3 ms·

> The government has no money. So you're saying the tax payers should be paying $2000/mo/recipient. The government is able to achieve economies of scale that t

> The government has no money. So you're saying the tax payers should be paying $2000/mo/recipient. The government is able to achieve economies of scale that the private sector can't. I think you know damn well "the government should be giving this away for free" is just a simplified way to describe the economics. > You could argue this is for my/public good, but you didn't ask me, you didn't get a representative vote from me. In your scenario you've just decided how to spend my money. Right, you got yours, so you're rationalizing away your part of the cost burden. You're participating in a society. The consent is implied. If you don't like the terms of the contract, feel free to stop enjoying all the fruits of civilization.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>Right, you got yours, so you're rationalizing away your part of the cost burden. No. I earned mine. And now here you want to come along and have it spent on something we all agree is a scam at $2000/mo/user. I reject the premise that any money spent on the social good is money well spent by default. I argue that money spent wisely the goal, GP had no plan for wisely, just spend to spend. That is why ACA failed, it did nothing to adjust costs, just signed everyone up into a broken system. At the same time most people here are just saying "it's been invented, patent expired and should be free now!" which is another way to say "I want remove incentives for new drug research by making it very high risk and low reward". So I disagree with that too. I wonder how many people understand why the USA is the center of pharmaceutical research and in general healthcare research? Feel free to attack me for just not caring about people selfishly, surely I'm a greedy monster. That seems ineffective to me, but what do I know!?

3 ms·

> The government has no money. So you're saying the tax payers should be paying $2000/mo/recipient. The government is able to achieve economies of scale that t

by TomBombadildoze 7y ago

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>Right, you got yours, so you're rationalizing away your part of the cost burden. No. I earned mine. And now here you want to come along and have it spent on something we all agree is a scam at $2000/mo/user. I reject the premise that any money spent on the social good is money well spent by default. I argue that money spent wisely the goal, GP had no plan for wisely, just spend to spend. That is why ACA failed, it did nothing to adjust costs, just signed everyone up into a broken system. At the same time most people here are just saying "it's been invented, patent expired and should be free now!" which is another way to say "I want remove incentives for new drug research by making it very high risk and low reward". So I disagree with that too. I wonder how many people understand why the USA is the center of pharmaceutical research and in general healthcare research? Feel free to attack me for just not caring about people selfishly, surely I'm a greedy monster. That seems ineffective to me, but what do I know!?