- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Just show me the evidence.. No, I simply do NOT believe a corrupt FBI looked the other way.
Comey literally went on national TV to articulate her crimes. Then he specifically said he would look the other way. In later interviews, Comey explained that he did this because he knew that the DOJ would be viewed as corrupt when they looked the other way, and he didn’t want that. Comey laid it all out.
Nevermind, the important question here is why you don’t want to see a president enact an agenda for which people would re-elect him. Are you not a fan of government acting for the people?
You DID hear him leading the chant LOCK HER UP, at his rallies AFTER he was president?
No, I don’t follow his rallies. But between her obstruction of justice, mishandling (and loss) of Top Secret information, accepting of bribes from foreign nationals, and her own Russian collusion, doesn’t he have a point? It’s not whataboutism, I just know from the past that you don’t actually care.
I DON'T believe Trump will win re-election because I don't think Pelosi will let him WIN on the wall.
I don’t believe he will win regardless (though I was wrong last time). But if succeeding in his agenda means he wins re-election, what does that tell you about his agenda? It tells you his agenda is the will of the people.
Did you notice that the Democrats are becoming the party of the elites?
Government regulation of prices or even legislation to limit them has worked in many other countries like Canada and the UK.
Sure, as long as the market is global and those losses can be made up by charging more than otherwise in freer economies. It works fine in Canada where they all bitch about the system amongst each other and in UK where they literally bar sick kids from going to other countries to seek services the UK denies them.
A waiting list is not a terrible system if implemented properly, as opposed to the current system of massive medical debt and priority based on personal income instead of need.
A waiting list is the only system when medical infrastructure is overloaded, as they always are when the consumer is promised free shit. It is always terrible for the person seeking help. I don’t know why you think it is better for government bureaucrats to decide whose need counts and whose need doesn’t. The same government that has helped to bring us these bloated healthcare costs by giving their “help” in the first place should not decide whose need counts.
When a market is free to operate the incentive is to become a monopoly
And when the market is free, companies are unable to do that.
When a market is free to operate the incentive is to lobby for more deregulation
How do you think we get so much regulation in the first place? Big companies that can afford the costs lobby for regulations because smaller, would-be competitors cannot afford the cost of many regulations. Every once in a while you hear some mega rich businessman say that he is in favor of much steeper taxes. That weeds out quite a bit of competition for him, but he rich enough to stay comfortable.
When a market is free to operate the incentive is to take out competition especially if the competition has a superior product
The only way to legally do that is with government force.
Then at the end charge exorbitant prices for inelastic goods and services. (e.g., Microsoft and Bell Industries)
When a natural monopoly overcharges, they create an opening for the competition. You may have noticed that Microsoft and Bell are not the only two players on the field. You may also have noticed that the price of computer technology has never done anything but fall. And when the government did go after Microsoft, it was for making too much too cheap for too many (they did that to stay on top). And the government came down on Microsoft, it was at the behest of other businessmen who couldn’t compete capitalistically.
Because of monopoly rights on drug the US grants drug companies.
They grant monopoly rights to everyone who creates a new thing. Patents are an important incentive for innovation. Without them, people could not recoup on the investment into research and development. But yes, this is another example of how the government makes monopolies, not the free market.
R&D of companies is not what you think it is. Most companies are not making new drugs, they taking existing medications moving a hydroxyl group around, re-patenting the drug, and then selling it at a high price again
Modern medicine is not stagnant. Like much else, medical technology is advancing at increasing rates. This advancement only comes from R&D. It does not come from non-productive system manipulation.
Drug innovation is more commonly done around the world (no just the US) by universities and government funded scientific research. That research is where we actually get life-saving and revolutionary treatments.
40% of the world biomedical research papers are produced in the US and those papers are referenced more than other papers around the world. Of all clinical trials in the US, the government only funds 13.8%. The rest is privately funded companies testing their own products.
HIV patients around the world are better off because of American medical innovations. While poor African countries have benefited philanthropically, “similar benefits are also enjoyed by German, British, and French HIV patients, and were financed by the same revenues generated, in large part, by high American drug prices.”
“The most recent evidence suggests that it takes $2.5 billion in additional drug revenue to spur one new drug approval”
You can't cherry pick the data. You have to look at the big picture.
Indeed. But neither should you cherry pick my response. We have very high rates of auto accidents and deaths from violence. This is not a shortcoming of our medical sector. If you remove those deaths, we are right back up among those at the top for life expectancy.
“Overall, quality of care in the U.S. isn’t markedly different from that of other countries, and in fact excels in many areas. For example, the U.S. appears to have the best outcomes for those who have heart attacks or strokes, but is below average for avoidable hospitalizations for patients with diabetes and asthma.”
This requires a tweak, not an overhaul. Especially not an ill-conceived overhaul.
“despite poor population health outcomes, quality of health care delivered once people are sick is high in the U.S”
This requires education, not a medical sector overhaul.
In fact, the best solution would likely be to popularize primary direct care, which is best and by far the least expensive for preventative care and routine visits.
Is there a place where this has been tried large scale and shown to succeed?
More doctors provided more inexpensive primary direct care before the government created the conditions in which we find ourselves today. The few but growing number of doctors who have gone back to that model or something similar have found it works very well for the poor today. The reason is because much of the cost is due to admin costs from stifling government regulation as it relates to healthcare insurance. Primary direct care cuts out the admin overhead costs. Working on a large scale means nothing more than greater numbers of private practice doctors undertaking this model.
It’s worth noting that admin costs are among the top 3 reasons for the high cost of US healthcare. The other 2 reasons are costs of medication (which I have already explained), and the salaries of doctors.
Concerning Taxis VS Uber, you said Those are both private sector. Just one has more regulation.
This isn’t the whole story. Taxis are government enforced monopolies with massive regulation. The outcome is a disgusting ride across town for far far too much. Ride-share is the reintroduction of competition into a market long stifled by government monopoly.
Not everything is solvable through the private sector.
I completely agree. I’m not an anarchist. What we disagree on is what the government should do vs what it should not.
Privatization has failed in my areas
You present market sectors without regard for the stifling government regulation that hinders them and you call them private. Railroads, for example, had massive regulation passed against them as early as 1903. It was the Interstate Commerce Commission that ultimately led to railroad failures into the 1970’s.
One of your supposed success stories is the USPS. Long known for bad service and high prices, package delivery is in a golden age because of the private sector. The USPS still has a government enforced monopoly over certain kinds of packages, and they receive $18 billion annually in special privileges and tax breaks. The USPS is another example of how the private sector does it better.
There are more demanding uses of tax dollars than healthcare.
This isn’t an incentive to spend tax money wisely. Nothing particularly bad will happen to government actors if they spend my money poorly. They won’t go bankrupt, they will simply tax more, or print more. They will do this until reality catches up with them. The problem is that when it does, it catches up with everyone else too.
“A growing chorus of Republicans are rebuking Iowa Rep. Steve King”
But when it comes to raging anti-Semite Rashida Tlaib,
“Democrats are increasingly falling in line with their famous freshman racists.”
The people DID elect this President. Calls to eliminate the electoral college only ever come from the Left and only when they loose. Funny that.
If you get rid of the electoral college, “the people” of New York, LA, and Chicago will determine your President. You might as well call for an elimination of the Senate since, through the Senate, all the states get an equal vote regardless of population. The principal is the SAME. The fact that we are a Republic is the only thing keeping our democratic principles from becoming a lynch mob (which is also ruled by popular vote).
As for special interests, Microsoft can fund more commercials than you, but Bill Gates still only votes once.
Also, when I call for reduced executive power, I mean for it to return to its prior status, when the Legislature took on greater responsibility. Things like, you know, declaring wars before we fight them.
I’ve never cared for the idea, pushed by the right, that Trumps business experience gives him qualifications for government. A government is not a business, nor should it attempt to act as one. A CEO and board of directors determine what people within a business are going to do. They decide how employees will spend their time. If the US had one, it would be your duty to tell them to duck right off.
We don’t need a board of directors. In fact, if Congress would do their job, the President should have less power than he does (wouldn’t you find that better under the current admin?). Furthermore, Congreyready has their board of directors in the form of ABC agencies who have the power to make enforceable laws that representatives never even vote on (that’s called the administrative state). The Legislature loves it because now, laws are instituted and if they are garbage, not one congressman has to take responsibility. Do you like unaccountable bureaucrats directing the actions of the people? I sure as hell don’t. Another board of directors is exactly what we don’t need.