The US is #1 healthcare spending, but....

189 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Kerry:

Did you miss the first paragraph, Capital:

No... I was dazzled by it's sheer stupity and for a split second I was overcome by "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it" Thanks for giving a second opportunity to marvel at the stupidity of "U.S. infant death rate used to be worse than it is today" Wow.. Hawking more over.... Here comes Kerry.

I'll leave it at that....

For the love of God, Lets hope so

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

I'll post my whole statement from post #48 because I don't believe Capital's useless non-response above should be allowed the first and last words on this new page:

Actually, the U.S. infant death rate used to be worse than it is today--and, years ago, there was a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine that noted that the biggest leap in improving infant mortality came when elective abortions were made legal. It really does seem that when mothers want their children, they take better care of themselves during the pregnancy--which affects the birthing outcome positively with less infant mortality.

Pierpont, I think that an entity that has an agenda apart from the objective findings in any statistical study that is to be offered is less likely to be objective in those findings--and the profit motive is exactly that kind of agenda. And, as the first lesson I learned in statistics class indicated, all statisitics can be manipulated to a predetermined 'result' if you aren't extremely careful in acquiring the data--and as objective as possible in interpreting it....and, as such, there are many baseless, and useless, 'statistical analyses' today.....especially if those interested in profitting from its results have done all the processing of such 'statistics'....

I noticed that, again in typical dismissive and ignoring fashion, Capital ignored Jonas Salk's position on the polio vaccine--feeling it to be an anathema if even just one child succumbed to polio because of the lack of that child being able to afford it. And, totally disregarding that point just further indicates how much of a manipulating and lying shill Capital is here to be...would the 'for profit industry' refuse a treatment to anyone that such a treatment could offer in saving any person's life? Even if, like Jonas Salk, they didn't profit off of it....

Does 'money' really define the driving force of most medical researchers, past and present? It certainly 'defines' the 'for profit industry'.....and the money-managers behind that industry......most of which have nothing to do with actually taking care of the people that propose to be 'in the industry' for....or is 'money' the only reason for them being 'in the industry'?

Capital could try to honestly respond to any of that if Capital wasn't the distracting, distorting, dismissing, and lying, shill that Capital is....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Seems God wasn't listening.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

Looking at the last 8 US Noble prize winners in medicine... THEY ARE ACADEMICS.... not for-profit hucksters. So much for Cap's last attempt to foist his Orwellian Right views on the rest of us.

I think what is more Orwellian, is how you thought that actually addressed the point. I love how you take a false arguement and run that up the flag pole and run around doing a victory dance. That is amusing.
Projecting again? The false "argeument" wasn't mine but yours. You probably thought you had a slam dunk... first claiming other nations feed off the research scraps from our dynamic for-profit sector, then posting the Noble Prize for medicine winners from the US to "prove" our for-profit health care system should get the credit.

It's not MY fault your ideological blinders prevented you from seeing the obvious: that your list proved NOTHING about the for-profit sector but said a lot about our ACADEMIC research system. That you were oblivious and still need to minimize federal spending that just about equals what your precious pharmaceutical companies spend... is your typical MO… deny or discount anything that threatens your Orwellian Right fairytales. So the question remains, how much does Big Pharma depend on publicly funded research for their profits?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:

Seems God wasn't listening.

If you are speaking of my idea of 'God' being 'the integrity binder', I think that such a 'God' was listening--loud and clear. It's your distorting, distracting, and dismissing, remarks that are missing the message...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Projecting again? The false "argeument" wasn't mine but yours. You probably thought you had a slam dunk... first claiming other nations feed off the research scraps from our dynamic for-profit sector, then posting the Noble Prize for medicine winners from the US to "prove" our for-profit health care system should get the credit.

It's not MY fault your ideological blinders prevented you from seeing the obvious: that your list proved NOTHING about the for-profit sector but said a lot about our ACADEMIC research system. That you were oblivious and still need to minimize federal spending that just about equals what your precious pharmaceutical companies spend... is your typical MO… deny or discount anything that threatens your Orwellian Right fairytales. So the question remains, how much does Big Pharma depend on publicly funded research for their profits?

Are you confused Pier? You brought up ACADEMIC research. Where I was talking about Federal vs Private Medical Funding.

You actually think the US would have such medical advances without 2/3rd of the Funding.

While I can't find a breakdown of Just Medical funding, This is for all science.

2006

Private Funding 63.7%

Public Funding 31%

Executed By:

Industry 70%

Academia 13.6%

Government 12%

Seems pretty clear to me. I just had a conversation with a Guy on Global Warming and we were talking about Berkley University project and he blew a gasket that Koch Brother funded the majority of the Study.

Ah.... cherry picking Big Pharma. Gee... Peir Cherry picking, who would have guessed.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

— for premature and low-birth-weight babies, the newborns who actually need medical care and who are at highest risk of dying.

All more likely to occur from mothers neither wanting their pregnancies--nor ready to take care of their child. Something that elective abortions do improve if the mother opts to be so responsible....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

from your link

The fact is that for decades, the U.S. has shown superior infant-mortality rates using official National Center for Health Statistics and European Perinatal Health Report data — in fact, the best in the world outside of Sweden and Norway, even without correcting for any of the population and risk-factor differences deleterious to the U.S. — for premature and low-birth-weight babies, the newborns who actually need medical care and who are at highest risk of dying.

outside of Sweden and Norway

Costa Rica and Cuba have a higher rate, too. I saw a special on Costa Rica where a neonatal nurse was tracking a pregnant mother down for her checkup. She told the reporter "We are a poor country and we can't afford complications in delivery and post natal". They have national health as opposed to US where 17% of pregnant mothers have no insurance, not to mention in the evangelical religious right areas very high teen pregnancies.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, did you see that video on Whooping cough? I found it disturbing. Pertussis vaccine used to be the norm. 100+ cases turned into 1000+ cases in a year in WA, 10,000 in CA. Seeing those kids coughing because some parents neglected. I suppose polio will be back, too.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:

Projecting again? The false "argeument" wasn't mine but yours. You probably thought you had a slam dunk... first claiming other nations feed off the research scraps from our dynamic for-profit sector, then posting the Noble Prize for medicine winners from the US to "prove" our for-profit health care system should get the credit.

It's not MY fault your ideological blinders prevented you from seeing the obvious: that your list proved NOTHING about the for-profit sector but said a lot about our ACADEMIC research system. That you were oblivious and still need to minimize federal spending that just about equals what your precious pharmaceutical companies spend... is your typical MO… deny or discount anything that threatens your Orwellian Right fairytales. So the question remains, how much does Big Pharma depend on publicly funded research for their profits?

Are you confused Pier? You brought up ACADEMIC research. Where I was talking about Federal vs Private Medical Funding.

You actually think the US would have such medical advances without 2/3rd of the Funding.

While I can't find a breakdown of Just Medical funding, This is for all science.

2006

Private Funding 63.7%

Public Funding 31%

Executed By:

Industry 70%

Academia 13.6%

Government 12%

Seems pretty clear to me. I just had a conversation with a Guy on Global Warming and we were talking about Berkley University project and he blew a gasket that Koch Brother funded the majority of the Study.

Ah.... cherry picking Big Pharma. Gee... Peir Cherry picking, who would have guessed.

How much of that funding for general science went into some administrator's bank account and how much of it actually went to research and development? There's no way to know because it's "private" funding. For all you know it could be actually less than the public funding.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Quote Capital:

Quote Pierpont:

Projecting again? The false "argeument" wasn't mine but yours. You probably thought you had a slam dunk... first claiming other nations feed off the research scraps from our dynamic for-profit sector, then posting the Noble Prize for medicine winners from the US to "prove" our for-profit health care system should get the credit.

It's not MY fault your ideological blinders prevented you from seeing the obvious: that your list proved NOTHING about the for-profit sector but said a lot about our ACADEMIC research system. That you were oblivious and still need to minimize federal spending that just about equals what your precious pharmaceutical companies spend... is your typical MO… deny or discount anything that threatens your Orwellian Right fairytales. So the question remains, how much does Big Pharma depend on publicly funded research for their profits?

Are you confused Pier? You brought up ACADEMIC research. Where I was talking about Federal vs Private Medical Funding.

It's because YOU brought up Noble Prize winners in Medicine so I simply checked the last eight out and NONE worked for Big Pharma... which raised the next obvious question why would YOU credit those Noble Prizes to our for-profit sector when it wasn't true? But we know the answer... you have no standards for proof.

You actually think the US would have such medical advances without 2/3rd of the Funding.
AGAIN, you're stuck in a bizarre argument. Yes there is other private money, but you're trying to say if Big Pharma, one of your marvels of the for-profit sector spends 30 billion on new drugs, we're all to look at that as amazingly productive and innovative and the world depends on that private investment. But roughly the same money spent by government… nah, that doesn't count for much.

So where would private industry be if THEY had to spend that extra 30 BILLION dollars the government now spends on research? The private sector COULD be more productive but not under their current business model where they spend more on advertising than on R&D. They COULD be more productive if these companies didn't waste so much money on me-too drugs that don't contribute much to our arsenal of useful drugs... but are just cash cows for the companies. What's the cost of needless pain and death BECAUSE the private sector pisses away so many of its resources?

While I can't find a breakdown of Just Medical funding, This is for all science.
What do you mean you can't find a breakdown for medical research funding... I GAVE YOU THAT BREAKDOWN. So you avoid the numbers and present some irrelevant numbers... and think that proves your point? Again, you have NO standards for proof. You're intellectually incapable of realizing what it takes to make a case or disprove one so as usual you've deluded yourself into thinking you're making a devastating defense of your right wing dystopian ideas when you're just flailing about.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Kerry, did you see that video on Whooping cough? I found it disturbing. Pertussis vaccine used to be the norm. 100+ cases turned into 1000+ cases in a year in WA, 10,000 in CA. Seeing those kids coughing because some parents neglected. I suppose polio will be back, too.

Yes. Of course, other respiratory illnesses such as RSV--and even the flu--can create similar respiratory conditions--especially in young infants. A while back, a case of whooping cough presented to me in an ER that I work in--and, since that is (or was) such a rare condition, I originally missed that diagnosis. I believe one hospital that I worked in had an adult case a while back. It is still quite rare to see it.....RSV and flu are still more common for those types of respiratory presentations in infants....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

from your link

The fact is that for decades, the U.S. has shown superior infant-mortality rates using official National Center for Health Statistics and European Perinatal Health Report data — in fact, the best in the world outside of Sweden and Norway, even without correcting for any of the population and risk-factor differences deleterious to the U.S. — for premature and low-birth-weight babies, the newborns who actually need medical care and who are at highest risk of dying.

outside of Sweden and Norway

"even without correcting"

Regardless, the Heart ofl the Article says that no one on the planet counts the way we count and until Sweden and Norway do, the Statisitic is suspect. That includes Costa Rica.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

How much of that funding for general science went into some administrator's bank account and how much of it actually went to research and development? There's no way to know because it's "private" funding. For all you know it could be actually less than the public funding.

Sure,,, you run with that...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Pierpont:

It's because YOU brought up Noble Prize winners in Medicine so I simply checked the last eight out and NONE worked for Big Pharma... which raised the next obvious question why would YOU credit those Noble Prizes to our for-profit sector when it wasn't true? But we know the answer... you have no standards for proof.

In your incredibly narrow superficial research, Did you verifiy who funded the paticular research? Or are you basing funding on location. Why don't you randomly pick a University and research how much of the Universities Research is privately funded. All keeping in mind that Private funding accounts for 2/3 of the funding. That is is you really are planning on persuing a line of argument against my claim that Our System produces vastly more Medical innovation for obvious reasons. Maybe it not the Funding, Maybe we are just smarter than the Europeans. Try that line of thought....

AGAIN, you're stuck in a bizarre argument. Yes there is other private money, but you're trying to say if Big Pharma, one of your marvels of the for-profit sector spends 30 billion on new drugs, we're all to look at that as amazingly productive and innovative and the world depends on that private investment. But roughly the same money spent by government… nah, that doesn't count for much.

Call it what you want. Project as you see fit. But the fact remains, US innovation saves lives, Extends life, Raises the quality of life and the world benefits from it.

What do you mean you can't find a breakdown for medical research funding... I GAVE YOU THAT BREAKDOWN.

You posted biomedical. And your numbers didn't break down like my numbers. Not to say That I'm better, It's just implied.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

But the fact remains, US innovation saves lives....

But, does it save every life that needs it, Capital? More to the point, should it save every life that needs it? Even, and especially, in the US....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

But, does it save every life that needs it, Capital? More to the point, should it save every life that needs it? Even, and especially, in the US....

Do you know of anything that saves every life that needs it Kerry?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Do you know of anything that saves every life that needs it Kerry?

Not every life can be saved--even with the 'advancements in US medical research'. But, that wasn't the questions I asked you, Capital. Can you address those questions?

Let me ask it again: With every 'life-saving technique or medication' discovered by that US research, should such techniques and medications so discovered be offered to everyone that needs it? Even, and especially, in the US....Don't try to parse those words--and those questions--into something else, Capital, and honestly address, and answer, it....Can you?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Not every life can be saved--even with the 'advancements in US medical research'. But, that wasn't the questions I asked you, Capital. Can you address those questions?

You should already know the answer. Being that I have answered it multiple times on the other thread. I said NO, I will not be answering that question again.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:

It's because YOU brought up Noble Prize winners in Medicine so I simply checked the last eight out and NONE worked for Big Pharma... which raised the next obvious question why would YOU credit those Noble Prizes to our for-profit sector when it wasn't true? But we know the answer... you have no standards for proof.

In your incredibly narrow superficial research, Did you verifiy who funded the paticular research?

Hey Einstein... projecting even AGAIN? YOU made the superficial claim that those Noble Prizes must be credited to our for-profit sector. So it's not MY job to prove YOUR claim.
All I did was show that the most recent 8 prize winners did NOT work for any Big Pharma company. Think about it Brainiac... what for-profit company wants to share its research results with possible competitors. If you want to look for funding... knock YOURself out.
So if anyone needs to go back to the drawing board it's you. Either prove your contention the Noble Prize list is relevent to the "for profit vs single payer" debate or retract your claim.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:AGAIN, you're stuck in a bizarre argument. Yes there is other private money, but you're trying to say if Big Pharma, one of your marvels of the for-profit sector spends 30 billion on new drugs, we're all to look at that as amazingly productive and innovative and the world depends on that private investment. But roughly the same money spent by government… nah, that doesn't count for much.

Call it what you want. Project as you see fit. But the fact remains, US innovation saves lives, Extends life, Raises the quality of life and the world benefits from it.

Have I DENIED spending on research here in the US saves live? Show me where or retract! What I HAVE denied is your contention that ALL the credit goes to the for-profit sector… and therefore if some of the world uses our products, then that's "proof" our for-profit HEALTH CARE system deserves all the credit… and none should go to the public money that goes into basic research those drug companies rely on.

You're determined to evade the point. How much MORE could our dollars do if not wasted by the private sector?

BTW Have you even yet dealt with the difference between healthcare vs research? Didn't think so… since YOU are the one who drifted from healthcare to research for drugs etc.

Quote Cap:
Quote Pierpont:What do you mean you can't find a breakdown for medical research funding... I GAVE YOU THAT BREAKDOWN.

You posted biomedical. And your numbers didn't break down like my numbers. Not to say That I'm better, It's just implied.

Yup, you're again clueless and yet think you're making devastating rebuttals. I'm still waiting for you to show us you have ANY understanding of what this discussion is even about. MY NUMBERS GAVE THE FUNDING BREAKDOWN FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH. Yours were for ALL scientific research. Are we talking about corn? Forestry? Alternative energy? Hell, your numbers might even include weapons research.
My source had better numbers and the breakdown of who was funding what medical research between pharmaceuticals, biomed, equipment makers etc. Here are those numbers again:

In the United States, the most recent data from 2003[3] suggest that about 94 billion dollars were provided for biomedical research in the United States. The National Institutes of Health and pharmaceutical companies collectively contribute 26.4 billion dollars and 27.0 billion dollars, respectively, which constitute 28% and 29% of the total, respectively. Other significant contributors include biotechnology companies (17.9 billion dollars, 19% of total), medical device companies (9.2 billion dollars, 10% of total), other federal sources, and state and local governments. Foundations and charities, led by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, contributed about 3% of the funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research

Actually those number don't add up to 100% so the missing number might be 11% for "other federal sources, and state and local governments". Maybe not. Here's the original article that did the research

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/11/1333.full

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I think we're all straying from the point of this discussion... and that's simply how much suffering could be prevented and how many more lives could we save if our private, for-profit health system spent the maximum on health care and not piss resources away on administration, promotion, profits, high CEO pay. etc.? It's not as if health care MUST be run as a for-profit business. At one point large companies like Blue Cross were non-profits. And the same question must be asked of Big Pharma that spends more on advertising/promotion than on actual R&D.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Hey Einstein... projecting even AGAIN? YOU made the superficial claim that those Noble Prizes must be credited to our for-profit sector. So it's not MY job to prove YOUR claim.
All I did was show that the most recent 8 prize winners did NOT work for any Big Pharma company. Think about it Brainiac... what for-profit company wants to share its research results with possible competitors. If you want to look for funding... knock YOURself out.
So if anyone needs to go back to the drawing board it's you. Either prove your contention the Noble Prize list is relevent to the "for profit vs single payer" debate or retract your claim.

I made a blacket claim regarding Us exceptionalism in medical innovation comparing our Healthcare system to European Universial Healthcare Systems. I made the claim that Money drives out innovation. NOBODY with a straight face can refute that.

If you need help, the argument then becomes. Is being #1 in Healthcare spending a Good thing or bad thing. As I have just argued a benefit of being #1 in Medical Nobel Prizes and world leader in Medical innovation.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Life Expectancy is the US- #50 in the world.....

Spending on health care #1 in the world.

So we spendthe most and get the 50th best system as measured by Life Expectancy.

In 1980 we were #19.

Scappoose's picture
Scappoose
Joined:
Mar. 30, 2012 7:49 am
Quote Scappoose:Life Expectancy is the US- #50 in the world..... Spending on health care #1 in the world. So we spendthe most and get the 50th best system as measured by Life Expectancy. In 1980 we were #19.

Two problems with using Life Expectancy as a guage of Heathcare.

1 - the difference between US and #1 is 4.4 years. BFD.

2- The assumptions are stagering. It assumes interaction with healthcare as being the cause. It doesn't take into account social and cultural midigating factors. I don't think anybody would argue that Americans are the most self abusive people in the Western world. We are far more reckless, obese and gangster then the rest of the world.

Now find the statisitcs of actual interaction with Healthcare. US has the highest Cancer survival rates, availability of hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery. amoung other gauges.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

Not every life can be saved--even with the 'advancements in US medical research'. But, that wasn't the questions I asked you, Capital. Can you address those questions?

You should already know the answer. Being that I have answered it multiple times on the other thread. I said NO, I will not be answering that question again.

So, when Jonas Salk doesn't patent his polio vaccine thinking it an anathema if even one child were to succumb to polio due to that child being unable to afford the vaccine, that was a 'wrong-headed' position to take on 'medical research' according to you. So, then, according to that answer, according to you, those who can only afford the price should be offered the service--especially the new found 'life-saving medical techniques and medications' that such profit-driven 'research' has uncovered. Remarkable.

You know, that still makes me wonder why 'your plan' on the other thread still includes government supplementing medical care for anyone that cannot afford the price.....which is why I think that you are basically a lying shill.....So, why do you keep adding government into 'your plan' if the life-saving techniques and medications are to go only to those who pay the price? Can you explain that little discrepancy between your theories (all, of course, based on the advancements of the 'profit-driven free market'--or is it the 'freer market'?--and the application of medical care) and your proposed 'plan' that includes government subsidies?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

So, when Jonas Salk doesn't patent his polio vaccine thinking it an anathema if even one child were to succumb to polio due to that child being unable to afford the vaccine, that was a 'wrong-headed' position to take on 'medical research' according to you. So, then, according to that answer, according to you, those who can only afford the price should be offered the service--especially the new found 'life-saving medical techniques and medications' that such profit-driven 'research' has uncovered. Remarkable.

You know, that still makes me wonder why 'your plan' on the other thread still includes government supplementing medical care for anyone that cannot afford the price.....which is why I think that you are basically a lying shill.....So, why do you keep adding government into 'your plan' if the life-saving techniques and medications are to go only to those who pay the price?

The old Appeal to emotion. Maybe everyone here is not aware of what your true goal is. Kerry wants people to say Medical care is a RIGHT. Once a right, it can never be taken away and government then is in the position of guaranteeing your access to medical care. Therefore All medical treatment regardless of cost must be provided without consideration of cost.

Your polio example is fairly disengenious. In your drive to see Medical Care as a Right... Is this Right only regulated to those within the Borders of the US or is Medical a Human Right and must be provided Worldwide?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Kerry wants people to say Medical care is a RIGHT

And, that's a problem, Capital? If not a RIGHT, then those for-profit free marketeers such as yourself should be consistently honest and claim that, if not everyone is to get medical care at no cost to themselves, then no one is to get medical care at no costs to themselves. But, you don't even do that even as you complain about government's 'involvement', anyway. That's not what lying shills such as yourself are here to do. You're not honest about your free-marketeering position either in claiming that 'only profit produces advancements'--certainly not in basic medical research (and Jonas Salk is a perfect example of that). And, you're not honest in claiming that the for-profit medical industry produces the 'best medicine money can buy' because, even in your own 'plan', you still add government subsidizing that market. But, then, turn around and blame government for 'the free market not running right'....which is why I still call you a lying shill....

Quote Capital:

Therefore All medical treatment regardless of cost must be provided without consideration of cost.

Not exactly true. But, a system that holds responsibility to all its citizens for medical care would be more proned to handle that medical application's efficiency based more on the medical assessments done by the medical professionals and less done by the money-managers handling the 'efficiency' as a billing--and money-making--process....and NOT our present American 'application of medical care' that depends upon government subsidizing the most expensive patients as, then, corporations are offered the less expensive patients for profit...that's why Capital's 'plan' doesn't exclude government subsidies....even as Capital constantly praises the advances of a privileged for-profit system....and its so-called 'free market incentives'....

Quote Capital:

Your polio example is fairly disengenious.

Really. Are you saying that Jonas Salk did not patent the polio virus that he formulated--and did not do so because he saw it as an anathema if any child were to succumb to polio that could not afford the vaccine? Watch out how you use the accusation of 'disingenuous', Capital (even if you still can't spell the word).....

Quote Capital:

Is this Right only regulated to those within the Borders of the US or is Medical a Human Right and must be provided Worldwide?

As a responsibility of the United States? Come on, Capital. Most every other civilized, organized countries in the world have answered the cause to medical care as it being a right for its citizens. Lately, Thom Hartmann has been saying that Switzerland doesn't have single-payer, universal medical care--but, as Thom Hartmann reports, Switzerland does have an insurance-applied program that has their government mandate that such insurance programs NOT BE FOR PROFIT.

So, if you are against medicine as a RIGHT, why does your 'plan' still have government subsidies in it?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

And, that's a problem, Capital? If not a RIGHT, then those for-profit free marketeers such as yourself should be consistently honest and claim that, if not everyone is to get medical care at no cost to themselves, then no one is to get medical care at no costs to themselves.

So when I give $1 to the bum on the corner, I have to $1 to every bum in the country. Because I can not provide something for free, uness I provide it to everyone.

LOL....

But, you don't even do that even as you complain about government's 'involvement', anyway.

Why should I, Government has decided that those under the poverty rate should have basic care. Whether I like it or not, I can no more stop Government from handing out $1 to bums as I can stopping you from handing out $1. My charity is not a Right, Niether is Medicaid. Medicaid can be terminated at any time and operates at the good will of Government.

So, if you are against medicine as a RIGHT, why does your 'plan' still have government subsidies in it?

Because Subsidies are not a Right.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:

Hey Einstein... projecting even AGAIN? YOU made the superficial claim that those Noble Prizes must be credited to our for-profit sector. So it's not MY job to prove YOUR claim.
All I did was show that the most recent 8 prize winners did NOT work for any Big Pharma company. Think about it Brainiac... what for-profit company wants to share its research results with possible competitors. If you want to look for funding... knock YOURself out.
So if anyone needs to go back to the drawing board it's you. Either prove your contention the Noble Prize list is relevent to the "for profit vs single payer" debate or retract your claim.

I made a blacket claim regarding Us exceptionalism in medical innovation comparing our Healthcare system to European Universial Healthcare Systems. I made the claim that Money drives out innovation. NOBODY with a straight face can refute that.

So all you're saying is the richest nation on the planet can best afford to do the most research? Yawn. That's what you wasted so much time here trying to say?

Problem with your argument remains in the end you're confusing health care and biomedical research so your claim is IRRELEVANT to the topic here. Even if we went Single Payer for health care it would just eliminate the inefficiencies in the system. It would NOT affect biomedical research unless we came to our senses and forced them to put their dollars into real R&D instead of pissing more than half on advertising. Better yet let NIH fund and coordinate all biomed research. Even if we funded everything, including industry's current share of 60 or 70 billion, it is a paltry amount to what we piss away just on interest on the debt each year.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

So all you're saying is the richest nation on the planet can best afford to do the most research? Yawn. That's what you wasted so much time here trying to say?

Apparently not... Since we are NOT the richest country in the World. If that was the case Norway would have more medical nobels. try Again....

Even if we went Single Payer for health care it would just eliminate the inefficiencies in the system........................... Better yet let NIH fund and coordinate all biomed research. Even if we funded everything, including industry's current share of 60 or 70 billion, it is a paltry amount to what we piss away just on interest on the debt each year.

Have you ever considered How much a USA Single Payer System would cost? (without the stupid Platitude that it'll be cheaper) You care to throw out the Ball Park figure?

Now you want NIH to front the entire Cost of R&D of Science. Be sure to add $300 Billion.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

So when I give $1 to the bum on the corner, I have to $1 to every bum in the country.

You giving $1 to the bum on the corner and your 'plan' having government subsidize medical care to some of those that can't afford it are two different things, Capital....and, you never address how some of those that get government subsidies for the own medical care at no cost to them are having that being paid for by the taxpaying consumer--you know, the one that pays the taxes for someone else to have government subsidize that care that, then, they have to turn around as consumers and purchase 'the product' of health insurance to get the same services for themselves---or risk going bankrupt for those same services that their taxes can be used to have someone else have government subsidize that care at no direct, personal, cost to them...talk about 'cost shifting'...and you never address that reality.....even as you claim that 'your plan' is addressing 'real issues' in the application of medical care in America.....

Quote Capital:

Because I can not provide something for free, uness I provide it to everyone.

If you are government and you pay for one person's medical coverage at no cost to them (as if a RIGHT), you shouldn't be 'playing favorites' with such applications and should do so for anyone (as if a RIGHT). That's exactly how education and police protection that are supplemented by government are carried out. Why is medicine the exception to that rule? And, why do you, the free marketeer that you claim to be, allow it to begin with?

Quote Capital:

Why should I, Government has decided that those under the poverty rate should have basic care. Whether I like it or not....

Whether you like it or not? Then, why complain about it at all, Capital? Especially citing the Mayo Clinic in Arizona as not having government cover its costs--but, then, not recognizing that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES INVOLVED (don't forget about that coillusion, Capital) still follow the Medicare allowable charges in how its Medicare patients are paid. Since you did complain about it, how would you really change it in the free marketeering world you claim to be a proponent of? And, then, even though you don't change it, not only do you complain about government involvement, as part of 'your plan', you put government subsidies into 'YOUR PLAN'. Where's the free marketeering spirit in that, Capital? You have even claimed that such a 'free market incentive' would 'cover more for less' supposedly if 'government would not intrude'--but, you never actually explain how that would work (even using the example we discussed on the other thread of kidney dialysis patients) and, again, 'your plan' still has government subsidies in it. Something's just not right there, Capital....and you know that I have come up with some reasons why you do that on the other thread....

Quote Capital:

My charity is not a Right, Niether is Medicaid. Medicaid can be terminated at any time and operates at the good will of Government.

But, even as you have stated it, if the person cannot pay for the service, they don't deserve to get it. Why do you accuse government of the same position you are willing to claim for 'the free market'? And, that position is that there will be those people who need the service that, by the fact that they can't pay for it, they won't get it. Right? And, of course, the only way you can keep that posture and have a 'plan' that even has the semblance of being 'medicine for all' to it is add that dastard government subsidizing for it. So, the only real conclusion that can be made by such a posture is what I have already pointed out on the other thread--you add government subsidizing to it so that corporations can make more profits off of it....and, then, true to such lying shills as yourself, blame government for 'the free market not working'.....

Quote Capital:

Because Subsidies are not a Right.

Tell me how government paying anyone's medical services at no personal cost to them cannot be seen as a RIGHT to them.....and, then, tell me why government shouldn't do that to everyone if it does it to anyone as it does in education and policing....and, tell me why, in this particular instance, government should be 'playing favorites with rights' like it does not do in any similar application of education and policing....and, if you can't tell me any of that, again, I think that further supports my conclusion that you are here just to be a lying shill for 'the industry'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:

Have you ever considered How much a USA Single Payer System would cost? (without the stupid Platitude that it'll be cheaper) You care to throw out the Ball Park figure?

And, if we really can't afford that, Capital, why does 'YOUR PLAN' offer an "EMTALA covered by Medicaid'? Doesn't EMTALA imply that everyone with a life or limb threatening ailment will receive treatment for that ailment AS IF A RIGHT. You're full of.........incongruities in your presentations....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

You giving $1 to the bum on the corner and your 'plan' having government subsidize medical care to some of those that can't afford it are two different things, Capital

The only difference is that I use my own money and they use other peoples money.... aside from that.. It is charity.

even as you claim that 'your plan' is addressing 'real issues' in the application of medical care in America.....

You mean the issues that that you refuse to address becuase you know that it is the Stake in the Heart of Universial Healthcare.

If you are government and you pay for one person's medical coverage at no cost to them (as if a RIGHT), you shouldn't be 'playing favorites' with such applications and should do so for anyone (as if a RIGHT). That's exactly how education and police protection that are supplemented by government are carried out. Why is medicine the exception to that rule? And, why do you, the free marketeer that you claim to be, allow it to begin with?

You still stupid enough to think a Right is something provided to you by the grace of Government.

You think COMPULSARY education is a Right... you understand the first word right?

"June, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm"

Your delusions are remarkable.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:

Quote Scappoose:Life Expectancy is the US- #50 in the world..... Spending on health care #1 in the world. So we spendthe most and get the 50th best system as measured by Life Expectancy. In 1980 we were #19.

Two problems with using Life Expectancy as a guage of Heathcare.

1 - the difference between US and #1 is 4.4 years. BFD.

Really? Increasing the average life expectancy of an ENTIRE POPULATION by 4.4 YEARS, is NOT a big f*ckin deal? It IS once you realize that we're not talking about a mere 8% improvement in say a 0-85 age range. Average life expectancy in most developed nations already falls in the 75-85 age range. In which those 4.4 years within a ten year range IS a big f*ckin deal.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:

The only difference is that I use my own money and they use other peoples money.... aside from that.. It is charity.

God, Capital, can you ever address what you even say? Or, are you so much of a lying shill that you can't even keep it straight? 'YOUR PLAN' still has government subsidies in it--so, if you aren't for government using other people's money as 'charity', why does 'YOUR PLAN' still have government subsidies in it? Got that? And, of course, you ignore totally how 'YOUR PLAN' correlates in any way to your for-profit privileged advances in medicine with such government subsidies in medicine at the same time....

Quote Capital:

You mean the issues that that you refuse to address becuase you know that it is the Stake in the Heart of Universial Healthcare.

You mean like 'YOUR PLAN' offering 'EMTALA covered by Medicaid' as a Universal Healthcare application? But, of course, that's only for government to subsidize as corporations profit off of it, right?

Quote Capital:

You still stupid enough to think a Right is something provided to you by the grace of Government.

You think COMPULSARY education is a Right... you understand the first word right?

Government provides everyone the opportunity to an education--and pays for that. Your government subsidizing of medical care is only for some people, isn't it, Capital? Why are you allowing government to play favorites that it doesn't do so in education or policing?

A RIGHT as I understand it is something offered to every individual by government applications (as in education) or government restrictions (as in privacy). How do you understand it?

Quote Capital:

"June, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm"

Can you cite that case and circumstances a little more specifically, Capital? Are you saying that a police officer can sit by and watch an assault or burglary right before that police officer's eyes without doing anything--perhaps because those persons didn't 'directly pay for the service'? Is that what you are saying, Capital? Or, is this some more of your convoluted bullshit meant more to distort, distract, and dismiss than it is to address, inform and correct--as only lying shills like yourself can do?

I noticed you didn't comment on how you are claiming that 'government can take a service away' (and blaming government for it)--but still aren't admitting how your privileged for-profit service doesn't even offer that service to begin with (as you continue to claim that such for-profit, free marketeering would 'cover more for less')--and, as 'YOUR PLAN' still depends upon government subsidizing corporate profit in this 'industry'--and your so-called 'free market' concept that you never explain how it operates so 'freely' (and what that 'freely'--or 'free'--or even 'freer'--means) with such a subsidizing government/profitizing corporate combination as is present now--and as you continue to offer in 'YOUR PLAN'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Capital:

Now find the statisitcs of actual interaction with Healthcare. US has the highest Cancer survival rates, availability of hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery. amoung other gauges.

Of course the survival rate for cancer COULD just reflect earlier detection, not better treatment. Like any stat that depends on more than one variable... the stat can only be understood within a context and it ultimately might be meaningless. If we have better trauma care... and more people survive deadly assaults, then the murder rate goes down over the exact same assaults 10 years before while those charged with assault goes up.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Really? Increasing the average life expectancy of an ENTIRE POPULATION by 4.4 YEARS, is NOT a big f*ckin deal? It IS once you realize that we're not talking about a mere 8% improvement in say a 0-85 age range. Average life expectancy in most developed nations already falls in the 75-85 age range. In which those 4.4 years within a ten year range IS a big f*ckin deal.

What the hell are you argueing? That 4.4 years short of #1 is a BFD or that We are within your 10 year range of Developed nations an that it BFD...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

God, Capital, can you ever address what you even say? Or, are you so much of a lying shill that you can't even keep it straight? 'YOUR PLAN' still has government subsidies in it--so, if you aren't for government using other people's money as 'charity', why does 'YOUR PLAN' still have government subsidies in it? Got that? And, of course, you ignore totally how 'YOUR PLAN' correlates in any way to your for-profit privileged advances in medicine with such government subsidies in medicine at the same time....

WHERE YOU FUCKING IDIOT did I ever say I wanted Government Completely out of Healthcare... you Dumbass. A subsidy is NOT A RIGHT..

You mean like 'YOUR PLAN' offering 'EMTALA covered by Medicaid' as a Universal Healthcare application? But, of course, that's only for government to subsidize as corporations profit off of it, right?

Do you really believe that medicaid (with it many qualifications and Rules) equates to Universial Healthcare?

Government provides everyone the opportunity to an education--and pays for that. Your government subsidizing of medical care is only for some people, isn't it, Capital? Why are you allowing government to play favorites that it doesn't do so in education or policing?

So you do not understand the Word compulsary. I suppose the nuance that Education is a State function not a Federal function would be lost on you and that states can already have thier Universial Healthcare at thier liesure.

Would you advocate for COMPUSARY Healthcare?

Can you cite that case and circumstances a little more specifically, Capital?

Do you own research... You need only understand that Police protection is not a Right, it's a service.

I noticed you didn't comment on how you are claiming

Do you have Mad Cow?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Really? Increasing the average life expectancy of an ENTIRE POPULATION by 4.4 YEARS, is NOT a big f*ckin deal? It IS once you realize that we're not talking about a mere 8% improvement in say a 0-85 age range. Average life expectancy in most developed nations already falls in the 75-85 age range. In which those 4.4 years within a ten year range IS a big f*ckin deal.

What the hell are you argueing? That 4.4 years short of #1 is a BFD or that We are within your 10 year range of Developed nations an that it BFD...

I was simply responding to your opinion that 4.4 years difference between US and Japan's life expectancy was no big deal. If you look at that CRS study I posted a link to... then go to

Figure 24. Health Spending per Capita and Life Expectancy, 2004

It's shows that even with our increasing per person costs, there is diminishing returns on life expectancy. One data point doesn't make a case. We could simply have more gun violence or car accidents. But when ALL the points in that study are looked at... the red flag has to go up that we in the US simply are paying WAY too much for what we get. For example we piss away too much on administration costs. From the study:

Having multiple health insurance plans creates increased administrative costs. As noted in Table 4 and Figure 21, the United States is the second-highest spender on health and insurance administration costs (at $465 per person), behind Luxembourg. However, this amount fails to capture spending by health care providers for their billing and insurance-related administration.
Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:Regardless, the Heart ofl the Article says that no one on the planet counts the way we count and until Sweden and Norway do, the Statisitic is suspect. That includes Costa Rica.
But comparing the nations that DO count infant mortality as we do... our record is NOT good... from the CRS report:
Infant Mortality Rates. The United States has the third-highest infant
mortality rate in the OECD, after Turkey and Mexico, as shown in Figure 26. However, this statistic is likely somewhat overstated because of differences in methodology. The United States is one of eight countries that counts very premature babies with low chances of survival as “live births,” which has the effect of increasing infant mortality rates over what they otherwise would be. Nevertheless, among the eight countries that report live births using the same methodology, the United States has the highest rate of infant mortality. Even with more consistent methodology, the U.S. ranking — which has been slipping over time — would probably not significantly improve.

So much for your latest attempt to muddy the water.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

New statistic came out on cancer survival rates the US was number 1 and the UK was the last of 1st world countries. My which has the free market which has the socialist mhh?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote Capital:Would you advocate for COMPUSARY Healthcare?

You mean a "COMPUSARY" plan like Romney instituted here in Massachusetts... or like the GOP proposed back in the 90s as a counter proposal to what Clinton was working on? Wasn't it the Heritage Foundation that then came up with that plan that included a individual mandate? Or did I dream it?

This site may or may not be accurate:
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.
I found the original Heritage Foundation plan here:

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/ci_0891950494.pdf

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

But when ALL the points in that study are looked at... the red flag has to go up that we in the US simply are paying WAY too much for what we get. For example we piss away too much on administration costs. From the study:

I would agree, we do pay too much for healthcare. I however disagree that Universial Healthcare is the answer.

I'm not sure your Adminstration cost are a negitive. Those dollars support 2.21 million employees and huge local, state nad national economies. Even a universial Healthcare system is going to require Massive influx of federal employees.

As I said their are better ways to fix the problem.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Capital:Would you advocate for COMPUSARY Healthcare?

You mean a "COMPUSARY" plan like Romney instituted here in Massachusetts... or like the GOP proposed back in the 90s as a counter proposal to what Clinton was working on? Wasn't it the Heritage Foundation that then came up with that plan that included a individual mandate? Or did I dream it?

Yes he did and yes he can do that thanks to this great document called the tenth amendment. The federal government though can not do the same on a national level. If you want this kind of system walk with your feet and move to Massachusetts or try and make one in your state otherwise stop trying to force it on the rest of us.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:

But when ALL the points in that study are looked at... the red flag has to go up that we in the US simply are paying WAY too much for what we get. For example we piss away too much on administration costs. From the study:

I would agree, we do pay too much for healthcare. I however disagree that Universial Healthcare is the answer.

I'm not sure your Adminstration cost are a negitive. Those dollars support 2.21 million employees and huge local, state nad national economies.

So your justification for an inefficient and wasteful privately run health care system is it's "make work"? Whatever happened to your claim capitalism is inherently efficient? My god, you are desperate for ANY piss poor excuse to keep your delusions alive, aren't you! ROTF

My town has a municipally owned electric company and we're cheaper by far over any of the private electric companies that serve other towns. Sometimes the simple realization that competition itself can be inefficient is the path to rationality. We don't have to pay needless overhead like ads, profits to shareholders, high CEO pay, etc. The benefits go to the citizens of my town in the form of cheaper prices. How horrible!!!!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The Smoking Gun... the individual health care mandate WAS a conservative idea. This is from a Heritage Foundation plan back in 1989. Sorry for the breaks in text. I had to convert a non searchable PDF into one I could copy text from

PAGE 51: A Framework for Reform
Element # 1 : Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an
adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.
This requirement would imply a compact between t h e U.S. government
and its citizens: in r e t u r n for t h e government's accepting an
obligation to devise a market-based system g u a r a n t e e i n g access to c a re
and p r o t e c t i n g all families from financial distress due to t h e cost of an
illness, e a c h individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of p r o t e c tion.
This means that, while government would take on t h e obligation
to find ways of g u a r a n t e e i n g c a r e for those Americans unable to obtain
p r o t e c t i o n i n t h e market, p e r h a p s b e c a u s e of chronic health problems
or lack of income, Americans with sufficient means would no longer
be able to be "free r i d e r s " on society by avoiding sensible health
insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an
emergency or in retirement.
U n d e r this arrangement, all households would be required to
protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health
insurance or enrolling in a p r e p a i d h e a l th plan. T h e d e g r e e of financial
p r o t e c t i o n can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family
p r o t e c t i o n is central to a universal h e a l t h c a r e system in America.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/ci_0891950494.pdf

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont: So your justification for an inefficient and wasteful privately run health care system is it's "make work"? Whatever happened to your claim capitalism is inherently efficient? My god, you are desperate for ANY piss poor excuse to keep your delusions alive, aren't you! ROTF
Sorry, you seem to have added commentary to my comment that was not there previously. I have made no comment on " inefficient and wasteful privately run health care system" You should take off you assmption hat. All I said was We do pay too much for Health insurance. To which I blame Government for. But you didn't ask before leaping to your death off Assumptin cliff.

My town has a municipally owned electric company

Have your town build a Medical coopertive.

Sometimes the simple realization that competition itself can be inefficient is the path to rationality

Holy shit...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:
Quote Pierpont: You mean a "COMPUSARY" plan like Romney instituted here in Massachusetts... or like the GOP proposed back in the 90s as a counter proposal to what Clinton was working on? Wasn't it the Heritage Foundation that then came up with that plan that included a individual mandate? Or did I dream it?

Yes he did and yes he can do that thanks to this great document called the tenth amendment. The federal government though can not do the same on a national level. If you want this kind of system walk with your feet and move to Massachusetts or try and make one in your state otherwise stop trying to force it on the rest of us.

ROTF... I know that's Romney's line. Yet if your contention were true why was THE GOP trying to create a similar national plan back in the 90's based on a Heritage Foundation proposal... which INCLUDED AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE? Guess they didn't have your expert legal advice.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

The Smoking Gun... the individual health care mandate WAS a conservative idea.

Does that make it a Good Idea or in this case a Constitutional idea.

Unless you are claiming that All Consevative Ideas are both good and constitutional... I'd love to hear you say it

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system