Drug executive: It's a 'moral requirement' to charge patients the highest price

[ActionfigureJoe]

52 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

I think the Insurers are co-conspirators with the pharms and med networks. Cost of care goes up, so do premiums. If you are working off of a margin the higher the cost the higher the profits. 

I have had this conversation with other union contractors who bitch about union rates. If the union was out and we could pay half, and our margins are 20-30% then now I have to do twice as much business to make what I did before. 

The problem comes when the service is priced out of the market and people (or corps) can no longer afford it. So when does that happen for health care providers? 

The biggest co-conspirator is the patient. The current trend in medicine is symptom management. Not actually correcting the problem. 

[snopro31]

not surprising at all.

 

very sad indeed.

but physicians are no different. 

[steve from amherst]

I view medical professionals the same way I view bank robbers.

[MichiganMarcus]

1 hour ago, Nazipigdog said:

I think the Insurers are co-conspirators with the pharms and med networks. Cost of care goes up, so do premiums. If you are working off of a margin the higher the cost the higher the profits. 

I have had this conversation with other union contractors who bitch about union rates. If the union was out and we could pay half, and our margins are 20-30% then now I have to do twice as much business to make what I did before. 

The problem comes when the service is priced out of the market and people (or corps) can no longer afford it. So when does that happen for health care providers? 

There may even be kickbacks. I would speculate, if we knew the real story we would be disgusted.

[snoughnut]

1 hour ago, steve from amherst said:

I view medical professionals the same way I view bank robbers.

You mean bankers, .....bank robbers don't do near the financial damage that bankers do.

[Angry ginger]

2 hours ago, steve from amherst said:

Actually no , they are not. That little gem study was proven to have an agenda and many untruths. 

The biggest being that 78% of those bankruptcies the person filing had medical bills that totaled less then $1500

yup,  reality is the ins companies just write off the bills if you can't pay and don't pursue you in most states.  hell we don;t even count them against them when buying a house because it won't effect title

[NaturallyAspirated]

9 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Socialism describes a system in which workers own the means of production. 

Social safety nets meant to catch those left behind by capitalism aren't socialism, they're merely welfare measures designed to support capitalism. 

The notion that people won't work unless they're coerced by the threat of poverty or the promise of vast wealth is patently ridiculous. People may not want to work for shitheel capitalists and produce surplus value for them to steal, but that's not exactly the same as not wanting to work. The worth of a human being is more than what amount of surplus value they can produce for some capitalist wank.

That's all pie in the sky assertion.  How do we count a "worker" in a socialist system?  What about those unable or unwilling to work?  How are they treated/rewarded/punished?  How is the system corrected if indeed no one/miniscule numbers of workers assume the difficult or excessively laborious jobs?  How long does one need to be a "worker" before retirement is provided?  How do we separate those coming into the country to leech off a socialist system instead of involving themselves in it?

Neal

[motonoggin]

4 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

That's all pie in the sky assertion.  How do we count a "worker" in a socialist system?  What about those unable or unwilling to work?  How are they treated/rewarded/punished?  How is the system corrected if indeed no one/miniscule numbers of workers assume the difficult or excessively laborious jobs?  How long does one need to be a "worker" before retirement is provided?  How do we separate those coming into the country to leech off a socialist system instead of involving themselves in it?

Neal

You're still stuck on the idea that human beings need to generate surplus value for someone to steal from them in order to be worthy of living in our society. 

Once you remove that premise from your thought process, these questions you have and will answer themselves. 

[NaturallyAspirated]

5 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

You're still stuck on the idea that human beings need to generate surplus value for someone to steal from them in order to be worthy of living in our society. 

Once you remove that premise from your thought process, these questions you have and will answer themselves. 

Bullshit.  All that is a big old fat non-answer.  

Socalism forces humans to generate surpluses to cover for those that underproduce or don't involve themsves in the workforce.  This isn't a complex issue to grasp.

Once socalists can answer those questions, the more serious they can be taken.  Until then it's stupid moronic blather, spouted by non-understanding buffoons.

Neal 

Edited September 13, 2018 by NaturallyAspirated

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Bullshit.  All that is a big old fat non-answer.  

Socalism forces humans to generate surpluses to cover for those that underproduce or don't involve themsves in the workforce.  This isn't a complex issue to grasp.

Once socalists can answer those questions, the more serious they can be taken.  Until then it's stupid moronic blather, spouted by non-understanding bafoons.

Neal 

Don't lecture me on socialism, dude. I'm not going to be your personal professor while you sit back and tell me I'm wrong.

You began this conversation with a demonstration of deep ignorance of what socialism is and means, that I promptly corrected, and now you want to lecture me for not spoon feeding you? Fohm. 

[motonoggin]

Socialists:

"maybe we shouldn't keep viewing human beings as commodities and instead build a society that can meet all our needs"

Reactionaries:

"Yeah but what about the money?"

[NaturallyAspirated]

Just now, motonoggin said:

Don't lecture me on socialism, dude. I'm not going to be your personal professor while you sit back and tell me I'm wrong.

You began this conversation with a demonstration of deep ignorance of what socialism is and means, that I promptly corrected, and now you want to lecture me for not spoon feeding you? Fohm. 

You can't even answer some simple scenarios and questions, no need to promote all that inability to professorship.

Incorrect, I asked clearly stated the blend of the two systems and the rationale for it.  Then I went on to ask how a socialist system would handle the difficult issues surrounding worker qualification.

You dodge duck and run, and this is why socalism is laughed at.

Neal

[NaturallyAspirated]

2 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Socialists:

"maybe we shouldn't keep viewing human beings as commodities and instead build a society that can meet all our needs"

Reactionaries:

"Yeah but what about the money?"

You confuse money for value.  Socities do not function if all participants are flatline valued.  Some people do produce or provide more benifit for society than others.  You trying to pin all that on money shows ignorance.

Neal

 

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

You can't even answer some simple scenarios and questions, no need to promote all that inability to professorship.

Incorrect, I asked clearly stated the blend of the two systems and the rationale for it.  Then I went on to ask how a socialist system would handle the difficult issues surrounding worker qualification.

You dodge duck and run, and this is why socalism is laughed at.

Neal

You can't blend socialism and capitalism. 

You're defining socialism as 'government programs designed to counteract the negative effects of capitalism'. That's not socialism, it's welfare subsidized capitalism.

Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. It's not something you can 'blend' with capitalism. 

If you won't even acknowledge these very simple facts, why should I waste my time attempting to educate you? You clearly have made up your mind and nothing I say will change that.

I encourage you to educate yourself on the subject, as I have. I'm not here to play professor of leftism to a bunch of dense ignoramuses who only ask questions for the sole purpose of confirming their pre-existing willful ignorance.

 

[motonoggin]

4 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

You confuse money for value.  Socities do not function if all participants are flatline valued.  Some people do produce or provide more benifit for society than others.  You trying to pin all that on money shows ignorance.

Neal

 

Who is more valuable? 

The sewer worker or the doctor?

The sculptor or the musician?

The counselor or the field hand?

[NaturallyAspirated]

9 hours ago, motonoggin said:

You can't blend socialism and capitalism. 

You're defining socialism as 'government programs designed to counteract the negative effects of capitalism'. That's not socialism, it's welfare subsidized capitalism.

Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. It's not something you can 'blend' with capitalism. 

If you won't even acknowledge these very simple facts, why should I waste my time attempting to educate you? You clearly have made up your mind and nothing I say will change that.

I encourage you to educate yourself on the subject, as I have. I'm not here to play professor of leftism to a bunch of dense ignoramuses who only ask questions for the sole purpose of confirming their pre-existing willful ignorance.

 

Incorrect, I'm describing socalists ideals engaged in by citizens.

You are confused by the very simple facts here, not me.

I am educated on the topic, in addition I apply a realistic understanding and logic to it that you seem to forgo.

You avoid simple questions which socalism has a difficult time dealing with.  Until those types of questions are clearly and straightforwadly answered socaliam will remain a laughingstock.

Neal

[NaturallyAspirated]

9 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Who is more valuable? 

The sewer worker or the doctor?

The sculptor or the musician?

The counselor or the field hand?

Indeed that's part of the issue with socalism.

The doctor, society must invest more into the doctor than the sewer worker.

Both are roughly equal.

Both are close in value.

How would socalism assess each pair?

Neal

Edited September 13, 2018 by NaturallyAspirated

[motonoggin]

35 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Indeed that's part of the issue with socalism.

The doctor, society must invest more into the doctor than the sewer worker.

Both are roughly equal.

Both are close in value.

How would socalism assess each pair?

Neal

The answer is they're all equally valuable. You can't have a society without any of them. 

You fail socialism 101. Go read some fucking Marx and get back to me. 

[Ez ryder]

20 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Socialism describes a system in which workers own the means of production. 

Social safety nets meant to catch those left behind by capitalism aren't socialism, they're merely welfare measures designed to support capitalism. 

The notion that people won't work unless they're coerced by the threat of poverty or the promise of vast wealth is patently ridiculous. People may not want to work for shitheel capitalists and produce surplus value for them to steal, but that's not exactly the same as not wanting to work. The worth of a human being is more than what amount of surplus value they can produce for some capitalist wank.

so explains the system first set up by the settlers of this country and why it failed so miserably 

[Ez ryder]

5 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

The answer is they're all equally valuable. You can't have a society without any of them. 

You fail socialism 101. Go read some fucking Marx and get back to me. 

so why would any one want to spend 14 yrs in school to be a doctor when he gets nothing more out of it than the guy sitting in a street sweeper ? 

 

 

[motonoggin]

2 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

so why would any one want to spend 14 yrs in school to be a doctor when he gets nothing more out of it than the guy sitting in a street sweeper ? 

 

 

I'm not gonna spoon feed you either dum dum.

[motonoggin]

Read some marx, bakunin, Parsons, kropotkin, etc if you want to know.

1)I'm not your professor and 2)this is not a classroom, and 3)you aren't paying me to educate you. 

If you want to pay me, I'll teach you. I don't do free labor.

[Ez ryder]

12 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

I'm not gonna spoon feed you either dum dum.

no please do . 

[Ez ryder]

10 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Read some marx, bakunin, Parsons, kropotkin, etc if you want to know.

1)I'm not your professor and 2)this is not a classroom, and 3)you aren't paying me to educate you. 

If you want to pay me, I'll teach you. I don't do free labor.

why not you would under your system and with a smile