6 ms·

That's right, the capitalist-libertarian answer is always "Fuck you, pay me", or in this case, "fuck you, die". We have insurance. Its a great way to leverage

by kefka 11y ago

That's right, the capitalist-libertarian answer is always "Fuck you, pay me", or in this case, "fuck you, die". We have insurance. Its a great way to leverage the group so that all get a low rate. That given, "socialized" medicine is a group policy population wide: which should give the lowest rates split equally between all. Certainly makes the most sense.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
I'm tempted not to reply to such an obvious straw man argument, but: take a look at the way mutual societies worked prior to socialised medicine. That's the sort of approach people opposed to socialized medicine would prefer. It provides cheap health care and looks after those incapable of doing so themselves, all without coercion.
- kefka 11y ago
  I know a good deal about the Middle Ages, being part of the SCA. And indeed, it did work pretty well. The problem is now is that it's not just 1 or 2 people involved with health of the area. It's the doctor, the 2 nurses, the 2 receptionists, the x-ray techs, the lab techs, the pharmacist, the pharmacist techs; all for a call to the doctor. In hospitals, it's so crazy how billing works, that most hospitals do not actually know how much X costs. instead, they just bill exorbitantly to anyone without insurance, and insurance gives them the agreed upon price. Drug companies are also really messed up: the US ends up subsidizing the rest of the world's drugs, all the while biasing on maintenance based drugs over cures. The FDA also has its fair share to blame. They control which universities are accredited, and directly control the flow of doctors purely on the say-so from the AMA, a doctor union. Considering the complicated nature, insurance covering the nation, aka socialized care, makes the most sense. Tearing down systems like I said above really isn't sustainable.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    It's not insurance if you're compelled to buy into it. I believe those are more commonly known as 'protection rackets' ;) But yeah. Lots of problems: opaque billing, medical cartels (AMA), scale, crony capitalism on the part of drug companies and politicians, ... it's quite a list. The thing is, many of those problems are a consequence of the existing system of socialised medicine, and would be fixed by the de-nationalisation of the industry. I happen to strongly agree with you that part of the problem is a shortage of medical staff caused, in part, by a cartel (the AMA). Note their position on the matter of genuinely capitalistic medicine. It's not a coincidence.
duncan_bayne 11y ago
Further to this, in Rand's words: ===== “Dear [socialists], our objective, like yours, is the welfare of the poor, more general wealth, and a higher standard of living for everybody—so please let us capitalists function, because the capitalist system will achieve all these objectives for you. It is in fact the only system that can achieve them.” This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history, and yet it has not and will not win converts to the capitalist system. Because the above argument is self-contradictory. It is not the purpose of the capitalist system to cater to the welfare of the poor; it is not the purpose of a capitalist enterpriser to spread social benefits; an industrialist does not operate a factory for the purpose of providing jobs for his workers. A capitalist system could not function on such a premise. =====
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history On the contrary, that last statement is false, which has been demonstrated in history, and is largely why the system for which the term "capitalism" was coined is no longer the dominant system of the developed world, having been replaced by mixed economies -- which transition Rand was part of the rear guard arguing against, and to reverse -- which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    "... which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did." That's a contradiction. You can't have both the property structure of capitalism, and state socialism. You have to violate the former to achieve the latter. I'd argue that current systems claim to keep the structure of the former, but violate it at will. In terms of dealing better with the provision of healthcare than capitalism ... have you seen the state of the American healthcare system recently?
    - 11y ago

by kefka 11y ago

duncan_bayne 11y ago

I'm tempted not to reply to such an obvious straw man argument, but: take a look at the way mutual societies worked prior to socialised medicine. That's the sort of approach people opposed to socialized medicine would prefer. It provides cheap health care and looks after those incapable of doing so themselves, all without coercion.

kefka 11y ago
I know a good deal about the Middle Ages, being part of the SCA. And indeed, it did work pretty well. The problem is now is that it's not just 1 or 2 people involved with health of the area. It's the doctor, the 2 nurses, the 2 receptionists, the x-ray techs, the lab techs, the pharmacist, the pharmacist techs; all for a call to the doctor. In hospitals, it's so crazy how billing works, that most hospitals do not actually know how much X costs. instead, they just bill exorbitantly to anyone without insurance, and insurance gives them the agreed upon price. Drug companies are also really messed up: the US ends up subsidizing the rest of the world's drugs, all the while biasing on maintenance based drugs over cures. The FDA also has its fair share to blame. They control which universities are accredited, and directly control the flow of doctors purely on the say-so from the AMA, a doctor union. Considering the complicated nature, insurance covering the nation, aka socialized care, makes the most sense. Tearing down systems like I said above really isn't sustainable.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  It's not insurance if you're compelled to buy into it. I believe those are more commonly known as 'protection rackets' ;) But yeah. Lots of problems: opaque billing, medical cartels (AMA), scale, crony capitalism on the part of drug companies and politicians, ... it's quite a list. The thing is, many of those problems are a consequence of the existing system of socialised medicine, and would be fixed by the de-nationalisation of the industry. I happen to strongly agree with you that part of the problem is a shortage of medical staff caused, in part, by a cartel (the AMA). Note their position on the matter of genuinely capitalistic medicine. It's not a coincidence.

duncan_bayne 11y ago

Further to this, in Rand's words: ===== “Dear [socialists], our objective, like yours, is the welfare of the poor, more general wealth, and a higher standard of living for everybody—so please let us capitalists function, because the capitalist system will achieve all these objectives for you. It is in fact the only system that can achieve them.” This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history, and yet it has not and will not win converts to the capitalist system. Because the above argument is self-contradictory. It is not the purpose of the capitalist system to cater to the welfare of the poor; it is not the purpose of a capitalist enterpriser to spread social benefits; an industrialist does not operate a factory for the purpose of providing jobs for his workers. A capitalist system could not function on such a premise. =====

dragonwriter 11y ago
> This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history On the contrary, that last statement is false, which has been demonstrated in history, and is largely why the system for which the term "capitalism" was coined is no longer the dominant system of the developed world, having been replaced by mixed economies -- which transition Rand was part of the rear guard arguing against, and to reverse -- which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  "... which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did." That's a contradiction. You can't have both the property structure of capitalism, and state socialism. You have to violate the former to achieve the latter. I'd argue that current systems claim to keep the structure of the former, but violate it at will. In terms of dealing better with the provision of healthcare than capitalism ... have you seen the state of the American healthcare system recently?
  - 11y ago