McCain... ahead?

[Zigma]

How odd... I was under the impression that medical research is most commonly carried out by research universities, not some sort of proprietary lab owned and operated directly by each pharmaceutical company. Of course, this still allows for the practice of pharmaceutical companies funding research at universities via grants, which according to these numbers constitutes about one fourth of total research spending in this country. One could certainly expect the research contribution from the pharmaceutical industry to drop off significantly if health care reform led to ironclad price controls on all new medical technology. Does compulsory national health insurance tend to impose price controls? I'm not quite sure. But you've clearly done your homework on this issue and I'm sure you have a very revealing link all ready to show us the connection between national health insurance and price controls on health services, which would surely make your argument far more convincing.

edit: Beckwin, I'm not sure what PPV is, but you might mean the HPV vaccine, which I seem to remember was brought to market around 3-5 years ago.

I don't have a link and I did not read this anywhere. Unfortunately while I could make a good argument and go on and on about this and other issues, I choose to step to the side because I don't feel like going on a typing frenzy. Oh, and I pay about $350 a month for health insurance.

[aurik]

Hi, I'm Zigma, and I'm going to make a couple of unfounded statements and then run away like a scared puppy when someone calls me on my bullshit.

[Charla]

Now, now. His statements weren't necessarily unfounded, he simply has better things to do than look for statistics which back up his position. The premise that a government-run system would pay less for a given service than would the free market is a reasonable one at first glance, especially considering the inherent unresponsiveness of bureaucracies to changing market dynamics. That argument merely makes the unjustified assumption that price controls on health services would be instituted in the first place, which sounds reasonable in theory but would be both politically infeasible and unsustainable for the very reasons he mentioned.

[netz]

Right now in Taxes/SS/Medicare/Health/Dental/Accidential i pay 23% of my pay check. I don't wish to pay another 10-15% to have UHC. I'm 23 with no chronic illnesses. Generally no stiches($0), 2 dental visits yearly($10 - 5 bucks each), and a physical once every 2 years or so($5).

That in noooooooooo way adds up to them taking that extra % out.

As far as the info I shall see if i can contact my uncle who has the info.

Visits to the doctor cost you $10, but that's not what they really cost. A visit actually costs something in the neighborhood of $150-200. (Well, that's what you'd pay if you didn't have the insurance. They "give" the providers a discount.)

What are you going to do when your health care costs skyrocket when you're older? Are you still going to think that you got a raw deal when you were a kid, because it didn't benefit you then?

[Tyche]

I pay about $130 a month for my daughter and I. 100% coverage (none of that 90/10 or 80/20 bullshit). $3000 deductible. I'm a healthy 24 year old distance runner who doesn't smoke and rarely drinks. No chronic illnesses, heart disease or diabetes. I almost had a heart attack 2 weeks ago. I'm willing to pay much more for good health coverage. You never know when the strangest things will happen to you. With that said, health care in the US is a joke. This is no longer a partisan issue. It needs reformed.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

EIA OCS report it's kind of long so I'll summarize.

comparing the expanded offshore drilling on the Outer-Continental Shelf (OCS) plan proposed with the reference plan (what we're currently leasing/drilling/plan-to-drill) we come up with 2.4m barrels for the OCS vs. 2.2m barrels for the reference plan in 2030. - which is a difference of 200,000bbl/day.

and I think it's pretty clear what the numbers are saying.

So even though another government agency estimates there is 86 billion barrels of oil in the OCS, if the leases are lifted were only going to drill 200k more a day by the year 2030?

[Beckwin]

Charla: you're right, it's HPV. got that mixed up with the Pay Per View acronym, somehow.

anyways, lol zigma. pleasantly surprising to see Tyche more on the pro side than not, but actually when I think about it I've seen a decent number of conservatives lean the same way on UHC.

[Beckwin]

major lolz:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

[pohibaba]

So, Beckwin, after all of your badmouthing of McCain for his "negative" campaigning what's your opinion of Obama's new ad?

In before backpedaling.

[Kuya]

Well, i'll give Obama this at least, his accusations are usually accurate. However, didn't Obama back a bill that Bush proposed that gave oil and natural gas subsidies in the billions? And didn't Obama also received 400,000 from oil execs? He says his reasons for supporting the Bush bill were because they include some incentives for alternative energy, i'll have to check that.

[Amele]

So even though another government agency estimates there is 86 billion barrels of oil in the OCS, if the leases are lifted were only going to drill 200k more a day by the year 2030?

which government agency?

I would tend to consider the Department of Energy (of with the Energy Information Administration is a part) to be the authoritative source. so if the EIA/DOE says "200k bbls is what we'd get" they have a track record of being correct.

remember that the number of barrels present isn't necessarily the number of barrels recoverable, and the rate of recovery is not directly a function of how many barrels are recoverable (or present).

[Amele]

Well, i'll give Obama this at least, his accusations are usually accurate. However, didn't Obama back a bill that Bush proposed that gave oil and natural gas subsidies in the billions? And didn't Obama also received 400,000 from oil execs? He says his reasons for supporting the Bush bill were because they include some incentives for alternative energy, i'll have to check that.

the number you're thinking of is how much total contribution he's received from individuals in the oil industry (open secrets is a good way to look at this information) remember that individual contributions totaling under 50$ are not reported and the "other" category includes party contributions by the DNC or RNC as applicable.

[Beckwin]

So, Beckwin, after all of your badmouthing of McCain for his "negative" campaigning what's your opinion of Obama's new ad?

In before backpedaling.

there's a difference between policy criticism and character assassination. when Obama starts airing ads about how McCain hates Asians, uses offensive language towards his wife, committed infidelity, has an anger problem, or is just plain too old to lead, let me know. policy criticism on the other hand is part of an election.

[Kuya]

Speaking of which, what's this i'm hearing about McCain receiving funds from some individuals whom apparently have attachments to some company, i presume an oil company. Apparently, these people donated an amount many times their own gross income (or just twice as much), the problem, as i hear it is is that it was not reported as a donation from said company, but rather as a donation from a single individual. What's the weight on this story?

[pohibaba]

there's a difference between policy criticism and character assassination. when Obama starts airing ads about how McCain hates Asians, uses offensive language towards his wife, committed infidelity, has an anger problem, or is just plain too old to lead, let me know. policy criticism on the other hand is part of an election.

Even though the "facts" in the commercial aren't true?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

which government agency?

I would tend to consider the Department of Energy (of with the Energy Information Administration is a part) to be the authoritative source. so if the EIA/DOE says "200k bbls is what we'd get" they have a track record of being correct.

remember that the number of barrels present isn't necessarily the number of barrels recoverable, and the rate of recovery is not directly a function of how many barrels are recoverable (or present).

Minerals Management Service.

And I understand your second paragraph I just can't believe that according to your link, if production starts in 2017, 13 years later, we'll only be getting 200k more barrels. That just seems crazy.

[Kuya]

Knowing how the oil industry works makes it easier to understand, i'd wager.

[Beckwin]

Even though the "facts" in the commercial aren't true?

but actually they were? count direct contributions + "freedom watch" PAC or whatever contributions and the 2m figure lines up pretty well.

[aurik]

Minerals Management Service.

And I understand your second paragraph I just can't believe that according to your link, if production starts in 2017, 13 years later, we'll only be getting 200k more barrels. That just seems crazy.

Crazy hasn't stopped you from believing things before, why start now?

[Amele]

Minerals Management Service.

And I understand your second paragraph I just can't believe that according to your link, if production starts in 2017, 13 years later, we'll only be getting 200k more barrels. That just seems crazy.

the scales on which the oil industry (and other "Big Energy" projects) operates tends to boggle the mind, yes. its a huge and slow operation, etc.