Harris Snatching Patents

[Estro Felino]

What is it you claim I did not answer?

If you are talking about:

Then give me a logical explanation why in the USA prostitution is not recognized as a legal business.​

​

My answer was that it is.
I then provided the information to show where it is recognized.

I asked you why in most states it is outlawed.

 

[Estro Felino]

There is also an alternative :
The State can pay for the extra-price ...that is one part of the price is paid for by the patient, and the other part by the State.

The FED will have to print more dollars.

 

[Kathryn]

It is a big game of getting whatever money out of whomever they can with all of the overhead involved with that. As @Kathryn just said, the same procedure was quoted at two very different prices, what she saw may well have been the "list" price and the landscaper what the hospital actually expected the insurance company to actually pay. Anyhow, we have the most expensive version of health care of any major western country all in the name of freedom and private enterprise and what have you.

All I know is that the landscaper never did pay the full amount he was quoted, and yet I had to pay more than a thousand dollars before I could even be seen, and this was WITH INSURANCE.

 

[Alien826]

The problem I have with the terrible cost of so many medications is all the money they spend for advertising which they then have to pay for. It seems that almost half the advertisements I see on tv are for medications, and then we wonder why they cost so much.

Does it seem weird that they are advertising to the patients who have no power to prescribe these meds for themselves? They used to try to get doctors to prescribe their products with thinly disguised bribes like trips to exotic destinations for "conferences". Now it seems that they get more mileage out of getting patients to pester their doctors to prescribe them.

I always thought that the doctor's job was to decide the best treatment for me. Apparently not any more.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because Trump being the alternative kind of trivializes the criticisms. If you had a choice between a ham and cheese sandwich and a rancid **** sandwich, would you really care if the ham and cheese was lacking tomato or had too much lettuce?

The real choice is between a person you may like but has bad policies (Harris) and a person you don't like but has good policies (Trump).

 

[Father Heathen]

The real choice is between a person you may like but has bad policies (Harris) and a person you don't like but has good policies (Trump).

Too bad he doesn't, even if you ignore "Project 2025". The republican platform is trash. Also, having someone in office who should instead be in prison sets a really bad precedent.

 

[Kathryn]

Too bad he doesn't, even if you ignore "Project 2025". The republican platform is trash. Also, having someone in office who should instead be in prison sets a really bad precedent.

Interesting - I personally find the Democrat platform to be trash. And we are both Americans, I think!

 

[Alien826]

I think its has been blown out of proportion.

Trump said that he will not become a dictator if he becomes U.S. president again except "on day one"

He also said on the "day one" he referred to, he would use his presidential powers to close the southern border with Mexico and expand oil drilling."

But Trump also said there were planes and airports during the American revolutionary war.

That he was better looking than Kamala,

That.... The last goes on.

Out of proportion or not, you seem to have a pretty clear picture of the guy. Do you think that qualifies him to be President?

It would take more than a Trump win for him to become a dictator.

Indeed. The rest of the plan is set out in the "2025" document. Add to that the immunity that "his" SCOTUS has given him and if you are not frightened you should be.

Incidentally, though Trump is the most visible part of it all, the 90% of the "iceberg" represents the greater threat, and that won't go away if Trump loses the election.

 

[Copernicus]

When Harris announced that she would crack down on excessive price gouging, Republicans immediately branded her as advocating price controls, and the general media continued with their narrative. But...

Trump slams Harris' call for a price-gouging ban, but 37 states already have their own​

Experts say her proposal wouldn’t set hard limits on pricing but would instead police “excessive” hikes on essentials — a goal Trump and GOP-led states have also pursued in different forms...

While some pundits and analysts have criticized Harris' idea as likely ineffective, comparing it to President Richard Nixon’s freezes on wages and prices in the early 1970s, others say there’s an important distinction.​

​

“A price control is exactly what it sounds like — an agency setting an actual hard cap on a price,” Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit group, said in an email to NBC News. Economists generally agree that such caps can cause shortages, as limited profit potential leads companies to produce less of a good even if the lower price juices demand.​

​

Witte said price-gouging laws, by contrast, target corporate conduct rather than setting concrete pricing levels: “Price-gouging laws require the enforcing agency to look at several factors and decide whether the conduct was unlawful.”​

That's politics. Whenever a politician makes a proposal, her opponent rushes to frame the proposal in the worst possible light. Harris's proposal lacks details, so it was easy for people to believe it was whatever Republicans and the news media said it was. The proposal was even condemned by the Washington Post editorial board, although they should have known better than to go along with the framing exercise.

 

[Alien826]

Of course you think that, but I am just saying that the majority of business owners are motivated by profit, including and not limited to pharmaceutical companies.

Yes. Profits are an essential part of the capitalist system. But rules exist (or should do) to rein in excessive profits.

Once it was understood that there were three stakeholders involved in a a business entity. Employees, customers and investors. These were expected to operate in a balanced way, to the benefit of all. Then there was a legal decision that established the investors as the most important of the three.

 

[Alien826]

Do you fully understand the problem,
& can propose a solution that improves
things?

See Canada and other countries with single payer systems. The Government has what can be called a "buyer's monopoly" and can set maxima that they are prepared to pay. It can be argued that the USA is effective subsidizing the other countries by paying more than a fair price while others pay less. Why, if that were so, would the drug companies not simply refuse to do business in these countries, if they are losing money there? They can't be forced to sell their goods at a loss. Could it be that they are making a profit, albeit less, there and a heck of a lot more here?

Without profit though, how is the research funded?
Ya gotta consider the unintended consequences of
price fixing & confiscation.

Profits are an essential part of a capitalist system. There's nothing evil about them until they become excessive. I compare capitalism to a diesel engine. Left alone it will run faster and faster until it shakes itself to pieces. It doesn't do that because it has something called a "regulator". Unregulated capitalism will produce a vast amount of stuff, but eventually destroy anything in its vicinity. That's why we need regulations.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is a big game of getting whatever money out of whomever they can with all of the overhead involved with that. As @Kathryn just said, the same procedure was quoted at two very different prices, what she saw may well have been the "list" price and the landscaper what the hospital actually expected the insurance company to actually pay. Anyhow, we have the most expensive version of health care of any major western country all in the name of freedom and private enterprise and what have you.

I'm not defending this awful system.
But its problems shouldn't mean leaping
at every solution without considering all
the consequences, eg, price controls &
property confiscation.

 

[Alien826]

Healthcare cannot be considered something profitable, because it is a matter of life or death.
Prostitution can.

It's really a question of where the money comes from. Nothing is free, regardless of the morality involved.

Automobiles and prostitution are paid for by the consumer. Health care under government single payer system is paid for by the taxpayer, and there is no direct link for an individual between the amount of tax paid and the amount of benefit received. I support your contention that healthcare should be free at the point of consumption and paid for communally, but automobile workers, prostitutes and nurses all need to be paid.

 

[Revoltingest]

See Canada and other countries with single payer systems.

That's a different matter.
I favor a single payer system, albeit with a Plan B
(ie, private option) in case government screws up,
Which the Canuckistanian system has in my
experience. (Got injured there once.)

The Government has what can be called a "buyer's monopoly" and can set maxima that they are prepared to pay. It can be argued that the USA is effective subsidizing the other countries by paying more than a fair price while others pay less. Why, if that were so, would the drug companies not simply refuse to do business in these countries, if they are losing money there? They can't be forced to sell their goods at a loss. Could it be that they are making a profit, albeit less, there and a heck of a lot more here?


Profits are an essential part of a capitalist system. There's nothing evil about them until they become excessive. I compare capitalism to a diesel engine. Left alone it will run faster and faster until it shakes itself to pieces. It doesn't do that because it has something called a "regulator". Unregulated capitalism will produce a vast amount of stuff, but eventually destroy anything in its vicinity. That's why we need regulations.

Did Canuckistan's system develop any Covid vaccines?

 

[We Never Know]

Out of proportion or not, you seem to have a pretty clear picture of the guy. Do you think that qualifies him to be President?

I have said over and over prior to Biden quitting that Trump nor Biden should be in the race.

Indeed. The rest of the plan is set out in the "2025" document. Add to that the immunity that "his" SCOTUS has given him and if you are not frightened you should be.

Eh, a conspricacy theory

Incidentally, though Trump is the most visible part of it all, the 90% of the "iceberg" represents the greater threat, and that won't go away if Trump loses the election.

You must think Trump is almighty and must not have much faith in everyone else.

 

[Alien826]

Did Canuckistan's system develop any Covid vaccines?

Good question. I assume you mean did they cause the shots to be developed? I did a bit of research and didn't come up with much useful. China is the country that has produced most Covid vaccines with the USA close behind. Canada doesn't appear on the list. That's not much help as it's talking about the manufacture of the vaccine and the numbers probably reflect the population differences. Pfizer is an American country but is multinational, so research could have occurred anywhere.

The answer is probably complicated, and has many factors. Did countries work together? No idea.

 

[We Never Know]

Good question. I assume you mean did they cause the shots to be developed? I did a bit of research and didn't come up with much useful. China is the country that has produced most Covid vaccines with the USA close behind. Canada doesn't appear on the list. That's not much help as it's talking about the manufacture of the vaccine and the numbers probably reflect the population differences. Pfizer is an American country but is multinational, so research could have occurred anywhere.

The answer is probably complicated, and has many factors. Did countries work together? No idea.

Countries that came up with a vaccine include China, US, India, Russia, UK, Sweden, Germany.

A Guide to Global COVID-19 Vaccine Efforts

The swift development of effective vaccines against COVID-19 was an unprecedented scientific achievement. But production challenges, vaccine nationalism, and new variants have all presented hurdles.

www.cfr.org

 

[Revoltingest]

Good question. I assume you mean did they cause the shots to be developed? I did a bit of research and didn't come up with much useful. China is the country that has produced most Covid vaccines with the USA close behind. Canada doesn't appear on the list. That's not much help as it's talking about the manufacture of the vaccine and the numbers probably reflect the population differences. Pfizer is an American country but is multinational, so research could have occurred anywhere.

The answer is probably complicated, and has many factors. Did countries work together? No idea.

USA produced vaccines were initially more effective.
(That was in the news then.) I don't know if China has
upgraded their vaccines, but I'd expect they would.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's really a question of where the money comes from. Nothing is free, regardless of the morality involved.

Automobiles and prostitution are paid for by the consumer. Health care under government single payer system is paid for by the taxpayer, and there is no direct link for an individual between the amount of tax paid and the amount of benefit received. I support your contention that healthcare should be free at the point of consumption and paid for communally, but automobile workers, prostitutes and nurses all need to be paid.

Yes.
The only difference is that the State uses people's taxes to build public hospitals.
The insurance companies gain billions which they will spend on hookers and gambling.
See the difference?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes sure.
The same company that produces viagra.
Utterly disgusting and squalid.

Stupid whataoutism.