Showdown: Trump Vs Haley. Bitcoin betting on the 2024 US Presidential Election

[Bushdark]

I honestly hope that Biden Vs Trump never happens and I think there is a good chance that it doesn't.  Biden has of course lost the favor of many Americans who voted for him, as well as there's countless Americans who can't stand Trump.  Even the Republican party is starting to turn on Trump, so I'm not sure either of these two old farts will even be chosen or choose to run again, or hell even be alive by the time election day rolls around lol.

Biden is already old and seeing them again contestimg for another election does not really worth it. Americans deserves young and vibrants contestants that would make a better change and make America great again. These to old fork should be done with contesting for president again since opportunity had been given to them to ameliorate bad conditions for a better time.
For the best election, I hope to see vibrants and young adults contesting for the presidential race so we can all have a taste of new faces and youth taking over for the best.

[1715155181]

1715155181

[1715155181]

1715155181

[1715155181]

1715155181

[FanEagle]

I think importing and exporting medicine is a tough thing, but many Americans go to Canada to pay "full price" on drugs there, like insulin, and yet it is still cheaper there, if you are living in detroit or some other place which is close to Canada, you could just drive there once a month, get your supplies, pay %10 of what you would pay in USA and then bring it back, that is not illegal.

However, the main reason why this is a problem in the USA is once again capitalism, you may dislike socialism as much as you want, but when you let capitalists run a nation, they will say "let the companies make a profit!!" even about your insulin, they rather see you dead then lose any profits. Simple as that.

[nullama]

I think importing and exporting medicine is a tough thing, but many Americans go to Canada to pay "full price" on drugs there, like insulin, and yet it is still cheaper there, if you are living in detroit or some other place which is close to Canada, you could just drive there once a month, get your supplies, pay %10 of what you would pay in USA and then bring it back, that is not illegal.

However, the main reason why this is a problem in the USA is once again capitalism, you may dislike socialism as much as you want, but when you let capitalists run a nation, they will say "let the companies make a profit!!" even about your insulin, they rather see you dead then lose any profits. Simple as that.

People in the US have decided to not have a great public health system, and instead have an expensive private health care system.

In other countries, such as Canada, Australia, the UK, etc, there's a great public health system (of course everything has issues though), and you can get those services at a fraction of the price you would pay in the US. And I didn't say free, because someone ends up paying for it, through taxes. But the actual cost paid is way less than in the US.

[FanEagle]

I think importing and exporting medicine is a tough thing, but many Americans go to Canada to pay "full price" on drugs there, like insulin, and yet it is still cheaper there, if you are living in detroit or some other place which is close to Canada, you could just drive there once a month, get your supplies, pay %10 of what you would pay in USA and then bring it back, that is not illegal.

However, the main reason why this is a problem in the USA is once again capitalism, you may dislike socialism as much as you want, but when you let capitalists run a nation, they will say "let the companies make a profit!!" even about your insulin, they rather see you dead then lose any profits. Simple as that.

People in the US have decided to not have a great public health system, and instead have an expensive private health care system.

In other countries, such as Canada, Australia, the UK, etc, there's a great public health system (of course everything has issues though), and you can get those services at a fraction of the price you would pay in the US. And I didn't say free, because someone ends up paying for it, through taxes. But the actual cost paid is way less than in the US.

You know what the main difference in those nations and what USA has is? The pricing, not the part where government pays for it. Normally I am in favor of universal healthcare, that's better and my nation has it too and it's incredibly cheap, literally near free, it's that much cheap, however government could stop taking our taxes just for that and I can personally pay it and it would be a capitalist system and that would be fine for me, as long as the price is the same.

So, what USA has is not just regarding taxes and all, it's all about prices, because right now Americans pay more and get less, which makes no sense, there needs to be cap, that's the first step, cap it at a reasonable level.

[nullama]

~snip~
You know what the main difference in those nations and what USA has is? The pricing, not the part where government pays for it. Normally I am in favor of universal healthcare, that's better and my nation has it too and it's incredibly cheap, literally near free, it's that much cheap, however government could stop taking our taxes just for that and I can personally pay it and it would be a capitalist system and that would be fine for me, as long as the price is the same.

So, what USA has is not just regarding taxes and all, it's all about prices, because right now Americans pay more and get less, which makes no sense, there needs to be cap, that's the first step, cap it at a reasonable level.

Yes, absolutely agree.

The price for medical procedures in the US is over the roof. It doesn't matter who pays for it in the end (state or private person), but the actual price that gets paid is incredibly high.

As you say, in other countries the price is way cheaper, independently of who is paying for it, either the state of the private person.

I personally believe that universal health care should be public, because no one really wants to be sick, plus prevention is way cheaper and better than cure. So, you should want everyone to do annual checkups, etc, and if they're "free" then people would do them. If they have to pay for it, very few would do it, so they get sick and then they get bankrupt. Not a good outcome.

[Sithara007]

People in the US have decided to not have a great public health system, and instead have an expensive private health care system.

In other countries, such as Canada, Australia, the UK, etc, there's a great public health system (of course everything has issues though), and you can get those services at a fraction of the price you would pay in the US. And I didn't say free, because someone ends up paying for it, through taxes. But the actual cost paid is way less than in the US.

I am not sure whether the people have decided that way. If you have a referendum on this issue, I am 100% sure that the vast majority of the American voters would prefer a public health system similar to the one they have in countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. But then, the pharmaceutical companies are extremely influential in the US and they provide huge amounts of donations to both the major parties. It is actually more cost-effective for American citizens suffering from critical ailments to travel to Mexico or Canada, and get their treatment done in these countries.

[FanEagle]

The price for medical procedures in the US is over the roof. It doesn't matter who pays for it in the end (state or private person), but the actual price that gets paid is incredibly high.

As you say, in other countries the price is way cheaper, independently of who is paying for it, either the state of the private person.

I personally believe that universal health care should be public, because no one really wants to be sick, plus prevention is way cheaper and better than cure. So, you should want everyone to do annual checkups, etc, and if they're "free" then people would do them. If they have to pay for it, very few would do it, so they get sick and then they get bankrupt. Not a good outcome.

I think if you calculate how much USA is already spending on healthcare, it would be bigger than what universal healthcare would cost, plus if government (single payer) is paying for it, there are two options, either they will be a corrupt organization (shocking!) and charge more but pocket the change as bribery, or they could literally make it go down to 10% of what it is today, they can haggle the price down and that is the whole point.

Instead of spending 1-4 trillion a year, they could spend 100-400 billion a year on it, this is literally possible and nobody is doing it. Anyone who promises this should be elected swiftly and right away.

[nullama]

~snip~
I am not sure whether the people have decided that way. If you have a referendum on this issue, I am 100% sure that the vast majority of the American voters would prefer a public health system similar to the one they have in countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. But then, the pharmaceutical companies are extremely influential in the US and they provide huge amounts of donations to both the major parties. It is actually more cost-effective for American citizens suffering from critical ailments to travel to Mexico or Canada, and get their treatment done in these countries.

That's true.

But then if the US actually did that and implemented a comprehensive public health system, we would have lost the plot to Breaking Bad.

I think it's worth it just for that show alone 

[alegotardo]

To address the fragmentation of the healthcare industry in the US, really comprehensive reform needs to be done, but as far as I know, it seems to me that the government is not prepared at this time to do that.

The problem is even more critical for anyone who is accessing healthcare in the United States from other countries (properly regulated, of course). you have to be prepared in advance to pay any medical fees that insurance doesn't cover, and the list of procedures and illnesses is not small as far as I remember. This is the main reason behind the continuous discussion about health care reform in the United States that everyone says.... we need a universal health care system like it exists elsewhere.

But please... don't make a mediocre system like the one we have in Brazil.

[Sithara007]

The price for medical procedures in the US is over the roof. It doesn't matter who pays for it in the end (state or private person), but the actual price that gets paid is incredibly high.

As you say, in other countries the price is way cheaper, independently of who is paying for it, either the state of the private person.

I personally believe that universal health care should be public, because no one really wants to be sick, plus prevention is way cheaper and better than cure. So, you should want everyone to do annual checkups, etc, and if they're "free" then people would do them. If they have to pay for it, very few would do it, so they get sick and then they get bankrupt. Not a good outcome.

I think if you calculate how much USA is already spending on healthcare, it would be bigger than what universal healthcare would cost, plus if government (single payer) is paying for it, there are two options, either they will be a corrupt organization (shocking!) and charge more but pocket the change as bribery, or they could literally make it go down to 10% of what it is today, they can haggle the price down and that is the whole point.

Instead of spending 1-4 trillion a year, they could spend 100-400 billion a year on it, this is literally possible and nobody is doing it. Anyone who promises this should be elected swiftly and right away.

If the total spending is $1 trillion, that means that different players are earning hefty profits. If the system is refurbished, then they will lose these gigantic profits. Will they simply allow the politicians to make these changes? Let's take the case of insulin for example. One vial of insulin costs $99 in the United States (average price). Here in India, it costs $1.20 to $1.50 per vial. Now insulin is a chemical and the one that is manufactured in India and the US contains same molecules. So the cost of production would be somewhere around $1 per vial. So where does the remaining $98 go? And don't think that 100% of it flows to the pocket of pharmaceutical companies. The picture is much bigger. A fraction ends up with the hospital chains. Some of it ends up as donations to politicians. And a large part goes to wholesale dealers and pharmacies.

[Casdinyard]

I've heard in the news that he okay'd The Willow Project, a campaign that effectively privatizes the whole state of Alaska for oil mining, if that doesn't sit well with you already, wait til you realize that if the decades-long campaign were to be allowed to operate, an estimated 300 million tons of greenhouse gases will be released to the atmosphere, rendering climate change an irreversible problem. Sleepy Joe is gonna have to answer to the people, especially when he promised prior to his inauguration that no more oil will be drilled in federal soil. These guys never watched The Lorax and it shows.

As with the elections, this is going to be a definitive factor of who's going to win or not. Especially considering the fact that the public is now more aware and more concerned of the effects of climate change compared to yesrs ago.

[seoincorporation]

This reminds me of the last time that trump wins the elections, it was a nice x5 on him because no one believes it was possible to happen, and for that time i bet like $100 on it, so, it was a gg for me.

But this time is a tricky election because the war is getting really hot and Americans need a leader who can handle all that problems. So, that makes me feel like Ron will win this time. But not to the point to place a bet on him, weird times can bring weird results.

[Gyfts]

...

Regulation in the healthcare industry is the reason. Healthcare companies/drug manufactures have monopolies to the rights to sell certain medications. So they can set the prices. It would be illegal to import medications into countries that have licenses given out to these drug manufacturers. Joe Biden and the democratic party will regurgitate the same lines about the healthcare system in the U.S. but their solution is to generate money on the federal level and give them to companies in the private sector which only encourages them to raise their prices even more.

[STT]

To address the fragmentation of the healthcare industry in the US, really comprehensive reform needs to be done, but as far as I know, it seems to me that the government is not prepared at this time to do that.

The medical sector is a large important business not just USA but for exporting also so disrupting that sector would be a large concern.   The people clearly should take priority over business but imo the comprehensive access to medicine has to be on the basic level rather then straight away aiming to provide the very expensive treatments possible.  An easy rule is that prevention is far better then cure and many modern ailments are to some extent preventable, we cant cure cancer easily but better detection should be well funded in any modern country imo.

[uneng]

This reminds me of the last time that trump wins the elections, it was a nice x5 on him because no one believes it was possible to happen, and for that time i bet like $100 on it, so, it was a gg for me.

But this time is a tricky election because the war is getting really hot and Americans need a leader who can handle all that problems. So, that makes me feel like Ron will win this time. But not to the point to place a bet on him, weird times can bring weird results.

To say the truth there are serious chances the democrats take the next election once more, because despite all the memes and critics against Biden for his strange behavior, like someone suffering of dementia symptoms, the government doesn't have a big cons.

USA has been supporting Ukraine in the war actively, what is seen in a positive way by the largest portion of global community, while having moderate positions about most topics, what means the currently government hasn't been attaching itself to leftwing extremist ideas. It's a more moderate government than Obama's one, which fueled Trump's victory to the core.

Meanwhile Trump is trying to milk some money from his followers selling NFTs and doing his businesses, as usual. The "savior" image he built previously doesn't exist anymore... Now he is a politician like everyone else.

[Sithara007]

...

Regulation in the healthcare industry is the reason. Healthcare companies/drug manufactures have monopolies to the rights to sell certain medications. So they can set the prices. It would be illegal to import medications into countries that have licenses given out to these drug manufacturers. Joe Biden and the democratic party will regurgitate the same lines about the healthcare system in the U.S. but their solution is to generate money on the federal level and give them to companies in the private sector which only encourages them to raise their prices even more.

This is the shittiest system I have ever heard of and I am 100% sure that such a system doesn't exist anywhere outside the United States. Monopolies exist everywhere. But nowhere else it results in a 10,000% markup to the final product. And every now and then the media creates hype. A few years back, there was a lot of hue and cry when Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of Daraprim by 5,000% back in 2015 ($13.50 per pill to $750). Similarly, Eli Lilly faced a lot of flak recently over the sky high prices for generic insulin. But the media keeps these issues in limelight only for a few days. Once they receive advertisement deals from the Pharma companies, they allow the news to die down.

[Gyfts]

...

Regulation in the healthcare industry is the reason. Healthcare companies/drug manufactures have monopolies to the rights to sell certain medications. So they can set the prices. It would be illegal to import medications into countries that have licenses given out to these drug manufacturers. Joe Biden and the democratic party will regurgitate the same lines about the healthcare system in the U.S. but their solution is to generate money on the federal level and give them to companies in the private sector which only encourages them to raise their prices even more.

This is the shittiest system I have ever heard of and I am 100% sure that such a system doesn't exist anywhere outside the United States. Monopolies exist everywhere. But nowhere else it results in a 10,000% markup to the final product. And every now and then the media creates hype. A few years back, there was a lot of hue and cry when Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of Daraprim by 5,000% back in 2015 ($13.50 per pill to $750). Similarly, Eli Lilly faced a lot of flak recently over the sky high prices for generic insulin. But the media keeps these issues in limelight only for a few days. Once they receive advertisement deals from the Pharma companies, they allow the news to die down.

It's a system amendable to changes. But it's designed to attract investment into the healthcare/drug manufacturing industries. If a company is going to sink funds into R&D for a new drug, they hold the intellectual property to such drugs and should be able to profit from it. Insulin isn't proprietary to any one company anymore, so I would argue there shouldn't be manufacturing exclusivity for these generic drugs.

This has been a problem for ages. There hasn't been a politician yet that's proposed a workable solution that isn't merely government subsidized healthcare. I imagine if Biden were to get reelected it would be more of the same for the U.S.

[Sithara007]

It's a system amendable to changes. But it's designed to attract investment into the healthcare/drug manufacturing industries. If a company is going to sink funds into R&D for a new drug, they hold the intellectual property to such drugs and should be able to profit from it. Insulin isn't proprietary to any one company anymore, so I would argue there shouldn't be manufacturing exclusivity for these generic drugs.

This has been a problem for ages. There hasn't been a politician yet that's proposed a workable solution that isn't merely government subsidized healthcare. I imagine if Biden were to get reelected it would be more of the same for the U.S.

I understand the first part. For example, Pfizer had exclusive rights to Sildenafil for almost two decades and they earned billions from the sales, before that exclusivity expired. Keytruda from Merck is another example. It is extremely effective against Cancer and costs around $10,000 per dose. I am not talking about these drugs. Pfizer and Merck have the right to profit from the sale of these medications, because they spent a lot of money into R&D. But what about insulin? There is a monopoly on insulin sales enjoyed by 2-3 companies and it needs to be ended.

[slapper]

...

Regulation in the healthcare industry is the reason. Healthcare companies/drug manufactures have monopolies to the rights to sell certain medications. So they can set the prices. It would be illegal to import medications into countries that have licenses given out to these drug manufacturers. Joe Biden and the democratic party will regurgitate the same lines about the healthcare system in the U.S. but their solution is to generate money on the federal level and give them to companies in the private sector which only encourages them to raise their prices even more.

This is the shittiest system I have ever heard of and I am 100% sure that such a system doesn't exist anywhere outside the United States. Monopolies exist everywhere. But nowhere else it results in a 10,000% markup to the final product. And every now and then the media creates hype. A few years back, there was a lot of hue and cry when Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of Daraprim by 5,000% back in 2015 ($13.50 per pill to $750). Similarly, Eli Lilly faced a lot of flak recently over the sky high prices for generic insulin. But the media keeps these issues in limelight only for a few days. Once they receive advertisement deals from the Pharma companies, they allow the news to die down.

It's a system amendable to changes. But it's designed to attract investment into the healthcare/drug manufacturing industries. If a company is going to sink funds into R&D for a new drug, they hold the intellectual property to such drugs and should be able to profit from it. Insulin isn't proprietary to any one company anymore, so I would argue there shouldn't be manufacturing exclusivity for these generic drugs.

This has been a problem for ages. There hasn't been a politician yet that's proposed a workable solution that isn't merely government subsidized healthcare. I imagine if Biden were to get reelected it would be more of the same for the U.S.

What a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow your perspective is. Government health care assistance, increased? My apologies, but the answer is no. As a result of the government's efforts, the system is now dysfunctional. If we just let the market do its thing, costs will go down. Instead of adopting more rules, companies should be held accountable by having to compete with one another.

I also refuse to discuss your opinion of Biden any further. Disagree strongly. We need a president who will take on the powerful and fight for the common man, and Joe Biden is such man. He consistently follows the same routine. If we give him a chance, he may be able to improve conditions for everyone. And I trust him

[FanEagle]

If the total spending is $1 trillion, that means that different players are earning hefty profits. If the system is refurbished, then they will lose these gigantic profits. Will they simply allow the politicians to make these changes? Let's take the case of insulin for example. One vial of insulin costs $99 in the United States (average price). Here in India, it costs $1.20 to $1.50 per vial. Now insulin is a chemical and the one that is manufactured in India and the US contains same molecules. So the cost of production would be somewhere around $1 per vial. So where does the remaining $98 go? And don't think that 100% of it flows to the pocket of pharmaceutical companies. The picture is much bigger. A fraction ends up with the hospital chains. Some of it ends up as donations to politicians. And a large part goes to wholesale dealers and pharmacies.

That's the point isn't it. I mean you could cap it even at 20 bucks and because they have a higher purchasing power they could pay for it, even as high as 30 dollars if it's a must, that way the pharma companies are still making a 30x return instead of 100x return, and they could still make a lot of money.

And "bribery" is not a hidden thing in the USA, there are things called lobbies and because of citizens united rule they had it's possible for companies to "donate" to politicians without a trouble, it's basically bribery but wide open for everyone to see. You could literally see which company paid which politician, it's not even hidden. So, you are right that pharma companies pay politicians and we all know this, it's public knowledge.