Doubtful. Lets assume you got a rebate check for back taxes tomorrow, say 250k. Guess what, when the shit hits the fan, that won't take you all that far.

You're comparing Apples and grapefruit. The fact is that when you're younger, the kind of externeded healthcare is not needed for the most part and peple would be able to put that money aside, for use later on. Of course they're not encouraged to do so, being rather dependant on governmental largess. Intersting how these same people who complain about how Americans aren't saving money anymore are also the ones providing the cause for that direction.

But, your response is at best a bit bizarre:

Well, most humor is. But in fact, a great deal of the medical developments we have here in the US, are of benefit to the third world by means of internationla aid, through the UN. That we train their doctors would also seem a benefit.

John McCain’s solution? Allow re-importation of drugs from other countries.

Well, allow me to remind you (again) that my respect and admiration for John McCain is very limited.

our government seems to be more interested in protecting Hollywood's entertainment products than drugs that help people when ot comes to protecting our economic interests.

Quite so. Then again, that's as good an indicator as I can think of, as to where the money is.

How does Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Canada, etc. get a “free ride on our backs”?

Is there an R&D on the planet that rivals what we're doing in healthcare here in the 'states? No.
So, what would YOU call it, then?

Said it before, and I will say it again. You should carefully read the article by Barer, Evans, Hertzman, and Johri titled “Lies, Damned Lies, and Health Care Zombies: Discredited Ideas That Will Not Die”. I know, it’s kind of old hat, and 76 some odd PDF pages long, but it is scholarly, and it is humbling, and it is kind of fun. There is something to be said for elegant writing…

But what Barer and his colleagues really point out is that Health Care zombies permeate our discussions. Here is a twofere zombie for

you: While some semblance of a free market is maintained here, most of the rest of the world gets yet another free ride on our backs.

How does Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Canada, etc. get a “free ride on our backs”?

Do you not understand that there is no “free market… maintained here”? Health Insurance is a conglomerate of companies that set prices and manipulate fees.

Are you unaware that most physician prefer single pay, universal health coverage?

Now then, in my posted comments on health care I may rant and rave, tweak noses, point to zombies, but I link to information. If you tried to substantiate your position by linking to a recognized source, well then, you just might change your opinion.

The argument at hand is whether some healthcare will remain voluntary or whether we will all be forced into a government run program.

No, its not. Another red herring.

Always glad to tickle your funbone with:

One such Zombie is that we, the US public, the great unwashed among the few Lexus drivers, are blessed by the Lord, to pay for Medical advances which benefit socialist countries.

But, your response is at best a bit bizarre:

(Chuckle)
So, we stopped duming money into the UN, then?

What the UN has to do with Americans paying 2X more for medications that any other developed country in the world is beyond the scope of my rum sodden brain. I would love to give you more chuckles, but dinner is approaching. How about a couple of great thigh slappers?

One of Bush’s proposals for this disparity in drug costs between US and European countries was to ask them to increase their price of drugs.

John McCain’s solution? Allow re-importation of drugs from other countries.

It's still the justification for using taxes to pay for other public services, so why doesn't it work for health care?

You need a justification for using taxes for public services? Who knew?

FWIW, lots of tax dollars are used for healthcare today. They are called Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA, Tricare, CDC, Indian Health Service, and countless grants and earmarks to universities, hospitals, clinics, etc. The argument at hand is whether some healthcare will remain voluntary or whether we will all be forced into a government run program.

No, that's not morality; that's possible not assured, conseqeunces.

It's still the justification for using taxes to pay for other public services, so why doesn't it work for health care?

Only because I've never been allowed, given the taxes I'm paying, to provide for myself in that area to the maximum degree I could.

Doubtful. Lets assume you got a rebate check for back taxes tomorrow, say 250k. Guess what, when the shit hits the fan, that won't take you all that far.

As an example, Anjin; Did you toss back all the economic gains you made under Reagan?

??? do you read my posts? I voted for Reagan twice, thought then and think now that he was a fine President. I said so just a few threads back. Personally, I did not make great economic gains under Reagan. Was too busy having fun in those days.

So, with government controlling healthcare, and a goodly portion f the dollars fed into taht system how is this not a monopoly?

I for one, am not arguing for government monopoly, I favor Gov. Dean's approach, which I have detailed many times.

The moral reason is that you benefit from living in a society with a healthy population

No, that's not morality; that's possible not assured, conseqeunces.

I think you are hiding behind semantics because you know you argument is weak. Repeat, it is almost certain that you or a loved one will one day be getting health care on some one else's dime.

Only because I've never been allowed, given the taxes I'm paying, to provide for myself in that area to the maximum degree I could.

As for your continued references to "government monopoly" I am not arguing in favor of any kind of monopoly, and I don't think I remember anyone else doing so in this thread... Another right wing canard designed to elicit an emotional response and cloud the issue.

So, with government controlling healthcare, and a goodly portion f the dollars fed into taht system how is this not a monopoly?

the Republican Congress and Administration tacked on the infamous drug benefit, drug/medication prices started to climb at a more rapid rate than cost of living adjustment.

Well, now wait. Let's remember that the Democrats were pissed because they thought it didn't go far enough. Had they been in power the belenfits plans you rightly deride, would ahve been even more dollars.

That's by no means a defnese, but it does explain how centrists claiming to be Republicans lached onto that particular monster. With real conservatives (Clue, McCain doesn't qualify) we'd not have had such a bill at all... and that would be very preferable.

But my response was more focused on intrusins into healthcare prior to that. Medicare/caid, as an example. Historicaly, healthcare costs have gone up in direct proportion to the amount of governmental interference. A track on the thing from 1965 forward should give you the clue, there.

Anjin-san, it's entirely possible that Bithead will continue to believe it is wrong, even while using it when he needs it. After all, he believes that many aspects of the Federal Government are wrong, but he's not boycotting or revolting against it. It is perfectly acceptable, morally and legally, to follow and benefit from rules that you oppose

As an example, Anjin; Did you toss back all the economic gains you made under Reagan?

One such Zombie is that we, the US public, the great unwashed among the few Lexus drivers, are blessed by the Lord, to pay for Medical advances which benefit socialist countries.

(Chuckle)
So, we stopped duming money into the UN, then?

Because we are footing the bill for a lot of the world advancements and research in medical care. (Yes I know there are probably examples of a few other countries that are just as advanced)

The major pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) are multi-national, and are following the same pattern. They are cutting their research efforts and are closing their research laboratories. What they are doing is selectively buying up small research shops, which usually are spin offs from Academic Centers world wide. The product is then manufactured and marketed.

In the US, Pharma pays more for advertising than for it R&D efforts. Yup, next time use see one of those advertisements for Viagra, try to think of Health Care costs.

Bithead:

Because we're the ones doing the developing, and because of the degree of governmental involvement.

See above, but you are getting there. You are quite right about government involvement. The moment the Republican Congress and Administration tacked on the infamous drug benefit, drug/medication prices started to climb at a more rapid rate than cost of living adjustment.

Among fans of Health Care Economics is examination of the persistent myths. These myths are usually referred to as Health Care Zombies. One such Zombie is that we, the US public, the great unwashed among the few Lexus drivers, are blessed by the Lord, to pay for Medical advances which benefit socialist countries.

To all:

Gird your loins, exercise your brain, read and ponder. We are facing a critical election. Like it or not, we are going to have to examine McCain’s health care policies, and try to defend them from the pointy head socialist intellectual crowd.

I think you are hiding behind semantics because you know you argument is weak. Repeat, it is almost certain that you or a loved one will one day be getting health care on some one else's dime. Is it only morally wrong when you are not the one that needs it?

Anjin-san, it's entirely possible that Bithead will continue to believe it is wrong, even while using it when he needs it. After all, he believes that many aspects of the Federal Government are wrong, but he's not boycotting or revolting against it. It is perfectly acceptable, morally and legally, to follow and benefit from rules that you oppose.

Actually, no I don't. But you're arguing consequentialism. I'm arguing more basic than that, dealing with the underlying morality questinos of what you propose. I find your argument lacking, there.

I think you are hiding behind semantics because you know you argument is weak. Repeat, it is almost certain that you or a loved one will one day be getting health care on some one else's dime. Is it only morally wrong when you are not the one that needs it?

As for your continued references to "government monopoly" I am not arguing in favor of any kind of monopoly, and I don't think I remember anyone else doing so in this thread... Another right wing canard designed to elicit an emotional response and cloud the issue.

I submit that is already happening in many lcoations. Private police? We call the, "Security agencies'. Private fire? Most major corporations have them. Hereabouts, Jodak and Xerox, for example, have their own fire departments, as well as their own police, for lack of a better term.

Still, for by far the most part the police, fire departments, and armies are paid for by tax dollars by people who aren't using them. The moral precedent for taxing people for services they don't use has already been set, the question is now just one of what services this should cover.