I wish I was American, so I could vote against the GOP

[teadrinker]

I'm an Australian, but in the spirit of keeping up with modern politics, last night I sat down and had a look through the 2012 Republican Platform. I've always had the idea the the GOP stood for small things: small government, small mindedness, small ideas, small vision etc. However, on reading through (only some) of the Platform, I've come to the conclusion that these guys are actively dangerous. Their stand on such matters as same-sex marriage (and education) are not just small-minded and petty, but truly hateful. Worth reading.

Well, as my title says, if I was an American (and I can think of lots worse things!), I'd consider it a civic duty to vote against these madmen.

My sense of history is pretty poor, but surely there was a time when the GOP was a least a little more open-minded, intelligent and far-seeing than their modern embodiment?

-T.

[kcboi]

God bless you for your insight and thoughts!!! I wish you could vote too and help get rid of the ridiculous ideology and crazy thinking that has taken over the brains of the GOP... and unfortunately the President did himself NO FAVORS in the debate last night... it was frightening.

[CowboyBob]

I wish you could vote these people out too.

The modern-day republican party is the American version of the Taliban. They're out to destroy the American way of life and work only for the wealthy and corporations. They use the Karl Rove "divide and conquer" war technique to keep Americans fighting amongst themselves. Republicans exploit those who cling to guns and religion altho the politicians don't really care about those two topics. They're just in it for the votes. Google "republican sex scandals" and you'll see just how un-religious these people are.

They pit one group of people against another..... christians vs gays for example. They demonize groups of people, usually people that can't defend themselves..... the poor, the elderly, "welfare mothers". They demonize Muslims, immigrants (shit, the USA is a country of immigrants), gays, minorities. They massage the fears and prejudices of Americans.

Republicans realize they can't win elections fairly so they need to cheat by suppressing voting by any means possible. The fewer the voters the better chance they have of winning.

Republicans used to be fiscally responsible a generation or two ago. They insisted on paying for things but now they put everything on credit. "Borrow and Spend". Reagan quadrupled the debt and Bush doubled it. They're silent about the debt when they're in office but the minute they're out they scream non stop about it.

Republican policies have repeatedly failed but they still cling to them. All that matters to them is making the rich richer. That's all they care about.

Yes I wish you could vote them out too. God forbid if this wave of comes to Australia. They would collapse your country the way they did America.

[White Eagle]

I will sponsor you. Come on down, or up in your case.
Wish you could vote for us too.

[future_boy]

I agree. I live in pretty conservative country myself,and I can see that GOP is dangerous to America. I don't understand why there are still people who support this outdated party who do nothing but obstruct and don't compromise at all. The scary thing is I see so many similarities between Republican and some religious party in my country. Isn't US supposed to be better than that?? When I was growing up,I always have rosy picture of America in my mind. But the last decade (Bush era) pretty much obliterated all of it. I still have hope that America will rise up again and be the country that every nations in the world respect. I hope GOP will lose badly in November so that they can move to the center again,while Democrat can move to the left as they used to.

[CowboyBob]

Republicans are not only a danger to the USA, they're dangerous to the world.

When they making jokes about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran", invade sovereign nations, murder their leader and lie about it, collapse American's economy which brings down other countries economies they're a threat to the world.

Millions of us are doing our best to rid the world of this dangerous parasitic political party. Unfortunately they've successfully brainwashed millions into voting against their best interests.

[rareboy]

Oh just fly over and vote against them anyway.

I think that the entire world has just cause to fear the modern Republican party of the United States.

[Lostlover]

You're exactly right Teadrinker. You have a good grasp of the situation here in America. It sucks. We only have one party and that party (up until this election) has been selling us up the river.

[Jack Springer]

The sad truth, teadrinker, could vote in many of the states. He could register and vote the same day -- no proof of citizenship needed.

[maxpowr9]

Oh just fly over and vote against them anyway.

I think that the entire world has just cause to fear the modern Republican party of the United States.

Particularly I find it coincidental that Europe, particularly the EU fear a Romney presidency. If Romney does get elected, I can guarantee he will be going into Iran with only Israel at his side. After Iraq, they will not make the same mistake twice.

[Telstra]

.
You are not alone.
From the outside looking in, the republicans are not nice, another words for "mean and tricky".

[chance1]

not sure what's worse

the "i wish i could vote in the u.s." or the mad rantings about american taliban

or about "romney will take us to war" by a usually reasoned fellow

independent? supporting liz warren and saying that mitt will take us to war?

not so much

[cityboy-stl]

My sense of history is pretty poor, but surely there was a time when the GOP was a least a little more open-minded, intelligent and far-seeing than their modern embodiment?
-T.

That would be Theodore Roosevelt, President from 1901 to 1909.

[bankside]

I wish I were Australian - I enjoy the politics and the news coverage of it down there. Far less posturing; much more exchange and debate of actual ideas.

[Kulindahr]

I wish I had a time machine, and could bring Dwight Eisenhower forward to chastise the current GOP and get them to grow up... and become republicans again.

[frankfrank]

^ KULINDAHR...referenced for truth!

As for the OP question which hasn't really been addressed directly - YES, there was a time when the republican Party was much more sensible. Even looking back on the "first" Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush (in office 1989 to 1993), was a pretty darn reasonable saint compared to where the Republican Party stands now. He would be entirely unwelcome in today's Party.

Also consider that, under Eisenhower, the MASSIVE infrastructure investment of criss-crossing a VERY large nation with limited-access, high-speed highways (which have paid for themselves many times over by the efficiencies and modernization that they introduced) was sanctioned and started. Republican investments in helpful infrastructure NOW? No, I don't think so.

[Kulindahr]

^ KULINDAHR...referenced for truth!

As for the OP question which hasn't really been addressed directly - YES, there was a time when the republican Party was much more sensible. Even looking back on the "first" Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush (in office 1989 to 1993), was a pretty darn reasonable saint compared to where the Republican Party stands now. He would be entirely unwelcome in today's Party.

Also consider that, under Eisenhower, the MASSIVE infrastructure investment of criss-crossing a VERY large nation with limited-access, high-speed highways (which have paid for themselves many times over by the efficiencies and modernization that they introduced) was sanctioned and started. Republican investments in helpful infrastructure NOW? No, I don't think so.

Every dollar spent on infrastructure under Eisenhower returned over six times that to the economy. It's even likely that the revenues thus generated over the next thirty years paid for the work.

Obviously we don't have the same sort of infrastructure gap as we did then, but we have one that's still substantial. Many parts of the country are still using 1950s-60s roads that just don't handle today's traffic, for example, which means freight moves more slowly, more gas is burned, and safety is compromised. We have an incredible amount of infrastructure in need of repair and (long-) deferred maintenance, the improvement of which would save immense costs down the line. And on top of it we have the opportunity to catch up with others by putting in some bullet trains to take some of the pressure off an overloaded air travel system.

[Benvolio]

Eisenhower would be appalled at the rate we are going into debt. He would not have built the interstate highway under these circumstances. Democrats babble about the infrastructure but they want fewer than half the country to pay for everything, until they are sucked dry, down to the level of socialist equality.

[cityboy-stl]

^ Give me break. The rich are richer now than ever have been in our history. The rich were paying what under Eisenhower, 90%. Democrats do not want to suck the rich dry. They want them to pay their fair share. My tax rate is higher than Mitt Romney's and believe me he makes a hell of a lot more than I do. The rich should be paying a higher rate not a lower rate. By higher rate I do not mean the Eisenhower 90%. I mean taxes on the rich should be higher than on the middle class.

Yes we do have massive debt now. We had a surplus in 2000. So what happened between then and now? What happened to cause that debt?

1. The Bush republican recession.
2. The Bush republican tax cuts.
3. The Bush republican wars.
4. The Bush republican unfunded Medicare prescription drug entitlement.

Now, I think the Medicare prescription drug entitlement is a good thing. What I don't like is the fact that republicans did nothing to fund it.
I am sick to death of hearing republicans whine about the debt when they themselves are to blame for it.
When, oh when, will republicans ever take responsibility for causing the problem instead of trying to blame President Obama and then blocking every effort to fix it?

[T-Rexx]

^ Outstanding post, cityboy!

[Kulindahr]

^ Give me break. The rich are richer now than ever have been in our history. The rich were paying what under Eisenhower, 90%. Democrats do not want to suck the rich dry. They want them to pay their fair share. My tax rate is higher than Mitt Romney's and believe me he makes a hell of a lot more than I do. The rich should be paying a higher rate not a lower rate. By higher rate I do not mean the Eisenhower 90%. I mean taxes on the rich should be higher than on the middle class.

Yes we do have massive debt now. We had a surplus in 2000. So what happened between then and now? What happened to cause that debt?

1. The Bush republican recession.
2. The Bush republican tax cuts.
3. The Bush republican wars.
4. The Bush republican unfunded Medicare prescription drug entitlement.

Now, I think the Medicare prescription drug entitlement is a good thing. What I don't like is the fact that republicans did nothing to fund it.
I am sick to death of hearing republicans whine about the debt when they themselves are to blame for it.
When, oh when, will republicans ever take responsibility for causing the problem instead of trying to blame President Obama and then blocking every effort to fix it?

Superbly done.

[DigitalFudge]

I'm an Australian, but in the spirit of keeping up with modern politics, last night I sat down and had a look through the 2012 Republican Platform. I've always had the idea the the GOP stood for small things: small government, small mindedness, small ideas, small vision etc. However, on reading through (only some) of the Platform, I've come to the conclusion that these guys are actively dangerous. Their stand on such matters as same-sex marriage (and education) are not just small-minded and petty, but truly hateful. Worth reading.

Well, as my title says, if I was an American (and I can think of lots worse things!), I'd consider it a civic duty to vote against these madmen.

My sense of history is pretty poor, but surely there was a time when the GOP was a least a little more open-minded, intelligent and far-seeing than their modern embodiment?

-T.

Wish you were here too

[Benvolio]

The next time you go to the Doctor ask him what percentage of new drugs and medical devices are developed in the US. That is part of what is at stake in our election. Obama care will impose price limitations on new drugs and devices, stifling research and development. It already has imposed a new surtax on medical devices. Obama has zero understanding of free enterprise. All he can see is that some are making a profit from other people's illness. He thinks he can kill the goose and still get the golden eggs.

[rareboy]

^ All of that is purely nonsense and you know it.

Tell us though, with cites and stats.

What percentage of new drugs and medical devices are developed in the US? Exclude all international companies, because they will have the products in development globally.

What percentage of devices and drugs are in development by so called 'socialized countries'?

Funnellling billions of healthcare dollars into insurance company bureaucracies doesn't aid research and development.

You have nothing to stand on when it comes to healthcare. Period.

[Benvolio]

Even foreign companies spend for research relying on the expectation of selling into the vast US market without price limitations. Research world wide will now diminish.
Notice that a big part of Obama's plan is to reduce payments to Doctor and hospitals for Medicare by 716,000, never caring the many will stop accepting medicare patients. That is just the beginng of the downward spiral.

[rareboy]

Again.

Nonsensical statements. Made without any facts or even reasonable logic. The idea that health care research world wide will flounder because everyone in the US has access to affordable care is just simply ridiculous.

You've never travelled to Europe have you?

Socialized medicine would in fact, help the companies bottom line because so many more of the uninsured or underinsured would have access to their products and services.

[Telstra]

The next time you go to the Doctor ask him what percentage of new drugs and medical devices are developed in the US. That is part of what is at stake in our election. Obama care will impose price limitations on new drugs and devices, stifling research and development. It already has imposed a new surtax on medical devices. Obama has zero understanding of free enterprise. All he can see is that some are making a profit from other people's illness. He thinks he can kill the goose and still get the golden eggs.

Actually free enterprise is stifling research and development.

Examples:
all the scientific break through are achieved by government grants.

[Benvolio]

That is not true. More importantly only private enterprise provides the hundreds of millions needed to test, get FDA approval and bring it to production.

[Telstra]

That is not true. More importantly only private enterprise provides the hundreds of millions needed to test, get FDA approval and bring it to production.

All the noble science winners came from government grants.
Private enterprise don't do basic research. They do produce the final product like ipad to make money.

[Benvolio]

All the noble science winners came from government grants.
Private enterprise don't do basic research. They do produce the final product like ipad to make money.

It is absurd to say that ALL nobel science winners came from government grants. Prove it.

[Kulindahr]

All the noble science winners came from government grants.
Private enterprise don't do basic research. They do produce the final product like ipad to make money.

Not true. Scientists from Bell Labs have scored a dozen Nobel Prizes, and others from DuPont laboratories have scored others. They're both private enterprise labs, not government.

[Kulindahr]

Most technological and scientific advancement comes from government enterprise, government grants and government funding. CERN for example is widely government funded.

Also what is it are we using right now? The internet. The precursor was the ARPANet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

Who created ARPANET, which revolutionized the way we do business? The GOVERNMENT (well to say specifically, government FUNDING).

Interestingly, this is a situation that has been true only since WW II. Before that, research and development were indeed private endeavors. What's more interesting is the fact that with government involvement, the amount, pace, and fruits of research increased immensely. The real problem with government research is not being government funded, but government-directed: at that point, it devolves into something resembling corporate research of the sort in which the tobacco companies engaged.

[frankfrank]

I wish I was American, so I could vote against the GOP

I wish I was Canadian, so that I'd be living in a country which has a much more civilised electorate. I can't believe that Romney-Ryan would have even gotten 8% support in this country, but to so many the "R" is ALL that matters. They'd vote Republican even if it guaranteed their one-way trip to the gas chamber.

Then, if I were Canadian, I'd probably wish I was American, so I could vote against the GOP. (The malignancy is most likely trying to metastasize to Canada as I write this, and in fact has already affected the office of the Prime Minister in Ottawa, in the person of Harper.)

Such a conundrum here.

[Kulindahr]

^
"R" has a good hundred electoral votes guaranteed from the start due to the racist states.

[star-warrior]

The next time you go to the Doctor ask him what percentage of new drugs and medical devices are developed in the US. That is part of what is at stake in our election. Obama care will impose price limitations on new drugs and devices, stifling research and development. It already has imposed a new surtax on medical devices. Obama has zero understanding of free enterprise. All he can see is that some are making a profit from other people's illness. He thinks he can kill the goose and still get the golden eggs.

The stake everyone has in your election is for stable and sane governance where the needs of the people are met, not the corporations that are people, my friend, type of people. Everyone gets sick sometimes, and to be able to afford medicine would have been better if the bulk purchasing power the government could have had wasn't voted away by those who are interested in furthering big pharma's deep pockets.

I pay £104 this year in the UK for a 'pre-payment certificate' which allows me to get all the medicines I need no matter what or how much I need. For example, I'm currently on 3 types of tablets for hypertension, and get 4-weekly prescriptions. The individual cost of each item is set at £7.65 each, without the ppc, it would be 13x3x7.65=£298.35. Irrespective of how expensive the individual drug is at retail, we're guaranteed the price of these drugs at £7.65 for each item ordered. With a ppc, if I get bitten by a bug and I developed an infection, I would not have to pay anything more, the £104 covers every item of medication for the whole year.

I fell seriously ill and needed to be treated at A&E, there would be nobody asking me for medical insurance details, the NHS covers my stay in hospital, whether its a few hours to many months or longer.

Moreover, for the young, those who are under 16, and those in full time education past 16 as well as those seniors who are aged 60 and over, there is no cost for medicines. This ensures the best start for those who are our future, as well as safeguarding those who are most vulnerable in their old age.

I find it barbaric that health insurance companies would deny cover to those that have certain ailments on the basis of their bottom line, with cowardly clauses hidden away in their contracts. I don't want ever to see such a system arrive in my country where the most vulnerable are at the mercy of profit mongering insurance or big pharmaceutical companies. When you say innovation would be stifled if price limitations were slapped on them, think of all the people who will not be able to afford the medicines now at this time.

If R&D in the UK is still viable even though the government's block purchasing power allows it to dictate to those pharnaceutical companies what its will to pay for the medicines its users need, then yours is an argument for unnecessary suffering for poorer people who cannot afford the medications that obamacare would otherwise provide for.

[Benvolio]

If insurance companies insured preexisting illnesses, the companies would cease to exist. If would be like a fire insurance company agreeing to insure houses already on fire. People would not buy insurance until the need arose. Then the costs would far exceed the premiums and the companies would go broke.
Recognizing this the Obama plan is to force everyone to buy insurance at excessive premiums, out of proportion to their risk. BUT people who are deemed to be unable to pay for insurance--mostly Democrat constituents--will have all or part of their premiums paid by the government. Since a majority of voters are considered too poor to pay income taxes, we must assume that a majority will be deemed too poor to pay for insurance. So, the minority who pay taxes will now have to pay excess premiums for their insurance AND will have to buy insurance for the majority who get a free ride on income taxes. And, the minority who pay will have to see their health care degraded, as they wait in long lines as in the socialist countries. And new developments will slow to a virtual halt as drug and device countries are deprived of the profit motive and capital.
The next time you go to your UK doctor, ask him what percentage of new developments come from the US. Even UK companies investing in research are anticipating being able to recoup their investments from selling into the vast US market without price controls.

[rareboy]

^ Load of crap.

There are as many important breakthroughs in medicine in countries with socialized medicine (like Canada) as the US.

The medical research industry is globalized and isn't just some bizarre race for US patents and rampant price gouging.

In fact, the medical technology and pharmaceutical industry prefers universal healthcare countries because they have a stable market share targeted to 100% of the population.

Face it. The American system consistently produces higher case costs with poorer per capita outcomes compared to the other western nations. The people of the US are getting raped by insurers who are making them pay the staggering and wasteful bureacratic costs without getting the best value for their health care dollar.

A single payer health insurance system would make the US more competitive and productive again. A shift to lower cost primary care away from the more costly interventional secondary and tertiary care provided when the condition has been left to progress would allow every American family to have more security at less cost.

[Benvolio]

Virtually nothing you said can be substantiated. But we cannot afford a socialist system, since a majority are exempt from income taxation. Who would pay for it? And when you have sucked the tax paying minority dry, who then?

[rareboy]

I can guarantee you that the trillions that the corporations, governments and individuals are pouring into the coffers of the insurance companies would actually go a lot farther with a single payer system. And health care isn't only paid for by income tax.

About 100% of Americans do pay tax.

And if the US deployed resources for health care instead of into the balance sheets of multi-national defense industry corporations...or rolled back the unecessary expenditures on the military....you'd be amazed at what the US might be able to afford for its citizens.

...and with the crushing costs of employee health insurance off their balance sheets...American industry could certainly be more competitive again. It might just start bringing a lot of jobs back.

And about 100% of what I am suggesting can be substantiated. Prove me wrong.

[bankside]

Virtually nothing you said can be substantiated. But we cannot afford a socialist system, since a majority are exempt from income taxation. Who would pay for it? And when you have sucked the tax paying minority dry, who then?

You need to learn about socialism so you understand once and for all that taxation of privately owned capital is not socialism. State ownership of capital is socialism.

I can guarantee you that the trillions that the corporations, governments and individuals are pouring into the coffers of the insurance companies would actually go a lot farther with a single payer system. And health care isn't only paid for by income tax.

About 100% of Americans do pay tax.

And if the US deployed resources for health care instead of into the balance sheets of multi-national defense industry corporations...or rolled back the unecessary expenditures on the military....you'd be amazed at what the US might be able to afford for its citizens.

...and with the crushing costs of employee health insurance off their balance sheets...American industry could certainly be more competitive again. It might just start bringing a lot of jobs back.

And about 100% of what I am suggesting can be substantiated. Prove me wrong.

I hate to say it but it is conventional for you to do the proving. I don't think it will be difficult.

[Kulindahr]

There's no denying that getting the cost of medical care off employers would be a great stimulus to the economy. There's no denying that Omaba's health bill is not socialism -- it's corporatism, the government working for big insurance to provide guaranteed customers. Like Romney did at Bain, it's corporate plundering of the taxpayer.

[Benvolio]

There's no denying that getting the cost of medical care off employers would be a great stimulus to the economy. There's no denying that Omaba's health bill is not socialism -- it's corporatism, the government working for big insurance to provide guaranteed customers. Like Romney did at Bain, it's corporate plundering of the taxpayer.

Remenber that for all those the Dems deem unable to pay for their insurance, the government will pay for it. It is socialised medicine for at least half the people. That number we can be sure will expand as the Dems use the promise of free insurance to buy votes, leaving a minority to pay for the while thing.

[opinterph]

… a majority are exempt from income taxation.

Remenber that for all those the Dems deem unable to pay for their insurance, the government will pay for it. It is socialised medicine for at least half the people.

I think the federal subsidy is based upon income relative to premium cost. It is not linked to payment of federal income tax, nor is it restricted to Democrats.

[JayHawk]

Based on the health care status of most red states the law and the peoples money would end up paying for insurance for the republicans more so than democrats.

The cool thing is it covers all of us no matter how much a person doesn't want health care until they need it.

[Benvolio]

I think the federal subsidy is based upon income relative to premium cost. It is not linked to payment of federal income tax, nor is it restricted to Democrats.

I agree, but we are told that more than half of the people cannot afford to pay ANY income tax, so we can conclude that the Dems will decide that they also cannot pay for their health care premiums. Since whites tend to earn more than minorities, and minorities tend to vote Democrat, the ones getting the free insurance will tend to be Democrat and the ones paying for their own insurance at inflated premiums plus income tax to support the others will tend to be Republicans.
We will have socialized medicine for half the people and bigger premiums and taxes for the other half.

[Kulindahr]

I think the federal subsidy is based upon income relative to premium cost. It is not linked to payment of federal income tax, nor is it restricted to Democrats.

Yep. And by the statistics, there would be more Republicans than Democrats being subsidized.

Not that we should care: that sort of partisan hatred is destroying the country; the point should be that AMERICANS are getting helped, and those with the wealth to contribute and support that help should be proud of their participation to make it possible.

That's where the Romney/Ryan/Republican philosophy these days is vile: it's built on despising everyone who isn't on your "team", but moreso despising everyone who isn't wealthy. There's no sense of humanity, no sense of this being a country, no sense of America as something unique to be fought for and bonded together; all they see is "consumers" waiting to be fleeced of whatever they have, even when there's not enough to get by.

[Kulindahr]

Total nonsense. Half of the people cannot afford to pay any income tax? That's a false claim that has never been backed up. I would like to see some proof. Capital gains tax is the lowest it has been in 70 years. A better concept of socialized medicine will show you how it is actually more efficient then what we have now.

The Tax Policy Center reported 46% paid no federal income tax in 2011; the year before it was 48%.

[star-warrior]

Since a majority of voters are considered too poor to pay income taxes, we must assume that a majority will be deemed too poor to pay for insurance. So, the minority who pay taxes will now have to pay excess premiums for their insurance AND will have to buy insurance for the majority who get a free ride on income taxes. And, the minority who pay will have to see their health care degraded, as they wait in long lines as in the socialist countries. And new developments will slow to a virtual halt as drug and device countries are deprived of the profit motive and capital.

Are there no other sources of tax the government uses other than income tax? The poor need to buy fuel to heat their homes, run their cars or find it as a component of their travel expenses as the price of the bus tickets. The poor sometime go to restaurants too to buy food and have a sit down in house meal, which is taxable in most states. Moreover they need to buy clothing and other everyday taxable consumables and contribute indirectly to tax income for the government. To use 'income tax' as the prime example of how poor people don't pay tax is just a load of right wing wool pulling. Everyone has seen their fuel and food prices rise. You cannot make food without the input of energy costs such as in transportation, and manufacting processes. Everyone contributes, if they have to pay to keep their families alive. As such, everyone who pays taxes directly or indirectly helps and in my humble opinion deserves to be helped in return.

The next time you go to your UK doctor, ask him what percentage of new developments come from the US. Even UK companies investing in research are anticipating being able to recoup their investments from selling into the vast US market without price controls.

Businesses are businesses, they make money. But if governments had a block purchasing power that can be used to negotiate a fair price for the ordinary citizen. You're saying that's bad, even though a fair price has been agreed by the government and the pharmaceutical company?

Before the NHS was founded, you had to have money to see a doctor, and if you didn't you did without. If this the type of society you champion, where the vulnerable die from treatable medical problems just because they're poor? This is what the UK government does for its citizens, they make affordable healthcare possible for the majority of the people rather than just for those who can afford to pay for health care. Our direct and indirect taxes make that possible, so don't tell me people who don't pay income tax are scroungers, they're actually paying for it indirectly in other ways.

[Benvolio]

Taxes paid to the states are not relevant here. The insurance policies for all those deemed to
be unable to afford it will be paid by the federal government from federal taxes and borrowings. People who do not pay income taxes do pay small amounts for gas, alcohol and tobacco taxes nwhich will be a drop in the healthcare bill.
Drug companies will not be foolish enough to invest billions in the development of new drugs, relying on the mercy of federal beaurucrats to allow them a price which will enable them to recoup the investment. Negotiated or agreed prices are really prices dictated by the bureaucrats. The federal government will be under constant pressure to keep prices down. Even the people of the UK will be effected by the drying up of new developments.

[rareboy]

Taxes paid to states are relevant here.

Canada's health care system is funded at both the federal transfer level and the provincial tax level.

You are utterly mistaken thinking that drug companies would stop investing in new drugs.

Your vision of a dystopian society where only the very wealthy and the party apparatchiks are able to afford drugs and health care is bone chilling and depressing in its wilful ignorance. There is no reason why the US cannot enjoy the same high quality of healthcare as the other industrialized western countries....why you are desperate to only have a system that supports the bottom line for the global pharma industry and the insurance companies is utterly beyond me.