Taxpayer Funded Health Care

kingstu · 05-09-2008, 07:05 PM

Since we have so many threads going about a similar topic...I thought I'd throw a twist on it...Let's say we switch to UHC (Universal Health Care) tomorrow. It will likely be private providers (mostly not for profits IMO) with taxpayer financing. Since the system will have limited resources (about 12% of GDP)...WHAT DO WE COVER?

Breast Augmentation?
Nose Jobs?
Liver Transplants?
Viagara?

How about the things that we shouldn't cover. Any thoughts?

**Zankou** · 05-09-2008, 07:58 PM

We should cover only aspirin, tylenol, advil, antibiotics, and GP diagnoses. That's my UHC model.

Btw, limited resources? 12% of the US GDP is "limited"? Christ almighty.

JSN · 05-09-2008, 08:05 PM

no viagra. if you can't get it up for a beautiful woman on your own, you don't deserve to have sex. quit drinking pepsi and eating mcdonald's you type II diabetes old wrinkled sick fucks.

kingstu · 05-09-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zankou

Btw, limited resources? 12% of the US GDP is "limited"? Christ almighty.

Divide that by 300 million and it gets used up pretty quick.

kingstu · 05-09-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSN

no viagra. if you can't get it up for a beautiful woman on your own, you don't deserve to have sex. quit drinking pepsi and eating mcdonald's you type II diabetes old wrinkled sick fucks.

1 no vote for Viagara.

NoFreeSpeech · 05-09-2008, 08:39 PM

Only drugs for chronic diseases and life-threatening conditions should be free. Most other drugs should be heavily subsidized. "Luxury" drugs should be full price.

Taxes on things like cigarettes and other consumption wares that directly affect the costs of health care.

Private insurance should of course be tax deductible. No need to pay twice.

Cosmetic surgery should stay private. Most dental care and liposuction should fall under things that people have to pay for themselves, since they are mostly preventable and caused by life style choices.

JSN · 05-09-2008, 10:00 PM

seriously though, i think you also have to look at what role the government played in the development of any given piece of technology, be it pharma, hi tech, or what have you.

despite idealized claims that private enterprises create all innovation, it's more often a complex intereaction between private businesses and the government, with uncle sam footing the largest part of the bill.

so like for the pharmagiants who are working with state universities, or funded by state dollars, or taking advantage of state research/technology, maybe it's time they have to give up some share of the intellectual property.

Throatpoker · 05-09-2008, 10:18 PM

I'm 22, can't sleep face down, can't have my girl's poodle and either ice cream, ketchup, peanut butter or brine in the same room, and have a sick obsession with chicks washing their cars...but I still vote for Viagra being #1 on the UHC coverage list.

**Montpelerin** · 05-09-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zankou

We should cover only aspirin, tylenol, advil, antibiotics, and GP diagnoses. That's my UHC model.

Btw, limited resources? 12% of the US GDP is "limited"? Christ almighty.

Serious question:

If things like aspirin, tylenol, advil, etc. are now covered by the UHC, does that mean we simply charge it to our medical number when we need to pick up a bottle from 7-11 on some random weekend night/morning?

Are these products now 'off the market'?

**Montpelerin** · 05-09-2008, 10:31 PM

An additional problem with UHC approved drugs...

Do we continue to allow patent protections?

Hell, if I am GlaxoSmithKline, I'm dumping almost my entire R&D department in favor of building my Washington Lobby to even bigger degree.

Can you imagine the ROI for UHC drug approvals with patent protection?

Edit: Good Luck banning boner pills from the list with the current voting block. AARP-FTL