4 ms·

They are poor because they live on a knife's edge, one accident away from financial insolvency or lack of sufficient access to necessities like health care and

They are poor because they live on a knife's edge, one accident away from financial insolvency or lack of sufficient access to necessities like health care and education opportunities. Also having to work multiple jobs to break even. The problem isn't "inequality" it is that the floor in the US is so low compared to other wealthy nations.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bluedino 6y ago
Lots of people who make decent money live paycheck to paycheck because of poor decisions
Consultant32452 6y ago
This is a great example of having the right ideas but not understanding workable systems with real people. Let's take just one industry and I can show you how it's not as simple as you make it out to be: socialized/single-payer medicine. This is a system which reduces incentives (profits) in exchange for some equity. This is a great idea because we don't like it when people suffer. But what are the costs? Basic economics/psychology informs us that when incentives affect behavior. When the profits in healthcare are reduced there is less incentive to create new products/treatments/services. This is the tradeoff we're making. What happens down the road? Of course no one knows exactly, but we do know what will tend to happen. A new drug that might've been created in 5 years takes 7 instead. And then the next advancement that builds off that one takes even longer still. The whiz-kid who might've invented the new surgical technique which saves hundreds of lives per year might go into finance instead. What does this mean? It means we've slowed the velocity/acceleration of advancement. So people who live 50 years in the future will not have as good of healthcare as they could've if we'd left the greater incentives in place. And the people who live 100 years in the future are relatively even worse off to where they would've been because we've had 100 year at the slower pace. Since the future is functionally infinite, we are causing infinite harm to people in the future (all the advancements they won't get) at the cost of providing some comfort for some people today. And this applies to every industry, every redistribution program, every set of regulations. It's not just politics/law either, we make these decisions in our own lives every day. Are you going to buy that Apple Watch, or are you going to put that extra $ into your 401k? Stoicism teaches us that all negative emotion is rooted in a lack of understanding. So when someone says they don't want to raise the minimum wage, or doesn't want universal healthcare, or whatever... it's helpful not to have that knee jerk reaction of "This person is bad and wants people to suffer." That's almost never the case.
- james-mcelwain 6y ago
  First of all, "Basic economics/psychology informs" does not constitute empirical proof that UHC leads to decreased "innovation" (which is a weasel word in itself). Second, even if we granted the premise that UHC leads to less healthcare innovation, this doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm" in to people in the future. Unless you're claiming you have a crystal ball, there is absolute 0 epistemic basis on which to make this claim. For all we know, not having UHC leads to nuclear war and we all die. Or, having UHC leads to the singularity. Etc. Third, even if we grant that there's an innovation advantage to for-profit medicine AND we grant that you can predict the future, that still doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm", precisely because "harm" is comparative. I would argue that we've picked most of the low-hanging fruit of human medicine and that the marginal utility produced by new treatments is far outweighed by the human suffering of our for-profit system.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    >First of all, "Basic economics/psychology informs" does not constitute empirical proof that UHC leads to decreased "innovation" (which is a weasel word in itself). Either you believe humans respond to incentives or you don't. It's that simple. > Second, even if we granted the premise that UHC leads to less healthcare innovation, this doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm" in to people in the future. Unless you're claiming you have a crystal ball, there is absolute 0 epistemic basis on which to make this claim. For all we know, not having UHC leads to nuclear war and we all die. Or, having UHC leads to the singularity. Etc. I'm not making a "butterfly effect" argument where there's no obvious direct line between choice A and impact B. The only axiom I need is that humans respond to incentives, and then what happens when you reduce or remove incentives is obvious. You tend to get less of that thing. >I would argue that we've picked most of the low-hanging fruit of human medicine and that the marginal utility produced by new treatments is far outweighed by the human suffering of our for-profit system. If you believe we're basically near the end of potential for human medicine, would you support cutting subsidies and funding for research in the healthcare field?
    - mcguire 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bluedino 6y ago

Lots of people who make decent money live paycheck to paycheck because of poor decisions

Consultant32452 6y ago

This is a great example of having the right ideas but not understanding workable systems with real people. Let's take just one industry and I can show you how it's not as simple as you make it out to be: socialized/single-payer medicine. This is a system which reduces incentives (profits) in exchange for some equity. This is a great idea because we don't like it when people suffer. But what are the costs? Basic economics/psychology informs us that when incentives affect behavior. When the profits in healthcare are reduced there is less incentive to create new products/treatments/services. This is the tradeoff we're making. What happens down the road? Of course no one knows exactly, but we do know what will tend to happen. A new drug that might've been created in 5 years takes 7 instead. And then the next advancement that builds off that one takes even longer still. The whiz-kid who might've invented the new surgical technique which saves hundreds of lives per year might go into finance instead. What does this mean? It means we've slowed the velocity/acceleration of advancement. So people who live 50 years in the future will not have as good of healthcare as they could've if we'd left the greater incentives in place. And the people who live 100 years in the future are relatively even worse off to where they would've been because we've had 100 year at the slower pace. Since the future is functionally infinite, we are causing infinite harm to people in the future (all the advancements they won't get) at the cost of providing some comfort for some people today. And this applies to every industry, every redistribution program, every set of regulations. It's not just politics/law either, we make these decisions in our own lives every day. Are you going to buy that Apple Watch, or are you going to put that extra $ into your 401k? Stoicism teaches us that all negative emotion is rooted in a lack of understanding. So when someone says they don't want to raise the minimum wage, or doesn't want universal healthcare, or whatever... it's helpful not to have that knee jerk reaction of "This person is bad and wants people to suffer." That's almost never the case.

james-mcelwain 6y ago
First of all, "Basic economics/psychology informs" does not constitute empirical proof that UHC leads to decreased "innovation" (which is a weasel word in itself). Second, even if we granted the premise that UHC leads to less healthcare innovation, this doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm" in to people in the future. Unless you're claiming you have a crystal ball, there is absolute 0 epistemic basis on which to make this claim. For all we know, not having UHC leads to nuclear war and we all die. Or, having UHC leads to the singularity. Etc. Third, even if we grant that there's an innovation advantage to for-profit medicine AND we grant that you can predict the future, that still doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm", precisely because "harm" is comparative. I would argue that we've picked most of the low-hanging fruit of human medicine and that the marginal utility produced by new treatments is far outweighed by the human suffering of our for-profit system.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  >First of all, "Basic economics/psychology informs" does not constitute empirical proof that UHC leads to decreased "innovation" (which is a weasel word in itself). Either you believe humans respond to incentives or you don't. It's that simple. > Second, even if we granted the premise that UHC leads to less healthcare innovation, this doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm" in to people in the future. Unless you're claiming you have a crystal ball, there is absolute 0 epistemic basis on which to make this claim. For all we know, not having UHC leads to nuclear war and we all die. Or, having UHC leads to the singularity. Etc. I'm not making a "butterfly effect" argument where there's no obvious direct line between choice A and impact B. The only axiom I need is that humans respond to incentives, and then what happens when you reduce or remove incentives is obvious. You tend to get less of that thing. >I would argue that we've picked most of the low-hanging fruit of human medicine and that the marginal utility produced by new treatments is far outweighed by the human suffering of our for-profit system. If you believe we're basically near the end of potential for human medicine, would you support cutting subsidies and funding for research in the healthcare field?
  - mcguire 6y ago