National healthcare and the U.S.

[gkearneycaptain of 100]

I had an encounter the other day and figured ther would be some interesting comments about it from these forums.

Like many other developed nations Australia has a national health scheme to which everyone is enrolled and for which 1.5% of your income goes to pay for. Medicare as it is called also is the single buyer of drugs for the whole country.

I encountered an American in the state library that had in interesting observation and objection on this that I have never heard before. He stated that national health plans in other nations such as Australia's placed American companies at a competitive disadvantage because while they had to buy expensive health insurance for their employees companies overseas did not have these costs due to the national health cover. He felt the U.S. government should impose tariffs to even this out.

His other objection which he felt was even worse was the single national buyer of drugs. As in Canada we has such a system which in effect tells the drug companies how much we will pay for their product. Now the drug companies can say they will not sell it at that price but there is a catch and that is that Australia or Canada can simply void the patent protection on the drug and let some local company make it. No drug company wants that so they always agree to the price. My American said this is nothing short of extortion and drives up the prices for drugs in the U.S. as it is the only major world market that does not have this kind of one payer system. In effect he says the people of the U.S. are subsidising Australian health care.

Any thoughts on this?

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

I think it's delightful that other countries aren't afraid to void patents and allow a local company to produce the drugs at a more reasonable price. Intellectual property and patent laws have been the bludgeon of large corporations and unscrupulous men to essentially turn creative and inventive people into their slaves. Like in many other instances, it's an example of private businesses using the government as their thugs, in this case via the court system, to allow them to legally rob others.

I think it's funny that proponents of strict patent enforcement say that without it people would be robbed of their work, when right now that's exactly what's happening.

[gkearneycaptain of 100]

I do not believe that Australia has ever had to carry out the threat to void a drug patent. Just the fact that we could do so seems to bring the drug companies to heal.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

Agreed regarding patents. How many shows are there with venture capitalists ripping off people's patents because the gap to successful development is all but impossible to them? The patentee seldom makes much at all, the leaches make it all. From a gospel perspective the idea of selling inspiration from heaven for money after securing legal protection for it, I find most abominable. There are no new ideas just old ones Eons old being shared with hoarders. Where's a Gollum smiley when you really need one?

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

It's interesting that this topic turned to intellectual property. I suppose of all the issues that gkearney brought up, it is the core issue.

To rephrase the issue of people in the USA subsidizing healthcare in other parts of the world, I think of it this way: the pharmaceutical companies collaborate to use the coercive force of the US Government to do a number of things:

1. force taxpayers to pay for drugs for other people (mostly through MediCare/Medicaid); in the USA this is over half of the pharma market

2. keep competition out of the marketplace; IP law is a big part of this as it drives pharma companies to adulterate naturally occurring compounds and combinations of compounds, and it significantly increases prices under threat of violence; this includes natural substances that compete with their products; the most significant examples of this are probably opioids and marijuana, both of which are considered "evil" because of laws against them, but both are sold in adulterated forms (ie modified from God's original design) by pharma companies; other examples of this includes various herbs that have been either banned, or whose manufacturers have been attacked and sometimes shut down by the FDA, FCC, DEA, FBI, and other federal agencies

3. force certain people to take their drugs, especially children and elderly people who are "wards of the state", even temporarily

In short, the US Govt is favoring pharma companies who help fund govt operations and in turn many people are hurt both physically and financially.

If other countries, such as Australia, don't want to play this game or want to play it in a different way, that's probably a good thing. People in other countries may be benefitting from this crazy situation in the USA and all of the theft and harm associated with it, but they bear no fault. The fault lies squarely with the US Govt that collaborates with pharma companies and together they pillage and loot and rape their way into history.

I create so called "intellectual property" for a living, but after my first job creating commercial software (in a company that did both commercial and open source software) it was very clear to me that the people create the IP generally don't benefit much and they are always beholden to those who are over them with money and the law to keep IP creators in-line. At the time it bothered me but I didn't understand it like I do now. After over a decade of working in the world of free and open-source software, I'm very glad I made that decision. It has been far better for me personally and financially, and I think ultimately better morally as well.

Based on all of this I have a lot of respect for governments that don't respect intellectual property, even though that may sound funny. It takes a lot to stand up to massive organizations like the US Government and the multi-billion dollar pharma companies that spread their poison and power around the world.

The way I think of IP law, including patents, copyright, trademark law, etc is that it places the rights for intangible ideas over the rights for personal property and freedom. In other words, if you are found guilty of violating so-called intellectual property "rights" of another person, the government will in turn violate you of your rights to keep your property (money, goods, even real-estate, anything really) and/or your freedom by putting you in a cage and controlling every aspect of your life while you are there, and then putting restrictions on you designed to keep you impoverished and get you back into prison as soon as possible.

How is that moral? Even stepping back a bit, how does restricting the communication and use of ideas help anyone?

There are better ways to make money, better and more collaborative ways to invent things, and more peaceful ways to deal with one's neighbors.

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

The US has a national healthcare system. It is called the ER. The ER is required by law to medically screen everyone who walks in the door regardless of their ability to pay. Of course, after you go to the trouble of medically screening someone, you might as well, treat them. The hard part has been done. If they have a medical issue, then it gets taken care of. Most ED doctors (not all) dont mind this requirement to see and screen. Most of us take pride that we have never turned anyone away who felt they needed to see a doctor. Some ED's are beginning to screen patients at the door and turn the uninsured away if they do not have insurance and cannot pay a copay at the door. However, this is a small minority. Personally. I wouldn't work for an ED that turned people away.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

We also have government run health care in the form of having them choose our dotors for us. The debate about not being able to pick your doctor under Obama care, is a mute point. Much like Presidential elections,by the time we get to pick, the chocies have already been made. I call it a facist system where government and private business conspire to keep competition out. A hard cap on the number of doctors is implemented by the AMA and strictly enforced by the government with hard prison time for anyone competing against the facist system. This allows doctors to charge outrageous fees and stack patients up in their waiting rooms like cord wood. It also allows Med schools to charge outrageous fees for entrance into this golden guild. On top of that, big pharma, conspires with government to regulate what kinds of treatments can be used. Doctors are routinely threatened with the loss of licence for not pushing the right drugs. The end result is,worse treatment and higher costs for us.

So called "conservative" pundits will say we have the best health care in the world. Longevity stats don't agree.I know our health care is better than most third world countries,if you can afford it, but I dare say if doctors and drug companies were forced to compete in an open market, prices would drop and treatments would improve. Right now they are hijacking a large percentage of our economy (about 20 percent is what I have heard).

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

The way I think of IP law, including patents, copyright, trademark law, etc is that it places the rights for intangible ideas over the rights for personal property and freedom.

Absolutely agree. If you could prove the idea truly originated with you then fine, but we know better. "Simultaneous invention" proves that.

[MahonriMaster]

The Constitution covers patent law, and the Lord's Church utilizes it and copyright law.

Go ahead and attack it, but at least know who uses what you attack.

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

The Constitution covers patent law, and the Lord's Church utilizes it and copyright law.

Go ahead and attack it, but at least know who uses what you attack.

I guess you're referring to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

First, while the US Constitution is a great document and describes a form of government that has allowed for great things to be done in the world, nowhere in scripture or otherwise is it claimed to be a perfect document, or the form of government that we might have in "Zion" during the millenium (actually, we know it is not to be the form of government in that time and place).

Lysander Spooner had a good quote about the US Constitution and the current problems we are having with the government that is supposedly sworn to uphold it: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."

In any case, the Constitution states the intent and mentions a time limit. Both of those have been corrupted and turned upside down with modern legal code and how it is enforced. Unfortunately the constitution didn't place explicit limits on this, and with that our government has turned it into a means of centralizing wealth and power instead of rewarding those who actually create.

As for the Church... I wasn't aware they used patents. Certain corporations that the Church invests in certainly use patents (and copyrights), but I don't think we should use such entities as an indicator of acceptable personal behavior... you could justify nearly every sin against the laws of God by doing so.

The use of the copyright by the Church seems to be for one purpose: maintaining the integrity of the work. Unfortunately from the early days of the Church there were attempts to attack the teachings by using "straw-man" type attacks where official text was to be modified and published in the name of the Church so sully its image. If the Church had other ways to do this without using copyright law that can also be used to destroy and enslave people, I'm sure they would.

I'm not aware of any court case where the LDS Church brought suit against someone for copying works intact without permission... in spite of the personal tendencies of lawyers working for the Church to be overzealous at times. The LDS Church does not behave like the RIAA, for example, and the fact that they use copyright law does not mean that what others do with it to harm their neighbors is justified or moral.

[MahonriMaster]

The Church has gone to court several times over this issue

As for the Constitution, you'd better read "Prophets Principles and National Survival" for what Church leaders have said about the document and the scriptures for what the Lord said about the principles in the document.

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

The Church has gone to court several times over this issue

As for the Constitution, you'd better read "Prophets Principles and National Survival" for what Church leaders have said about the document and the scriptures for what the Lord said about the principles in the document.

Sorry, you fail to convince or influence... try harder.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

The church does a lot of things that are a temporary response to the system they operate under. Look at how they operate in different nations for instance.

As to the Constitution do you really think that just going back to using the Constitution once all the bad people are cleansed will be enough without revision or supplementation?

Let's review: It was adopted in 1787 not legally ratified till 1788. In 1861 Brigham Young quoted Joseph Smith after Van Buren's rejection in 1839 saying "the Whole government is gone; it is as weak as water."

So personally I take Joseph Smith's 1839 declaration as the absolute end of "success" under the Constitution. That's 51 years! The millennial success has got to be 1000 years!

Seriously what makes people think it will magically be different this time? Even the Nephites/Lamanites whoever they were at the time right after Christ's coming to them pulled off like 300 years of relative peace. Enoch however figured something different out... Something we have got to figure out, and it's not just resetting the clock to 1788. There's more.

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

The church does a lot of things that are a temporary response to the system they operate under. Look at how they operate in different nations for instance.

As to the Constitution do you really think that just going back to using the Constitution once all the bad people are cleansed will be enough without revision or supplementation?

Let's review: It was adopted in 1787 not legally ratified till 1788. In 1861 Brigham Young quoted Joseph Smith after Van Buren's rejection in 1839 saying "the Whole government is gone; it is as weak as water."

So personally I take Joseph Smith's 1839 declaration as the absolute end of "success" under the Constitution. That's 51 years! The millennial success has got to be 1000 years!

Seriously what makes people think it will magically be different this time? Even the Nephites/Lamanites whoever they were at the time right after Christ's coming to them pulled off like 300 years of relative peace. Enoch however figured something different out... Something we have got to figure out, and it's not just resetting the clock to 1788. There's more.

Thank you, very good points from history and for prophesied future.