public carrying the cost and risk of research while corporations are then given access to privatize the profits when technologies reach a certain maturation.

why do you think these technologies develop here? the govt doesn't have the capital or capability to develop these technologies.

google intuitive surgical. perfect example of this.

 

[azVolFan]

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.

The issue with private companies conducting their own research is NOT that they don't do it but that they don't share it freely - why the f would they? There is a reason why companies spend a lot of money on R&D - they hire really smart people so that they have a good shot at succeeding. It's high-risk, high-reward. They are after the reward. Does the government even care about success rate? I highly doubt it. The last time the government cared about success was WWII and the Manhattan Project.

 

[milohimself]

are you forcing them to buy? If not there's no need to ever carry insurance. Then there's the whole Constitution thing

Not that specifically, just using it as an example for what it does to premiums. I'm a male under 25, so I have to pay significantly higher premiums than droski or yourself. It's the way it is, but run with this idea (and please, everybody stop taking everything so literally. It's making my head hurt, take the point from examples and posts, nitpicking the details derails threads):

Say car insurance companies made it a regular practice to decline coverage to high risk drivers, as health insurance companies do to high risk people. I'm a male under 24 with two speeding tickets on my record, which puts me in about as high of a risk group as there is. If the vehicle insurance industry were run the same, I highly doubt I could purchase insurance from anybody. The problem is I have to drive in order to work. I live in a suburb that is miles and miles away from anything other than a grocery store, and have no public transportation available to me. I'm driving to work and suffer a hit and run, my car is totaled and I've injured my neck.

Now I'm SOL and on the hook for up to tens of thousands of dollars because of an accident that wasn't my fault, and nobody would sell me insurance.

I don't see how anyone could justify that other than "tough ****, don't get hit next time."

It's the same case with health insurance.

I don't want to order everybody to have health insurance. I would hope everybody sees it in their best interest, but more than anything I'd like to see everyone with at least an avenue to get what they need.

 

[milohimself]

if you are high risk (dui etc) you are required to buy govt insurance and trust me it isn't cheap. i doubt your mom would be happy with being forced to buy that type of insurance.

You can't really carry the vehicle analogy that far, because people in those risk groups can only be there by their own doing.

Hey, no analogy is perfect.

 

[Gramps]

Does anyone actually believe that Ryan's Budget Proposal has any chance whatsoever to pass?
The majority of the DEMS or GOP neither one will vote to pass this for fear of losing their seat in the 2012 election. They are worried about keeping their seats instead of doing what is right for America.

 

[milohimself]

Does anyone actually believe that Ryan's Budget Proposal has any chance whatsoever to pass?
The majority of the DEMS or GOP neither one will vote to pass this for fear of losing their seat in the 2012 election. They are worried about keeping their seats instead of doing what is right for America.

:clap:

 

[droski]

Not that specifically, just using it as an example for what it does to premiums. I'm a male under 25, so I have to pay significantly higher premiums than droski or yourself. It's the way it is, but run with this idea (and please, everybody stop taking everything so literally. It's making my head hurt, take the point from examples and posts, nitpicking the details derails threads):

Say car insurance companies made it a regular practice to decline coverage to high risk drivers, as health insurance companies do to high risk people. I'm a male under 24 with two speeding tickets on my record, which puts me in about as high of a risk group as there is. If the vehicle insurance industry were run the same, I highly doubt I could purchase insurance from anybody. The problem is I have to drive in order to work. I live in a suburb that is miles and miles away from anything other than a grocery store, and have no public transportation available to me. I'm driving to work and suffer a hit and run, my car is totaled and I've injured my neck.

Now I'm SOL and on the hook for up to tens of thousands of dollars because of an accident that wasn't my fault, and nobody would sell me insurance.

I don't see how anyone could justify that other than "tough ****, don't get hit next time."

It's the same case with health insurance.

I don't want to order everybody to have health insurance. I would hope everybody sees it in their best interest, but more than anything I'd like to see everyone with at least an avenue to get what they need.

I assure you you can get high risk insurance. I had a reckless driving speading ticket when i was your age and still could afford car insurance.

 

[BeecherVol]

Does anyone actually believe that Ryan's Budget Proposal has any chance whatsoever to pass?
The majority of the DEMS or GOP neither one will vote to pass this for fear of losing their seat in the 2012 election. They are worried about keeping their seats instead of doing what is right for America.

I don't think it will. (even tho it seems to be the best put on the table so far).

They will both retreat to an extent and pass something that does not hit to the heart of the problem and claim victory for the american people.