Dutch....if you want pre WWII medicine...step right up. They had only one antibiotic...DNA hadnt been discovered yet...no MRI machines....no CT scans...and polio was epidemic. On the other hand, if you want 21st Century health care...its technology driven...and much too expensive for charities to cover universally...without rationing. Hope you got your H1N1 vaccine...cause under your scheme...the Red Cross wont have money for it later.
This is purely a straw man argument and nothing more. Like i said if it wasn't for the FDA this technology would increase much faster and be much cheaper. And in my scheme the Red Cross would probably have more money seeing as they are a private organization. If people have more money they are likely to donate more
Yes...I am sure that the insurance companies will do the right thing for people in the absence of government regulations. The free market is already demonstrating how caring the corporations are.....despite record profits...they continue to deny coverage and deny payments to those with expensive health needs.
I never said anything about corporations providing charity, I was talking about individuals. Corporations will do what they have to in order to maximize profits even if it is immoral
...and half the medications you are taking would be either toxic or ineffective. Cheap medicine that doesnt work...or makes u sicker...thats what this country needs!!
Please this is pure speculation with no evidence to back it up. I highly doubt coporations would put out medicine that harmed people, considering they would still be held liable for the damage it causes. They also would not put otu medicine that didn't work because 1) It would hurt the companies image and credibility and 2) That would be fraud and they would be held liable for it.
The AMA has nothing to do with certifying MDs. Only about 40% of docs are members of the AMA. I'm not a member..although I am licensed to practice in three states. That's a major misconception.
You are right I was wrong about this. I meant state licensing laws
Patents for medications last 7 years, and under special circumstances renewed once. I agree that big pharma is a problem in the way they charge for medications...but 7 years isnt ridiculously long. If you patented an invention that you developed...how long a patent would you find to be reasonable? would you be happy with 7 years of patent protection?
Are you sure its seven years? Everything I've read says its 20 years.
54% of our budget goes to fund the military and national defense....the two overt wars...started by the Bush administration..and the covert was in Pakistan started by the Obama administration. Instead of spending billions on education, healthcare, public infrastructure, and other things to improve the quality of life of Americans...we spend it on war. This isnt the way I want the government to spend my tax dollars...but...its not up to me. I still have to pay taxes. Its not that it is too much...but...I view it as being misallocated. Intrusive? I disagree...not intrusive enough...they let the banks get away with amazing shit...they let Wall Street go wild. Regulations were not enforced in order to benefit the corporations...they came very close to bankrupting the whole country.
Yes I agree the military is a huge waste of money. Imagine how many people Americans could voluntarily help with that money stolen from them. That is the problem with government spending. Some people think it should go for this others think it should go for that. Thats why people should be able to keep their money and give it to whomever they want.
And as for not being to intrusive, you have to be kidding me. The war on drugs has eroded away almost all of our civil liberties, while the war on terror is trying to take away the rest.
And as for regulations, many regulations are written to benefit, not hurt corporations. The lobbyist for the corporations help write the regulations as a way to keep new competitors out of the market by increasing the barrier of entry into the market.
And even if they are forced to actually keep businesses honest, you have the capture effect which always corrupts regulatory agencies.
By the way...you are also incorrect about the who gives most to charity. I wish it was the rich...but in truth...it is the middle and lower classes that are the mainstay of most charitable organizations. We are fooled into thinking its the rich..because they show up in the media ...dressed in tuxedos...and paying $500k a plate at charity dinners. But that isnt where most of the money comes from.
What you are referring to is relative donations to charity. Yes the poor give more in relative terms (4 to 5% of income vs rich 3 to 4% of income), but the rich give more to charity in absolute terms.
