The clip speaks for itself. Obama said himself we have the best healthcare in the world. Is he lying? His argument, and the argument of the disingenuous left, is that it is going to bankrupt us as currently structured. If true, then it is only true because of government involvement and coercion. An industry cannot price itself out of a consumers ability to pay. It would seek to exist if it did. However, thanks to government intrusion, that is exactly what has happened. Insurance is expensive BECAUSE of government.
Your clip title is a question. You want me to make a rational argument. I would but it would not matter to you. The fact that we have the best healthcare in the world is really i...

The clip speaks for itself. Obama said himself we have the best healthcare in the world. Is he lying? His argument, and the argument of the disingenuous left, is that it is going to bankrupt us as currently structured. If true, then it is only true because of government involvement and coercion. An industry cannot price itself out of a consumers ability to pay. It would seek to exist if it did. However, thanks to government intrusion, that is exactly what has happened. Insurance is expensive BECAUSE of government.
Your clip title is a question. You want me to make a rational argument. I would but it would not matter to you. The fact that we have the best healthcare in the world is really indisputable, so your choosing not to believe that says to me that you are not interested in rational arguments. Excuse me if I am not intent on pursuing the futile task of persuading you.
What do you care most about: quality healthcare, insuring the most impoverished among us, of state run healthcare? Your clip says to me that your priotity is for state run healthcare over the other two, because seeking the two former does not require the latter.

Ah willhelm, how I've missed our logic-free little chats. Let's walk through this one slowly. The clip describes a situation in which several promising cancer therapies are likely never to be explored, because they won't be profitable. Are you trying to say that the author is misrepresenting the facts? Or do you just not think this is a problem? Personally, I think it's a problem, but I can't tell whether you agree. Let's say it is. Are you suggesting that this is a problem that the free market is likely to solve? Or are you saying that it's a problem that the free market won't solve, but that there are no better options, so the problem will just have to remain unsolved?

From my perspectiv...

Ah willhelm, how I've missed our logic-free little chats. Let's walk through this one slowly. The clip describes a situation in which several promising cancer therapies are likely never to be explored, because they won't be profitable. Are you trying to say that the author is misrepresenting the facts? Or do you just not think this is a problem? Personally, I think it's a problem, but I can't tell whether you agree. Let's say it is. Are you suggesting that this is a problem that the free market is likely to solve? Or are you saying that it's a problem that the free market won't solve, but that there are no better options, so the problem will just have to remain unsolved?

From my perspective, I think it indicates a problem in the way drugs are developed. I don't know what the solution is, but to insist that everything is always best left to market forces to solve doesn't persuade me in this case.

And for the record, nothing in this clip mentions insurance or state-run health care. You brought those up, and I don't see how they're relevant here. I can only assume they're strawmen.

And whatever Obama said or didn't say, which is also beside the point here, I wouldn't claim we have the best health care system in the world. If that's what you're arguing, what measures are you basing it on? Most expensive, yes. Most effective, no.

And for everyone else here, this is a good example of how willhelm "argues." He likes to respond to an argument by saying, "I don't need to make an argument here. You're beyond persuasion. I mean, you either believe in X or you believe in Y, and since you obviously don't believe in X, you must believe in Y, and Y is so stupid that it proves I don't need to talk to you," where X and Y are basically whatever he thinks up at the moment. In this case, he says that i either care about "quality healthcare, insuring the most impoverished among us, of state run healthcare." (I assume "of" is supposed to be "or.") Notice that nothing in the discussion up to this point mentioned ANY of those ideas. Th...

And for everyone else here, this is a good example of how willhelm "argues." He likes to respond to an argument by saying, "I don't need to make an argument here. You're beyond persuasion. I mean, you either believe in X or you believe in Y, and since you obviously don't believe in X, you must believe in Y, and Y is so stupid that it proves I don't need to talk to you," where X and Y are basically whatever he thinks up at the moment. In this case, he says that i either care about "quality healthcare, insuring the most impoverished among us, of state run healthcare." (I assume "of" is supposed to be "or.") Notice that nothing in the discussion up to this point mentioned ANY of those ideas. Then, he says, again without any evidence, that since you can have either of the first two without the third, then I must care more about the third. See the logic there? Yeah, me neither.

Why will they not be profitable? How is it known they will not be profitable? Where has the American free market ever failed to provide the best innovation and advancement?

And for everyone else here, this is a good example of how willhelm
"argues." He likes to respond to an argument by saying, "I don't need
to make an argument here. You're beyond persuasion.

You are a liar, enbar, and you know it. I've spend vast amounts of time and energy explaining the facts and logic behind my arguments. The fact that I choose not to entertain the lunacy of this clip with you, when the facts are so obvious, is merely due to a long history of engagement with your ideological stubborn-ness...

Why will they not be profitable? How is it known they will not be profitable? Where has the American free market ever failed to provide the best innovation and advancement?

And for everyone else here, this is a good example of how willhelm
"argues." He likes to respond to an argument by saying, "I don't need
to make an argument here. You're beyond persuasion.

You are a liar, enbar, and you know it. I've spend vast amounts of time and energy explaining the facts and logic behind my arguments. The fact that I choose not to entertain the lunacy of this clip with you, when the facts are so obvious, is merely due to a long history of engagement with your ideological stubborn-ness. I choose not to entertain your preposterous premise. Besides, you have made absolutely no case here, nor does the clip. I know what you believe. You know what I believe. The fact that you make no argument to support the case, then say that I make no argument is just pure self-masturbatory fantasy. I like the straw man, though. Real masterpiece, that one. See, the issue is preposterous, unsupported, and idiotic assertions, like your clip title and masbury's comment. You cannot make a case to support the clip, so instead you lash out at me.
I was just challenging the premise. You didn't offer a response to that challenge, only a personal attack.

That's not "lashing out," willhelm. Lashing out is calling names, like "liar," "idiotic" and "masturbatory."

What you're not understanding here is that i made no argument because I'm not trying to prove an ideological point. What I'm doing is pointing out a problem. Whether these drugs will ever be profitable, of course, no one can say for certain, but the fact that the pharma companies have decided not to develop them because of their non-patentability is good evidence that they don't think the drugs will be profitable.

Or are you saying that good medicine is always profitable?

And as far as the strawman point is concerned, I stand by it, and I think anyone else who reads your ...

That's not "lashing out," willhelm. Lashing out is calling names, like "liar," "idiotic" and "masturbatory."

What you're not understanding here is that i made no argument because I'm not trying to prove an ideological point. What I'm doing is pointing out a problem. Whether these drugs will ever be profitable, of course, no one can say for certain, but the fact that the pharma companies have decided not to develop them because of their non-patentability is good evidence that they don't think the drugs will be profitable.

Or are you saying that good medicine is always profitable?

And as far as the strawman point is concerned, I stand by it, and I think anyone else who reads your comments will agree. What does insurance or "state-run healthcare" have to do with this clip? I see zero connection, and you haven't made one.

Willhelm, you baffle me. First, you haven't answered my question unless you tell me what you mean by "but, the premise is absurd." That could mean any number of things. Second, I didn't realized you'd asked a question. What was it? Was it the question "How do we know they'll never be profitable?" I addressed that two comments up. But let's go over it again. The answer, in case it wasn't clear, is that of course we do not know. As everyone knows, proving a counterfactual is impossible. What we do know is that the drugs can't be patented and that for this reason pharma companies have abandoned them. Or are you saying that the facts as presented in this clip are wrong? -- Or was there a differe...

Willhelm, you baffle me. First, you haven't answered my question unless you tell me what you mean by "but, the premise is absurd." That could mean any number of things. Second, I didn't realized you'd asked a question. What was it? Was it the question "How do we know they'll never be profitable?" I addressed that two comments up. But let's go over it again. The answer, in case it wasn't clear, is that of course we do not know. As everyone knows, proving a counterfactual is impossible. What we do know is that the drugs can't be patented and that for this reason pharma companies have abandoned them. Or are you saying that the facts as presented in this clip are wrong? -- Or was there a different question? And finally, do I understand you to be under the impression that I'm using this clip as a bit of ammunition to argue in favor of state-run health care? Did I say that somewhere, or are you just presuming to know what I'm thinking?

Enbar said:

Let me ask you this: what is the "case" you think I'm not supporting?
What is it that you're under the impression I'm arguing for?

I said:

you are trying to insist that this is an example where the free market
has failed and since health care is the topic of the day, and you are a
relentless progressive, that statist alternatives should be considered
to alleviate the problems the free market cannot remedy.

This is what I meant by your silly games.

You have an 800 pound gorilla in the room:

the argument has been made that we can't squeeze drug companies or we
won't have research. Truth is, for-profit research only goes to where
there's money...

read more»

Enbar said:

Let me ask you this: what is the "case" you think I'm not supporting?
What is it that you're under the impression I'm arguing for?

I said:

you are trying to insist that this is an example where the free market
has failed and since health care is the topic of the day, and you are a
relentless progressive, that statist alternatives should be considered
to alleviate the problems the free market cannot remedy.

This is what I meant by your silly games.

You have an 800 pound gorilla in the room:

the argument has been made that we can't squeeze drug companies or we
won't have research. Truth is, for-profit research only goes to where
there's money, not where the need is greatest.

If you want to say that I am applying a premise to you (That statist alternatives should be considered, when history supports a dismal track record for statist measures), then perhaps I am mistaken. I think not, though.

And finally, do I understand you to be under the impression that I'm
using this clip as a bit of ammunition to argue in favor of state-run
health care? Did I say that somewhere, or are you just presuming to
know what I'm thinking?

Give me a break. Title: Right, so tell me again how the "free market" is the best way to manage health-care delivery

And you blame the free market for a government restriction.

Masbury's comment:

the argument has been made that we can't squeeze drug companies or we
won't have research. Truth is, for-profit research only goes to where
there's money, not where the need is greatest.

Masbury makes a comment that has absolutely no grounding in reality. And you get all worked up in a tizzy because I assert that government intrusion is the ball and chain around technological or medical advancement. Geesh, dude, you're having one of those days.

I would never presume to know what you are thinking.

Willhelm, you're getting excited, and when you get excited you begin to get incoherent. This soup of random quotations from masbury and me does not help me understand your perspective at all.

It's illuminating that you say that "government intrusion is the ball and chain around technological or medical advancement" in your last comment, though. That's not why I'm in a tizzy, though, because if you look back over the last few comments, you'll see that this is the first time you actually clearly state that point. No one but you knew that that's what you were "asserting" until you actually said it.

So let me understand correctly: you're saying that free enterprise is always the best driver ...

Willhelm, you're getting excited, and when you get excited you begin to get incoherent. This soup of random quotations from masbury and me does not help me understand your perspective at all.

It's illuminating that you say that "government intrusion is the ball and chain around technological or medical advancement" in your last comment, though. That's not why I'm in a tizzy, though, because if you look back over the last few comments, you'll see that this is the first time you actually clearly state that point. No one but you knew that that's what you were "asserting" until you actually said it.

So let me understand correctly: you're saying that free enterprise is always the best driver of medical and technological progress, no exceptions?

Darnit, enbar. I did not say you were having a tirade. I said that your insinuations about me and past episodes lead me to believe that you are more likely projecting your own disposition. Criminy, dude. Are you just looking for an argument?

I'm just trying to parse what you're saying.

There is no need to parse what I'm saying. Life is so much better when read or listen listen instead of parse.

And before you get all mad, I'm just asking.

I never got mad. You apparently did. I was the one that asked questions. And, you know what? You didn't answer mine.

Frankly, your contentiousness does not match anything I have contributed, wisely or unwisely. I made a si...

Darnit, enbar. I did not say you were having a tirade. I said that your insinuations about me and past episodes lead me to believe that you are more likely projecting your own disposition. Criminy, dude. Are you just looking for an argument?

I'm just trying to parse what you're saying.

There is no need to parse what I'm saying. Life is so much better when read or listen listen instead of parse.

And before you get all mad, I'm just asking.

I never got mad. You apparently did. I was the one that asked questions. And, you know what? You didn't answer mine.

Frankly, your contentiousness does not match anything I have contributed, wisely or unwisely. I made a simple comment that was reflective of my view about the insinuations of this clip and subsequent comments...1. that you are trying to insist that this is an example where the free market
has failed and since health care is the topic of the day, and you are a
relentless progressive, that statist alternatives should be considered
to alleviate the problems the free market cannot remedy. and 2. via masbury: " the argument has been made that we can't squeeze drug companies or we
won't have research. Truth is, for-profit research only goes to where
there's money, not where the need is greatest."

Your clip title suggestively asked a question. When you can can give me an example of healthcare operating more effectively and efficiently under some paradigm other than the free market, then you will have a case. But having selective outrage at my comments doesn't do anyone any good.

You, right off the bat, implied I was being logic-free. Really? Because I assert this is the best health system in the world? I am just not going to debate one who believes unicorns pull wagons better than horses.