US Election 2020

[cerebus]

I have a major problem with it. Whatever the problem, murdering children is never the solution.

It is the lady's body, fair enough, but the moment conception takes place the new child isn't her body anymore. It is a completely different person.

Well you'll be happy because this bill is aimed straight at you sir. It's pure anti-abortion dog-whistling

 

[cerebus]

Trump has been mumbling about the 'import meds from canada' stuff... I'm guessing it should almost be ready(no doubt saving it for closer to november). Just the general mumblings about it over the years has caused prices to drop for first time since 70s(already 10% down). If it goes though as planned and allows people to import their generic meds from canada, local manufacturers are going to **** themselves

Wow America's gonna become a welfare queen of Canada

 

[Unhappy438]

Democrats: separating parents from their children is evil.

Also Democrats: if a parent doesn't want their child, go ahead and kill it.

Hi neutral speedster, killing children is illegal, no democrat is trying to overturn that.

 

[Speedster]

PSA: this is said in 100% jest to illustrate the extreme nature of the position and ideology of a different forum member. Speedster this is not about you sir.

Well if we follow NBFTW's philosophy, that baby is its own person but can't afford medical aid or the rent of using occupancy of the mother's body. In this case NBFTW's position is clear that that person should be left to die because they can't pay their own way. If you want to help that baby then you can do so WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!!1!

By that logic any child should be able to be killed until they are able to financially fend for themselves, which is what, about 18 years old?

 

[Speedster]

Hi neutral speedster, killing children is illegal, no democrat is trying to overturn that.

Yet Americans still legally kill thousands of them daily?

 

[Gnarls]

Mkay.

So the reason that insulin costs less in Canada than the USA is because the government is less involved in healthcare in that country?

All they do is set a price ceiling mmkay?

Prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada because the government plays a big role in setting their prices.

Sauce

Do you even economics? Also:

Canadian patients waited a record 21.2 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist after being referred by their general practitioner in 2017, according to the latest survey of wait times by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think tank. That's a week longer than last year -- and more than double the corresponding figure from 1993, when Fraser began keeping track.

Patients with complex medical needs languished even longer. Those in need of neurosurgery, for instance, faced a median wait of nearly 33 weeks. For orthopedic surgery, wait times exceeded 41 weeks.

While months-long delays are routine in the Canadian system, years-long waits are not unprecedented. One Ontario patient was recently asked to wait four-and-a-half years to see a neurologist.

sauce

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

The Mises group is a far right "think" tank

are you actually serious???

 

[Ancalagon]

Well you'll be happy because this bill is aimed straight at you sir. It's pure anti-abortion dog-whistling

I'm pro-abortion, because I don't think that a bundle of cells is self aware enough for the pain of death to matter.

Nevertheless, the problem with any abortion debates is that the two groups are not actually debating the same thing.

That is to say, their positions on it are so different, that the two sides cannot be reconciled. Pro-choice people see it as a women's health issue, pro-life people see it as literal murder.

I can understand both sides, but I think more importantly, they will just never be reconciled. Nothing anyone does or says will make either side change their minds.

And there is no legal compromise that would suit. From the pro-life point of view, you can't make murder legal. They would see it the same as making involuntary euthanasia of the homeless legal. Even if it did not directly affect them, they would not want it to be legal in society.

 

[cerebus]

I'm pro-abortion, because I don't think that a bundle of cells is self aware enough for the pain of death to matter.

Nevertheless, the problem with any abortion debates is that the two groups are not actually debating the same thing.

That is to say, their positions on it are so different, that the two sides cannot be reconciled. Pro-choice people see it as a women's health issue, pro-life people see it as literal murder.

I can understand both sides, but I think more importantly, they will just never be reconciled. Nothing anyone does or says will make either side change their minds.

And there is no legal compromise that would suit. From the pro-life point of view, you can't make murder legal. They would see it the same as making involuntary euthanasia of the homeless legal. Even if it did not directly affect them, they would not want it to be legal in society.

All of which is fine and I agree, but then you need to be clear on what your real agenda is when you try to pass legislation. Don't act as though you're trying to protect babies who are going to be murdered by cold-blooded abortionists, when actually you're inventing a scenario that doesn't happen, and you're just trojan-horsing bills that are going to make the jobs of abortion providers much more risky, and not actually do anything to further their ostensible cause.

 

[Speedster]

I'm pro-abortion, because I don't think that a bundle of cells is self aware enough for the pain of death to matter.

Nevertheless, the problem with any abortion debates is that the two groups are not actually debating the same thing.

That is to say, their positions on it are so different, that the two sides cannot be reconciled. Pro-choice people see it as a women's health issue, pro-life people see it as literal murder.

I can understand both sides, but I think more importantly, they will just never be reconciled. Nothing anyone does or says will make either side change their minds.

And there is no legal compromise that would suit. From the pro-life point of view, you can't make murder legal. They would see it the same as making involuntary euthanasia of the homeless legal. Even if it did not directly affect them, they would not want it to be legal in society.

I agree with your summary of the positions. I don't agree that "pain of death" should be the threshold. If that we the case, a 3 month old infant would be abortable as they too won't notice the pain of death.

 

[Speedster]

All of which is fine and I agree, but then you need to be clear on what your real agenda is when you try to pass legislation. Don't act as though you're trying to protect babies who are going to be murdered by cold-blooded abortionists, when actually you're inventing a scenario that doesn't happen, and you're just trojan-horsing bills that are going to make the jobs of abortion providers much more risky, and not actually do anything to further their ostensible cause.

I don't think jobs of executioners is something that needs protecting.

 

[buka001]

are you actually serious???

Yes, even libertarians criticise them for their overt right wing cultural views.

 

[Ancalagon]

All of which is fine and I agree, but then you need to be clear on what your real agenda is when you try to pass legislation. Don't act as though you're trying to protect babies who are going to be murdered by cold-blooded abortionists, when actually you're inventing a scenario that doesn't happen, and you're just trojan-horsing bills that are going to make the jobs of abortion providers much more risky, and not actually do anything to further their ostensible cause.

But don't you get it? Read my post again.

That is exactly what they are worried about. For them, it is literally murder. They aren't lying. There is no ulterior motive to the legislation.

They literally believe it is murder, because they believe that a 3 week old fetus is alive, and the termination of it is murder.

Just think about it from their point of view. Abortion clinics to them would like gas chambers.

Now don't say, "But they aren't literally gas chambers." The point is, different points of view. You will never convince them.

Remember, just in case I'm not clear, I already agree with you. Abortions for everybody (health circumstances permitting). But they don't, and they never will, and they are being honest when they say they believe it is murder.

 

[cerebus]

But don't you get it? Read my post again.

That is exactly what they are worried about. For them, it is literally murder. They aren't lying. There is no ulterior motive to the legislation.

They literally believe it is murder, because they believe that a 3 week old fetus is alive, and the termination of it is murder.

Just think about it from their point of view. Abortion clinics to them would like gas chambers.

Now don't say, "But they aren't literally gas chambers." The point is, different points of view. You will never convince them.

Remember, just in case I'm not clear, I already agree with you. Abortions for everybody (health circumstances permitting). But they don't, and they never will, and they are being honest when they say they believe it is murder.

This bill has nothing to do with 3 week old babies. It’s supposedly about babies who are born alive after an abortion. On the surface it isn’t meant to be an anti-abortion bill at all

 

[Speedster]

This bill has nothing to do with 3 week old babies. It’s supposedly about babies who are born alive after an abortion. On the surface it isn’t meant to be an anti-abortion bill at all

And Democrats voted not to give those babies medical treatment?

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Yes, even libertarians criticise them for their overt right wing cultural views.

proof or STFU

the "think tank" you are most likely referring to fyi would be the Cato Institute which at least IS a self proclaimed think tank

Mises is purely academic with zero political links

 

[konfab]

LOL just LOL

Some facts:
1) Canada has a single payer healthcare system i.e. the government is 100% involved however supply of healthcare is privately owned so they have plenty of competition in who the gov buys the services from
2) Their pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated through their own FDA equivalent "Health Canada" and its associated agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Canada

I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. Reality just does not fit your narrative.

I actually do have some experience in this as we sell medical software in both the US and Canada.

Firstly, the amount of regulation you have to go though is f__king stupid and outdated. For example, there is nothing in the regulations about code coverage for unit and system tests.
Secondly, no-one is being protected (at least in terms of software) by the regulations, as the regulations simply slow down the software development cycle. Which means that you don't really want to deploy unless if you have a very good reason. You are thus incentivised to re-use as much as possible. Which leads to Boeing 737 max situations where you have one piece of software being completely re-purposed from its intended use because it has FDA certification.
Thirdly. Neither government does any sort of verification on whether the software you write actually conforms to what you say it does. They probably have some technologically illiterate bureaucrat making sure all the check marks are actually ticked.

Canada's system does decrease competition and raise barriers to entry. As you have to go through a metric f__ktonne of paper work and verification. And since they only renew their tenders every 4 years, you essentially have a monopoly once you get in. Which does mean that in some way you do get lower prices in the short term. But long term you won't get any savings.

To use the example of insulin:

The two doctors decided to find out why no one makes generic insulin. A University of Toronto medical team discovered insulin in 1921, and in 1923, the university, which held the first patent, gave drug companies the right to manufacture it and patent any improvements. In the 1930s and 1940s, pharmaceutical companies developed long-acting forms that allowed most patients to take a single daily injection. In the 1970s and 1980s, manufacturers improved the purity of cow- and pig-extracted insulin. Since then, several companies have developed synthetic analogs.
Biotech insulin is now the standard in the U.S., the authors say. Patents on the first synthetic insulin expired in 2014, but these newer forms are harder to copy, so the unpatented versions will go through a lengthy Food and Drug Administration approval process and cost more to make. When these insulins come on the market, they may cost just 20 to 40 percent less than the patented versions, Riggs and Greene write.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/new...people_with_diabetes_cant_buy_generic_insulin

What the Canukistanians are worried about though, is the fact that their regulated priced insulin is not able to meet the demand that the US is creating.

Kimberley Hanson is with Diabetes Canada and says insulin could be a medication in high demand south of the border.

“Even a 24-hour inability to access insulin could result in a medical emergency. This would mean, likely, greater demand on our emergency systems and certainly a lot of concerns.”

Hanson added that roughly 300,000 people across the country need Insulin in their lifetime.

Diabetes Canada is now taking their concerns to the federal government.

“We have written to the Minister of Health urging Health Canada to take decisive proactive action right away to prevent the bulk, re-exportation of medications from Canada such as insulin so as to avoid any kind of shortage.”

And it isn't just insulin that poses a problem.
Canada has website to track their drug shortages.
https://www.drugshortagescanada.ca/rws-search?perform=1

Can you imagine this happening with something like a PC component or a car?

Imagine Ze Germans:
"MEIN FUHERER, THOSE AMERICANS ARE BUYING TOO MANY OF OUR CARS, WE NEED TO CREATE LAWS TO STOP THEM FROM BUYING THEM"

So neither country is doing a good job of it.

 

[Temujin]

And Democrats voted not to give those babies medical treatment?

Correct, it was to force doctor to give medical treatment, stabilize it and get it to a hospital should it survive the abortion... not just let it die 'naturally' in the bin cos 'infanticide' is illegal.

 

[Unhappy438]

Yet Americans still legally kill thousands of them daily?

They absolutely do not.

 

[rietrot]

I'm pro-abortion, because I don't think that a bundle of cells is self aware enough for the pain of death to matter.

This could apply to 40 year olds if you catch them unaware and make it an instant kill.