6 ms·

I just don't understand how people take the USA seriously. One of the most important things, which I doubt is in dispute, is access to healthcare. The USA tell

I just don't understand how people take the USA seriously. One of the most important things, which I doubt is in dispute, is access to healthcare. The USA tells us their model of capitalism is the best. They apply their system to healthcare. It utterly fails to deliver versus "socialist" solutions. At what point are you guys going to join the dots on this contradiction?

blackflame7000 10y ago
It is a false assumption to say that because socialized healthcare works in some countries, the entire scheme of capitalism is therefore inferior. There are a number of unique aspects of Human health and insurance that make it very difficult to manage using conventional capitalistic means. (Namely that a human cannot be totalled whereas an object can) However, that is not an indictment on capitalism but is instead a consequence of the fact that Human life has no price. Capitalism has no means of appraising the value of priceless things.
- eon1 10y ago
  >It is a false assumption to say that because socialized healthcare works in some countries, the entire scheme of capitalism is therefore inferior GP didn't say this, though. They said applying the model of American capitalism to healthcare fails to deliver (a reasonable standard of care, I assume). Your assessment seems to largely agree.
  - blackflame7000 10y ago
    "The USA tells us their model of capitalism is the best. They apply their system to healthcare. It utterly fails to deliver versus "socialist" solutions. At what point are you guys going to join the dots on this contradiction?" Perhaps we interpreted these paragraphs differently because I read it as saying "when are we going to connect the dots and see that capitalism is not the best because it utterly fails in healthcare and thus by extension elsewhere too"
- incompatible 10y ago
  We can start by asking if capitalism is inferior at providing health care, at least. People sometimes assume that capitalism means free markets. In practice it can also mean oligopolies, monopolies, rigged systems, and scams. That may describe the US health system, propped up with government regulations and subsidies.
  - blackflame7000 10y ago
    "In practice it can also mean oligopolies, monopolies, rigged systems, and scams" - Pure capitalism has none of those things. What you are referring to is cronyism which increases proportionally to the size of the market. Regulation should in theory be used to keep markets of sufficient size in check but it's a double edged sword. Often times regulation creates even more cronyism since only the approved players can access a communal resource or service.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Pure capitalism, the real world system dominant in the industrialized West in the 19th Century for which critics coined the term "capitalism", has all of those things. The unrealistic fantasy later capitalists developed as a propaganda to sell capitalism doesn't have those features, but then it also has nothing to do with anything that is, has, or ever could be, realized in the real world.
      - blackflame7000 10y ago
        The only unrealistic expectation is thinking people will be happy working unequally hard for equal pay. Capitalism funnels that motivation to set oneself apart into a system where many can benefit from the creations of a relative few. Politics came about long before the first political system. It stems from the evolutionary compulsion to compete and reproduce. There will always be in-crowds and out-crowds of any group of sufficient size. This is where cronyism comes from. Not the political systems themselves. Humans play favorites, not free markets
  - Frondo 10y ago
gknoy 10y ago
> One of the most important things, which I doubt is in dispute, is access to healthcare. One dispute seems to be over the meaning of the word "access". Some people, like my Libertarian friend, feel that "access" is satisfied if you have the freedom to choose your provider (or none at all) -- but god help you if you don't have any money, because no one should be taxed to pay for others' health care. For many, taxation is viewed as state-enforced theft. (I'm not sure how to argue against that viewpoint.) Others (like Senator Sanders) believe that "access" means "you can get it" -- and include the ability to afford it in that metric. This is why some people in our country argue that we Should Be making sure that people _get_ their medical costs subsidized by taxes. While it's a tax on all of us, the costs end up being lower, and you don't end up people forgoing routine preventative care because they feel they can't afford it, simply because the chance of them having something catastrophically bad is low. Many that oppose this point to anecdotes of people who needed Serious Help and could not get to it in time, or flew to the US to get it, rather than in their home country. The last time I participated in a discussion about this, the best system seemed to be Australian. I'm likely oversimplifying, but basically everyone paid into a national system that covered basic things and normal socialized care, and you also had the freedom to have additional insurance that would cover the things that the national system might not be inclined to give you for various reasons. I liked this idea because it meant that poor people and children all had basic care, and anyone who cared about their freedom to choose their doctors / treatments could do so (at a price). The net price still sounded like it was less than what I pay for my family here in the US for medical care.
- branchless 10y ago
  First up: I'm using the non-muddled version of access. Libetarians might say you can access it but they would also want full death tax, free access to land and a money system based on fair issuance of debt, meaning that people had a fighting chance of affording said care. The US is a crazy cult for "capitalism" and "free" markets. The problem I have is the absolutism about it. Markets can solve everything. This is the USA position. They force other countries to change to it via the IMF, not content with messing up their own country. Yet even on a very simple system to model, sports, they have a socialist model. You finish bottom you get the first draft pick. Because when reasoning about a small group of teams it's patently obvious that if you give all the TV rights to the top team, all the draft picks to the top team, you end up with a total mess.
tropo 10y ago
There are upsides. We all die. The more healthcare technology we invent, the more we can spend. If you are willing to spend unlimited money to save a life, then you will... except that every system finds a way to stop you. Traditional all-out capitalism stops you when you can't pay. (people also don't WANT to pay with their own money, so costs go down) Some government systems will say "no" to some people, but that isn't too popular. Most common is to say "yes" to everybody, but underfunding means you go on a waiting list and might not make it to the other end of the waiting list. These approaches can be mixed: some procedures for pay, some favored people being able to jump ahead on the waiting list, etc. Underfunding is a given, because full funding for all the care that people want is impossible. The amount of care desired exceeds the GDP.

blackflame7000 10y ago

It is a false assumption to say that because socialized healthcare works in some countries, the entire scheme of capitalism is therefore inferior. There are a number of unique aspects of Human health and insurance that make it very difficult to manage using conventional capitalistic means. (Namely that a human cannot be totalled whereas an object can) However, that is not an indictment on capitalism but is instead a consequence of the fact that Human life has no price. Capitalism has no means of appraising the value of priceless things.

eon1 10y ago
>It is a false assumption to say that because socialized healthcare works in some countries, the entire scheme of capitalism is therefore inferior GP didn't say this, though. They said applying the model of American capitalism to healthcare fails to deliver (a reasonable standard of care, I assume). Your assessment seems to largely agree.
- blackflame7000 10y ago
  "The USA tells us their model of capitalism is the best. They apply their system to healthcare. It utterly fails to deliver versus "socialist" solutions. At what point are you guys going to join the dots on this contradiction?" Perhaps we interpreted these paragraphs differently because I read it as saying "when are we going to connect the dots and see that capitalism is not the best because it utterly fails in healthcare and thus by extension elsewhere too"
incompatible 10y ago
We can start by asking if capitalism is inferior at providing health care, at least. People sometimes assume that capitalism means free markets. In practice it can also mean oligopolies, monopolies, rigged systems, and scams. That may describe the US health system, propped up with government regulations and subsidies.
- blackflame7000 10y ago
  "In practice it can also mean oligopolies, monopolies, rigged systems, and scams" - Pure capitalism has none of those things. What you are referring to is cronyism which increases proportionally to the size of the market. Regulation should in theory be used to keep markets of sufficient size in check but it's a double edged sword. Often times regulation creates even more cronyism since only the approved players can access a communal resource or service.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Pure capitalism, the real world system dominant in the industrialized West in the 19th Century for which critics coined the term "capitalism", has all of those things. The unrealistic fantasy later capitalists developed as a propaganda to sell capitalism doesn't have those features, but then it also has nothing to do with anything that is, has, or ever could be, realized in the real world.
    - blackflame7000 10y ago
      The only unrealistic expectation is thinking people will be happy working unequally hard for equal pay. Capitalism funnels that motivation to set oneself apart into a system where many can benefit from the creations of a relative few. Politics came about long before the first political system. It stems from the evolutionary compulsion to compete and reproduce. There will always be in-crowds and out-crowds of any group of sufficient size. This is where cronyism comes from. Not the political systems themselves. Humans play favorites, not free markets
- Frondo 10y ago

gknoy 10y ago

> One of the most important things, which I doubt is in dispute, is access to healthcare. One dispute seems to be over the meaning of the word "access". Some people, like my Libertarian friend, feel that "access" is satisfied if you have the freedom to choose your provider (or none at all) -- but god help you if you don't have any money, because no one should be taxed to pay for others' health care. For many, taxation is viewed as state-enforced theft. (I'm not sure how to argue against that viewpoint.) Others (like Senator Sanders) believe that "access" means "you can get it" -- and include the ability to afford it in that metric. This is why some people in our country argue that we Should Be making sure that people _get_ their medical costs subsidized by taxes. While it's a tax on all of us, the costs end up being lower, and you don't end up people forgoing routine preventative care because they feel they can't afford it, simply because the chance of them having something catastrophically bad is low. Many that oppose this point to anecdotes of people who needed Serious Help and could not get to it in time, or flew to the US to get it, rather than in their home country. The last time I participated in a discussion about this, the best system seemed to be Australian. I'm likely oversimplifying, but basically everyone paid into a national system that covered basic things and normal socialized care, and you also had the freedom to have additional insurance that would cover the things that the national system might not be inclined to give you for various reasons. I liked this idea because it meant that poor people and children all had basic care, and anyone who cared about their freedom to choose their doctors / treatments could do so (at a price). The net price still sounded like it was less than what I pay for my family here in the US for medical care.

branchless 10y ago
First up: I'm using the non-muddled version of access. Libetarians might say you can access it but they would also want full death tax, free access to land and a money system based on fair issuance of debt, meaning that people had a fighting chance of affording said care. The US is a crazy cult for "capitalism" and "free" markets. The problem I have is the absolutism about it. Markets can solve everything. This is the USA position. They force other countries to change to it via the IMF, not content with messing up their own country. Yet even on a very simple system to model, sports, they have a socialist model. You finish bottom you get the first draft pick. Because when reasoning about a small group of teams it's patently obvious that if you give all the TV rights to the top team, all the draft picks to the top team, you end up with a total mess.

tropo 10y ago

There are upsides. We all die. The more healthcare technology we invent, the more we can spend. If you are willing to spend unlimited money to save a life, then you will... except that every system finds a way to stop you. Traditional all-out capitalism stops you when you can't pay. (people also don't WANT to pay with their own money, so costs go down) Some government systems will say "no" to some people, but that isn't too popular. Most common is to say "yes" to everybody, but underfunding means you go on a waiting list and might not make it to the other end of the waiting list. These approaches can be mixed: some procedures for pay, some favored people being able to jump ahead on the waiting list, etc. Underfunding is a given, because full funding for all the care that people want is impossible. The amount of care desired exceeds the GDP.