Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Dec '16 01:40
    The party of free enterprise won't allow foreign companies to undersell our ridiculous pharma prices. Especially ridiculous as with Canada we would often be reimporting drugs which were made here and sold to them - and would still be priced lower than our companies!

    https://trofire.com/2016/12/08/republicans-block-attempt-lower-drug-prices-u-s/
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    09 Dec '16 02:12
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    The party of free enterprise won't allow foreign companies to undersell our ridiculous pharma prices. Especially ridiculous as with Canada we would often be reimporting drugs which were made here and sold to them - and would still be priced lower than our companies!

    https://trofire.com/2016/12/08/republicans-block-attempt-lower-drug-prices-u-s/
    I don't see the story in your link. I only see this message:

    "If you have reached this page, it means that you are looking for one of our older postings. To find the story or video, type a few of the words from the title and click search. You should then see the story. You also can use the archive dropdown to locate our postings by month.

    Search Our Site"
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    09 Dec '16 02:16 / 1 edit
    Regarding "free enterprise", that's just a code word for government deregulation. Cons are only for whatever fattens their pockets. They opposed Obama's public option because it would mean competing against insurance companies, resulting in less profits for big insurance companies.
  4. 09 Dec '16 10:26
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    The party of free enterprise ......
    What gave you that idea? The republican party - and especially in this election, has always been about protectionism. Trump was elected largely on that basis.
  5. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    09 Dec '16 10:53 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What gave you that idea? The republican party - and especially in this election, has always been about protectionism. Trump was elected largely on that basis.
    If the Republicans are all about "protectionism", then they're doing a particularly bad job of it, you know, promoting all the questionable trade deals we've gotten ourselves into, including NAFTA, CAFTA and now TPP.

    The Republicans are not nearly enough about protectionism.
  6. 10 Dec '16 06:44
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    If the Republicans are all about "protectionism", then they're doing a particularly bad job of it, you know, promoting all the questionable trade deals we've gotten ourselves into, including NAFTA, CAFTA and now TPP.

    The Republicans are not nearly enough about protectionism.
    Its a case off the people wanting protectionism but big business, not so much. The same applies to the whole 'keep jobs in America'. It just doesn't make business sense. If you have to pay high wages to american workers some other company paying Chinese or Mexican labour is going to under cut you. Admittedly there are instances where the difference is marginal and a tax cut or some other agreement can keep jobs local. But in the big scheme of things over protectionism on jobs could kill the local economy rather than boosting it. The same applies to trade. If the US doesn't play nice with its trading partners, then it cannot export as easily.

    The US is in an almost unique situation where the populace is under skilled for the amount of income they earn. Some jobs must necessarily be done locally, but many jobs will either be replaced by automation or exported. No amount of protectionism can really stop that.
  7. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    10 Dec '16 10:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The US is in an almost unique situation where the populace is under skilled for the amount of income they earn.
    I can agree with much of what you wrote, except this part I quoted.

    After WWII, the workforce in the US boomed, and the "middle-class" was born, consisting mostly of hard-working, skilled workers who made enough money relative to the economy of the time to afford a quite good standard of living. And corporations made a LOT of money from this productivity.

    Later, in the '80s, under Reagan, corporations found out they could make an obscene amount of money merely by undercutting their workers' compensation so they did that any way they could, including taking these jobs overseas so that instead of making a moderate income with a work force they were paying $25 an hour, they could make huge mountains of money by using a poorer workforce in the countries they moved to by paying them barely a subsistence wage. And the dissolution of the "middle-class" continues even today. It is driven purely by greed, not corporate survival. It's basically class warfare.

    No wonder middle America is pissed off enough to try anything, including electing a big-mouthed, know-nothing. The problem is that it's the Republicans they're pissed off about, but they've been brain-washed into thinking it's the Democrats. It's one of the biggest scams ever pulled on anyone, anywhere.
  8. 15 Dec '16 00:01
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Its a case off the people wanting protectionism but big business, not so much. The same applies to the whole 'keep jobs in America'. It just doesn't make business sense. If you have to pay high wages to american workers some other company paying Chinese or Mexican labour is going to under cut you. Admittedly there are instances where the difference is mar ...[text shortened]... l either be replaced by automation or exported. No amount of protectionism can really stop that.
    No, this is pharm companies wanting us to fund their R&D through the drug prices, mostly paid by tax money anyway. Instead, like other countries, we should just subsidize med R&D and we can govern the amount spent. But right now the protectionism is to allow for artificially propped up meds so pharamaceutical companies don't have to compete against socialism.
  9. 16 Dec '16 20:39
    Originally posted by vivify
    Regarding "free enterprise", that's just a code word for government deregulation. Cons are only for whatever fattens their pockets. They opposed Obama's public option because it would mean competing against insurance companies, resulting in less profits for big insurance companies.
    The public option actually increased the risk in the pool. The running claim was that 35 million people didn't have health insurance because either they were too poor for it, or they had pre-existing conditions that prevented them from acquiring it. These populations, if we take that 35 million claim to consist ONLY of those populations and not of people who willingly fore-went insurance (shocker, its actually a thing!), are the very definition of high risk. Poverty is associated with more health problems, and pre-existing conditions are expensive to cover. If the risk in the pool increases, premiums increase accordingly to accommodate the costs of providing the insurance (hence why you see the public exchanges with enormous premiums that are unsustainable for the minimum-wage worker).

    And furthermore, you've just introduced a risk-pool consisting solely of those high-risk populations, meaning that insurance companies actually LOSE money in paying out on those policies. And that's exactly what's been happening. Insurance providers have been leaving the exchanges because the populations in the risk pool are significantly higher risk than the populations outside the exchange.

    Or was your plan to shove that risk on the American public as a whole by forcing all insurance companies to fail, and thus saddle the average American with those same financial burdens? You're fooling yourself is you actually think a completely public insurance industry would be cheaper at the point of sale.
  10. 16 Dec '16 20:41
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    No, this is pharm companies wanting us to fund their R&D through the drug prices, mostly paid by tax money anyway. Instead, like other countries, we should just subsidize med R&D and we can govern the amount spent. But right now the protectionism is to allow for artificially propped up meds so pharamaceutical companies don't have to compete against socialism.
    You have little in the way of actual knowledge of how R&D for the pharmaceutical industry works. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the hoops a company needs to jump through simply to make it to human trials alone before you speak again on this topic.
  11. 16 Dec '16 21:00
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    I can agree with much of what you wrote, except this part I quoted.
    Except you haven't really contradicted it.
    It is a fact that if I lived in the US, I would earn anything up to ten times what I do know with the same skills. The US could get away with maintaining that situation as long as most highly skilled workers actually lived in the US or Europe and they helped maintain that by importing the best people.
    However, over time other countries have started to catch up and the internet and other factors have made it much easier to move jobs around the world. The US labour force are no longer exceptional in terms of skills but they are paid more than similar labour forces around the world. There really is nothing you can do to stop the jobs moving elsewhere.
    This is especially true of anything that is exported. Even if you use highly protectionist policies, if your labour locally costs more than the labour for a competitor in another country, if you are selling the goods abroad, you simply cannot compete.
  12. Standard member vivify
    rain
    16 Dec '16 21:42
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    The public option actually increased the risk in the pool. The running claim was that 35 million people didn't have health insurance because either they were too poor for it, or they had pre-existing conditions that prevented them from acquiring it. These populations, if we take that 35 million claim to consist ONLY of those populations and not of people ...[text shortened]... you actually think a completely public insurance industry would be cheaper at the point of sale.
    Basically, you're saying a public option would increase competition, thereby forcing companies to take more high-risk customers, to keep from losing profits. Correct?

    Well congratulations. You just explained a competitive market.
  13. 16 Dec '16 22:11
    Originally posted by vivify
    Basically, you're saying a public option would increase competition, thereby forcing companies to take more high-risk customers, to keep from losing profits. Correct?

    Well congratulations. You just explained a competitive market.
    No. What I'm saying is that the public option, as structured by the ACA, resulted in a pool of high risk customers only, which forced companies to break protocol and lose profits. It didn't force them to take on customers which prevented them from losing profits, it forced them to take on customers which would guarantee a loss because their risk is too high for a market.

    And besides, a government run program doesn't face competition, nor create it. A government run program, funded by tax dollars, is not a competitive business operation. There's a reason the phrase "Close enough for government work" exists. Public Administration is a notoriously inefficient operation, hence why current theory in the field pushes the public administrators to adopt business mentalities, which in theory, increase efficiency.
  14. 16 Dec '16 22:16
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    If the Republicans are all about "protectionism", then they're doing a particularly bad job of it, you know, promoting all the questionable trade deals we've gotten ourselves into, including NAFTA, CAFTA and now TPP.

    The Republicans are not nearly enough about protectionism.
    The solution to the negative socio-economic side-effects of the industrial revolution wasn't to close down factories. It was to introduce/enlarge welfare and income redistribution programs.

    The solution to the negative socio-economic side-effects of global trade isn't to stop trading. It's to introduce/enlarge welfare and income redistribution programs.