patrick.net

joeyjojojunior says

But, in reality, universal systems can have options where you can purchase improved service.

... or move to US, like my British co-worker did. The question is: where do you fucking move when US goes "universal".

When the US government can fix the appalling VA and Medicare systems - THEN we can talk about trusting them with running the health system for the entire country.

Why on earth anyone would trust our government with this monumental task while we have these existing systems falling apart is beyond me.

Some Liberal Progressive seem to have an absolute religious faith in government despite of all facts and reason.

joeyjojojunior says

So, in other words--

Got mine, eff you.

Basic health care has been available for the poor and destitute for decades in the U.S. So no, it's not "eff off", because they already have an option. Is it the best option? No, it's not, but that's how everything is in life.

People work and earn what they deserve I find. Many parts of our lives on this planet are incentive based. Do you also chastised the guy who drives a bright red Ferrari to work because you drive an older economy car? What about the guy who is able to vacation 5 times a year to any location he wants while most Americans are unable to take one international vacation a year on average? I don't. While America has the best income mobility in the world, which makes it the best country in the world IMO, you still have to work to earn it. The government's job is to make sure there are no obstacles to you working your way up, not to get in the way which is what socialized health care is. If I work hard, and earn lots of money, I should be able to purchase better "health care/cars/homes" than the guy who chose to skip school, or sleep in on Saturdays while I stayed up 48 hours straight trying to graduate out of Wharton Business school.

If you can find a better way than capitalism that MOST efficiently satisfies the demand and supply curves, I'm all ears.

joeyjojojunior says

But, in reality, universal systems can have options where you can purchase improved service.

No that is not true. In Canada you can purchase supplemental insurance for specific services not covered by the public plan (like getting a private room after a birth), but cannot purchase private insurance for basic services (like seeing an ENT specialist). So even if I was a millionaire in Canada and wanted to see an ENT doctor, I'd be rationed just like the guy who makes $10 an hour. There's a reason why 40,000 to 60,000 wealthy Canadians come to the U.S for specialist care every single year.

Dan8267 says

This is a perfect example of how capitalism discourages innovation

Is it because if this that there is a STEM shortage.

Capitalism discourages inventors from getting credit and fair compensation for their efforts, but clearly doesn't discourage innovation.

The US pharmaceutical industry is basically subsidizing the the R and D for all the countries that have socialist single payer healthcare systems. This despite the fact that most of the pharm industry budgets are geared towards marketing.

Compared to the US, innovation in Europe is far less, at least with regard to pharmaceuticals

MMR says

Dan8267 says

This is a perfect example of how capitalism discourages innovation

Is it because if this that there is a STEM shortage?

Capitalism discourages inventors from getting credit and fair compensation for their efforts, but clearly doesn't discourage innovation.

The US pharmaceutical industry is basically subsidizing the the R and D for all the countries that have socialist single payer healthcare systems. This despite the fact that most of the pharm industry budgets are geared towards marketing.

Compared to the US, innovation in Europe is far less, at least with regard to pharmaceuticals

"People work and earn what they deserve I find"

bwahahahahahahahaha. That is hilarious.

"Do you also chastised the guy who drives a bright red Ferrari to work because you drive an older economy car? What about the guy who is able to vacation 5 times a year to any location he wants while most Americans are unable to take one international vacation a year on average? "

No, but I also don't consider access to healthcare to be a luxury.

"No that is not true"

Read what I wrote again. It wasn't specific to Canada.

joeyjojojunior says

"People work and earn what they deserve I find"

bwahahahahahahahaha. That is hilarious.

Why is it hilarious? You don't think that people who work hard, innovate, and provide a good/service will not earn more money than someone who does not?

You still haven't answered my question. Name another way or method that most efficiently satisfies the supply and demand curves besides capitalism. We know Canada does not do this because you have to wait 20 weeks to see a specialist. That's not efficient or the best outcome of supply meeting demand.

No, but I also don't consider access to healthcare to be a luxury.

Okay, so what is "health care"? Tell me.

And let me summarize again--You believe that some (relatively large) percentage of the US population should not have access to healthcare (other than the ER) so that specialists have enough free time to allow you to get a same day appointment.

Do I have that correct?

I believe access to healthcare should be a basic human right.

MMR says

Is it because if this that there is a STEM shortage.

There is no STEM shortage. None.

I believe there is a very small correlation between hard work and income. Probably a bit higher if you could quantify innovation, but still not great.

Dan explained why on a different thread today. Capitalism rewards capital, not work. Not innovation.

joeyjojojunior says

And let me summarize again--You believe that some (relatively large) percentage of the US population should not have access to healthcare (other than the ER) so that specialists have enough free time to allow you to get a same day appointment.

Do I have that correct?

When did I say some "relatively large percentage" of the US should not have access to healthcare? That hasn't been the case in the United States for decades. I know homeless people on LA's skidrow that get weekly clinic visits for free. There are already of options for the poor. Medi-Cal in California, medicaid nationally. So who is exactly not getting access to healthcare?

joeyjojojunior says

I believe access to healthcare should be a basic human right.

At best, you can make access to an equal portion of available health care a right. You cannot make health care itself a right. For example, you cannot even make a cure for cancer a right because there is no such resource yet. Resources cannot be rights as rights are freedoms. The freedom to access available resources can be made a right, but that's a very important distinction that most people don't seem to be able to understand.

joeyjojojunior says

I believe there is a very small correlation between hard work and income. Probably a bit higher if you could quantify innovation, but still not great.

Dan explained why on a different thread today. Capitalism rewards capital, not work. Not innovation.

That makes no sense. Capitalism rewards "capital"? Please explain.

"That makes no sense. Capitalism rewards "capital"? Please explain."

It makes perfect sense. The innovator doesn't get rich--the owner of the company gets rich. Owners of productive assets do nothing but sit back and collect checks while the people who actually innovate, sweat, work, etc. get very little.

joeyjojojunior says

It makes perfect sense. The innovator doesn't get rich--the owner of the company gets rich. Owners of productive assets do nothing but sit back and collect checks while the people who actually innovate, sweat, work, etc. get very little.

So you believe capitalism is "owners of productive assets" sitting back and collecting checks?

That's a very limited Marxist perception of Capitalism.

Also, "health care should be a human right". Please explain that.

Goran_K says

So you believe capitalism is "owners of productive assets" sitting back and collecting checks?

That's a very limited Marxist perception of Capitalism.

That is exactly what capitalism is. If you think that's not important, then let's get rid of that particular mechanism from our economy. We can keep commerce, markets, banking, money, etc. and can even still call the new system capitalism if that label gives you a hard-on. But the mechanism of the rich owning the means of production and automation and controlling the distribution of revenue from creations they did not make absolutely must go. Concede this and then we can debate what to call the replacement.

By the way, what the hell would you have us call that mechanism in the meantime if not capitalism?

Straw Man says

None of them going back.

That's not because of the US health care system. It is despite it.

Your comments are so dumb it is not fun even ridiculing you.

FP says

Your comments are so dumb

Fuck you too.

MMR says

Is it because if this that there is a STEM shortage?

There is STEM shortage for $7/hr salary. Other than that, none whatsoever.

Also one could reasonably argue that it is not pharm industry, but US customer who subsidizes drug development, and sometimes subsidizes I-do-not-know-what (or more precisely, I know what - drug company CEO salary and FDA chief's gig at drug company after he retires).

Case in point, Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate) which is at the same time food additive and anti-MS drug.

Dimethyl Fumarate price as in food additive purity, which obviously makes it safe to eat: $30-50/kilogram, or 3-5 cents per gram.

http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Food-additive-CAS-NO-624-49_60339788954.html?spm=a2700.7724857.29.152.WuzCc2

Anti-MS drug Tecfidera price: $106.85 for 120 mg, which makes it $890/gram

Link: https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/tecfidera

Markup 17 800 times, paid for by US patients.

This is feudalism, where serfs pay tax to the ruling class that consists of drug company CEO's and government approval agency bosses.

Strategist says

You guys have no damn clue what capitalism, innovation, or the purpose of corporations is.

Of course I understand it. What have I written that would make you think otherwise.

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I posted. Under a capitalistic system, owners of productive assets make money doing nothing. That is a fact.

I'm not saying capitalism doesn't have good features, but it does lead to wealth disparity because money begets more money.

Goran_K says

So you believe capitalism is "owners of productive assets" sitting back and collecting checks?

No, that wasn't what I said. You asked me to explain my previous sentence:

Goran_K says

Capitalism rewards "capital"? Please explain.

which is what I did.

Goran_K says

Also, "health care should be a human right".

And again--that's not what I said. If you're going to put quotes on something I said, please try to actually get it right.

Strategist says

It took billions of dollars to develop the iPhone, with tens of thousands of highly qualified people working on it

And those tens of thousands of highly qualified people got paid the tiniest fraction of the iPhone's revenues. Meanwhile Steve Jobs got to buy three more yachts and he didn't wire on damn circuit, write one damn line of code, or could even explain how any of the technologies inside the iPhone work. See the problem?

Strategist says

That's called the trickle down effect.

We're all familiar with the trickle down effect.

By the way, strategist's response illustrates why it's important to realize that capitalism is just one thing, the control of production and revenue streams by owners who don't produce or innovate. You see, the advocates of capitalism care only about that mechanism. Sure they may throw red herrings saying capitalism is more than that -- it's not -- but they don't give a shit about those other things anyway. They want the mechanism of not having to work or produce wealth yet being able to siphon off the wealth of others. It's no different from the motivations of slavers. The problem is you have far more slaves than slave owners under any such parasitic system.

The US pharmaceutical industry is basically subsidizing the the R and D for all the countries that have socialist single payer healthcare systems. This despite the fact that most of the pharm industry budgets are geared towards marketing.

--------------

American labor is subsidizing it, not big pharma. Especially younger people like me that pay into the lemon Socialist private health insurance industry, and never ever ever ever go to the doctor, for anything. Thanks a lot, Christian Republicans and independents(lol) who voted for this shitty Heritage Foundation system!

FortWayne says

Once again, you are completely wrong. Capitalism discourages innovation because the inventor does not own his invention, but rather his boss does. There are millions of Americans who don't invent because the company they work for would own their inventions.

Dan that is by far the stupidest thing you ever said.

he he he.
Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

Strategist says

Success involves someone who is willing to take the risk.

Over 90% of the work and economic activity involves no risk. It's day to day tasks that need to be done to keep society running. For this 90% of the economy, your suppositions do not apply at all.

As for risk taking, anyone who works for wages at a startup or on a new project is already taking great risk. I know because I've done IT contracts. People taking such jobs will gladly trade wages for profit sharing. There is absolutely no project that goes on for beyond a short period without profits coming back. You can get only so much investment funding.

Furthermore, all the important advancements in technology have been made by individuals who did not get jack shit for their innovation. The creators the transistor, William Shockley, John Bardeen, Walter Houser Brattain. The creator of the relational database, Edgar Codd. The creator of the WWW, Tim Berners-Lee. The creators of the MPEG compression algorithms. None of these innovators got rich off their inventions. Are you really saying that the already rich people that own companies deserve to take 99% of the wealth produced by these inventions of other people? That's ridiculous.

Strategist says

You foolishly think, like all socialists and communists, that capitalism involves exploitation.

I'm not a communist, and I'm far less of a socialist than you are as proved by your support of the largest socialist program in all human history. I'd cut that socialist program by 90%.

You are a fool to think that everything has to be either capitalism or communism. Those two systems are virtually identical. Your narrow tribal thinking prevents you from seeing any other possibility. This is why you could never innovate. Innovation means thinking outside the box and changing things. That is something you will never get. You are so 19th century.

FortWayne says

Dan that is by far the stupidest thing you ever said.

FortWayne, that is by far the stupidest thing you ever said.

Your post deserves no more than an echo.

Strategist says

he he he.

Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

careful, Strategist, you are exposing your ignorance

Strategist says

Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

There is no such thing as a socialist country. All countries use the tactic of socialism, but it's a tactic, not a system.

If you mean communist countries, well communism is simply capitalism in which the owners are called party leaders rather than executives.

However, purely communist countries have innovated. The Soviet Unions created the most powerful rockets, got to space and the moon first, and built the most powerful weapons. But hey, why let historical fact get in the way of your narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_innovation#.C2.A0Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union

FP says

careful, Strategist, you are exposing your ignorance

Yes, he is. I'm very good at explaining things, so I'll explain one more thing.

Strategist's proposition is inherently wrong, regardless of whether or not I could explain his premise. You see, it does not matter if I, or anyone else, personally can explain phenomenon X. That does not mean phenomenon X cannot be explained, only that the person you asked cannot explain it at the moment. So even if I couldn't answer his dumb question, Strategist would still have gained nothing.

Unfortunately, Strategist just isn't good enough at basic reasoning to even understand this fact.

I learned Russian partially in order to be able to read their physics and math textbooks.

( I also like the literature and have read most of their classics in Russian (even read some of Nobokov's books in Russian before finding out that he had written them in English :) )

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

There is no such thing as a socialist country. All countries use the tactic of socialism, but it's a tactic, not a system.

If you mean communist countries, well communism is simply capitalism in which the owners are called party leaders rather than executives.

However, purely communist countries have innovated. The Soviet Unions created the most powerful rockets, got to space and the moon first, and built the most powerful weapons. But hey, why let historical fact get in the way of your narrative.

Dan you are seriously failing at this today. I'm not even sure what's dumber, this or the other thing you said earlier about Capitalism not innovating.

FortWayne, you are seriously failing at this today. I'm not even sure what's dumber, this or the other thing you said earlier.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

There is no such thing as a socialist country. All countries use the tactic of socialism, but it's a tactic, not a system.

If you mean communist countries, well communism is simply capitalism in which the owners are called party leaders rather than executives.

However, purely communist countries have innovated. The Soviet Unions created the most powerful rockets, got to space and the moon first, and built the most powerful weapons. But hey, why let historical fact get in the way of your narrative.

ROFL ha ha ha ha. You are awesome Dan, awesome.
So there is no such thing as a Socialist country, yet you give an example of the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic -----USSR. ha ha ha. A socialist/communist system that failed long ago, that made progress 60 years ago on rockets, but could innovate with no product for the mass market.
ha ha ha ha Need I say more??????

The Soviet Union was a communist society. Communism is an economic system. Socialism is not. Saying a socialist country is like saying a taxist society, as if any society could run without taxes. By the way, taxes are by definition socialism.

You are still equating socialism and communism, and that's just plain stupid.

By the way, if you go just off of names, your going to be fooled. Iceland is green and lush. The vikings named it Iceland to discourage immigrants. Meanwhile, Greenland is covered in ice. The vikings named it Greenland to encourage immigrants.

This is what Iceland looks like.

This is what Greenland looks like.

But hey, plan your vacation based on the names of places.

Dan8267 says

That is exactly what capitalism is.

How did those people get into possession of those "productive assets"? A genie lamp?

Goran_K says

How did those people get into possession of those "productive assets"?

Their ancestors made unethical, and often illegal, deals with politicians in which they were given undue access to public resources like land, mining rights, or exclusive trade access in exchange for bribing the politicians. Some get lucky on a gamble.

In any case, you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. Do you really want to reward wealth concentration and punish productivity and innovation? This is what the mechanism of capitalism does. Luckily there are other factors that alleviate this problem by rewarding productivity and innovation, but they aren't nearly as effective as they would be absent the mechanism of capitalism.

Again, treat economics as a science, not as a religion, and this stuff is obvious.

Dan8267 says

Their ancestors made unethical, and often illegal, deals with politicians in which they were given undue access to public resources like land, mining rights, or exclusive trade access in exchange for bribing the politicians. Some get lucky on a gamble.

So Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Scott McNealy, Vinod Khosla made illegal deals with politicians to gain their wealth and build their companies?

Give me names, and numbers. How many of these evil business men colluded with politicians to screw others? What is the market cap of these companies compared to the market cap of their industries?

You know, proving your point?