5 ms·

Partially correct. It's socialism for the rich. If it were socialism, you wouldn't have poor/middle-class people dying from treatable diseases.

by nickb 18y ago

yummyfajitas 18y ago
What treatable diseases are poor/middle-class people dying of, that could be prevented by socialism?
- sabat 18y ago
  Cancer. Diabetes. Yadda yadda. Do you know how many people are not insured and cannot afford insurance? ("Go to the emergency room" is not a health plan.) Do you know how many people with serious illnesses are turned down by their own insurance companies every year? I'm not saying socialism is an automatic answer, but it'd better than this mess.
  - GavinB 18y ago
    Actually, "go to the emergency room" is a health plan. It's just the most inefficient health plan for all involved.
    - easyfrag 18y ago
      and it is also one that treats symptoms and not the underlying conditions.
  - jrmurad 18y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong that socialism is better than this mess but I will say that capitalism is better than this mess and better than socialism too. Having health insurance provided by the State (i.e. you through your tax dollars after several layers of corruption and bureaucratic waste) does not guarantee quality of care. A competitive free market is more likely to develop better medicine.
    - jfoutz 18y ago
      I'm first to agree efficient markets are fantastic at allocating resources effectively. I'm curios though, how do you guarantee people who are sick/hurt/dying behave as rational actors? I might be mis-remembering but i thought rational actors were a requirement, otherwise they would be to quick to give away money.
      - jrmurad 18y ago
        Honestly, I haven't heard the rationality factor applied in the case of healthcare so I won't try to answer you question but I don't want to duck it entirely because it's an interesting point. I know that children and the mentally disabled are handled specially in other cases for that reason. However, could you not apply the same argument to food (hungry people), shelter (exposed people), etc? I think those who want socialized medicine have to justify aggression (initiating force through taxation, regulation, etc.) They also have to convince us that the masses (in the case of a democracy) can make better decisions than the individuals directly involved in each particular situation. They have to explain how people would be motivated to innovate in a system lacking competition and guaranteeing equality of outcome (this, is what I'm assuming is meant by "socialism", by the way). I think these questions are of interest to us and the "hackers" of other disciplines... we want an environment where people are free to try new things. Mitigating the risk of failure should can also be managed by the market through insurance, which, getting back to the original point is privilege not a right because one has no "right" to the goods/services of another. So, sure, it would be a great idea for everyone to contribute to a large pool for health insurance... but on a voluntary basis. Those who decline to or cannot pay will have to rely on charity if something happens. I can feel bad for them but I would not feel justified in putting my gun (or a tax collector's) to someone else's head to make them pay for it. This is all assuming that both insurance and healthcare costs will both decrease dramatically when America rids itself of the heavy regulation of and handouts to the respective industries by going to either a completely socialist or capitalist system.
        ajkirwin 18y ago
        I'm all for a 'big pot' and that if you put money in, you can then get money out. But at the same time, I think that people should HAVE to put into the pot, or you end up with a Tragedy of the Commons. No-one pays, because they don't like to think they'll get sick. And then when they do, well, it's too late. (I should note that I am biased towards socialized medicine, being an aforementioned sick person)
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    do the 40% of americans who don't pay taxes deserve free entitlement programs?
    - run4yourlives 18y ago
      Are you suggesting the sentence for tax-evasion should be death + a waiver of constitutional rights to a fair trial? If not, then the answer to your question is "yes".
  - sown 18y ago
    I think people are talking past each other at this point. When you say "socialism" what exactly do you mean? I think it is one of those words that has lost its meaning since there are so many different definitions of it and we're not always on the same page.
    - sown 18y ago
      I'm being down modded for this? It's an honest question. edit: :( what did i do?!
      - khafra 18y ago
        Last line in the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you're upset about being downmodded, I'd suggest 1) Carefully re-read your comment, looking for ambiguities or excessive partisanship. 2) Look for patterns in the rest of the comments--I'd expect downmods on a "government actually handles [common scenario] pretty well" post in a thread full of mises.org and lew rockwell references; and just resolve to live with it. 3) Just wait. Sometimes there's two or three quick, reflexive downmods that can dent your self-esteem, but often your comment's opinion-o-meter will rise hours later, and leave you feeling rather silly if you added another comment just to complain about downmods.
  - gills 18y ago
    I don't know the answers to our questions. What I do know is that developing effective treatments that are initially affordable only to a few is better for our species than accepting mediocrity across the board. I would rather die form cancer at home with my family than in a hospital with people who are only pretending to treat me.
  - eru 18y ago
    No, it's not. Come to eastern Germany any time to see what scars socialism left - even 20 years after it's gone.
- Alex3917 18y ago
  People without access to medical treatment are more likely to die from any disease that can be treated.
  - iamah 18y ago
    Why don't we just stop breathing already? It'd solve a whole lot of problems.
- olefoo 18y ago
  The flu, diabetes, cancer. Now for the first one, there is a clear and self-interested argument for public health measures that even the most laissez faire libertarian could get behind. Namely, that the prevalence of flu amongst the lower classes means that you and your precious sprogeny are more likely to die of it. For the other two we have to rely on those outmoded and declassé ideals about compassion and bettering the human condition, and the tediously earnest argument that the less suffering there is in a society, the better off everyone in that society is... But, really who cares; I mean you've got yours, or you are on the way to getting yours and the rest of the human race is of no concern to you other than as service providers or as customers right?
  - akd 18y ago
    Why should I care about someone who doesn't care about me?
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  When I worked at a pharmacy I regularly saw people choosing which of their prescriptions they would actually fill based on what they could afford. If these were life-saving drugs, as they were supposed to be, I would have to assume that some of them did or will end up dying prematurely.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Infant mortality in the US correlates highly [negatively] with income. In France it doesn't.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    Smoking, obesity, drug use, and general poor lifestyle also correlate highly negatively with income, and can increase infant mortality. Being a Black American correlates negatively with income, and positively with low birth weight and infant mortality (note that Black Americans have an infant mortality rate of 16/1000, vs about 7/1000 among White Americans). With such large confounding factors, how can you draw the conclusion you seem to be implying?
    - MaysonL 18y ago
      Why not in France?
mseebach 18y ago
> If it were socialism, you wouldn't have poor/middle-class people dying from treatable diseases. No, since nobody would be middle-class or above, it would only be poor people dying from treatable diseases.

Partially correct. It's socialism for the rich. If it were socialism, you wouldn't have poor/middle-class people dying from treatable diseases.

by nickb 18y ago

Partially correct. It's socialism for the rich. If it were socialism, you wouldn't have poor/middle-class people dying from treatable diseases.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

What treatable diseases are poor/middle-class people dying of, that could be prevented by socialism?

sabat 18y ago
Cancer. Diabetes. Yadda yadda. Do you know how many people are not insured and cannot afford insurance? ("Go to the emergency room" is not a health plan.) Do you know how many people with serious illnesses are turned down by their own insurance companies every year? I'm not saying socialism is an automatic answer, but it'd better than this mess.
- GavinB 18y ago
  Actually, "go to the emergency room" is a health plan. It's just the most inefficient health plan for all involved.
  - easyfrag 18y ago
    and it is also one that treats symptoms and not the underlying conditions.
- jrmurad 18y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong that socialism is better than this mess but I will say that capitalism is better than this mess and better than socialism too. Having health insurance provided by the State (i.e. you through your tax dollars after several layers of corruption and bureaucratic waste) does not guarantee quality of care. A competitive free market is more likely to develop better medicine.
  - jfoutz 18y ago
    I'm first to agree efficient markets are fantastic at allocating resources effectively. I'm curios though, how do you guarantee people who are sick/hurt/dying behave as rational actors? I might be mis-remembering but i thought rational actors were a requirement, otherwise they would be to quick to give away money.
    - jrmurad 18y ago
      Honestly, I haven't heard the rationality factor applied in the case of healthcare so I won't try to answer you question but I don't want to duck it entirely because it's an interesting point. I know that children and the mentally disabled are handled specially in other cases for that reason. However, could you not apply the same argument to food (hungry people), shelter (exposed people), etc? I think those who want socialized medicine have to justify aggression (initiating force through taxation, regulation, etc.) They also have to convince us that the masses (in the case of a democracy) can make better decisions than the individuals directly involved in each particular situation. They have to explain how people would be motivated to innovate in a system lacking competition and guaranteeing equality of outcome (this, is what I'm assuming is meant by "socialism", by the way). I think these questions are of interest to us and the "hackers" of other disciplines... we want an environment where people are free to try new things. Mitigating the risk of failure should can also be managed by the market through insurance, which, getting back to the original point is privilege not a right because one has no "right" to the goods/services of another. So, sure, it would be a great idea for everyone to contribute to a large pool for health insurance... but on a voluntary basis. Those who decline to or cannot pay will have to rely on charity if something happens. I can feel bad for them but I would not feel justified in putting my gun (or a tax collector's) to someone else's head to make them pay for it. This is all assuming that both insurance and healthcare costs will both decrease dramatically when America rids itself of the heavy regulation of and handouts to the respective industries by going to either a completely socialist or capitalist system.
      - ajkirwin 18y ago
        I'm all for a 'big pot' and that if you put money in, you can then get money out. But at the same time, I think that people should HAVE to put into the pot, or you end up with a Tragedy of the Commons. No-one pays, because they don't like to think they'll get sick. And then when they do, well, it's too late. (I should note that I am biased towards socialized medicine, being an aforementioned sick person)
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  do the 40% of americans who don't pay taxes deserve free entitlement programs?
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    Are you suggesting the sentence for tax-evasion should be death + a waiver of constitutional rights to a fair trial? If not, then the answer to your question is "yes".
- sown 18y ago
  I think people are talking past each other at this point. When you say "socialism" what exactly do you mean? I think it is one of those words that has lost its meaning since there are so many different definitions of it and we're not always on the same page.
  - sown 18y ago
    I'm being down modded for this? It's an honest question. edit: :( what did i do?!
    - khafra 18y ago
      Last line in the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you're upset about being downmodded, I'd suggest 1) Carefully re-read your comment, looking for ambiguities or excessive partisanship. 2) Look for patterns in the rest of the comments--I'd expect downmods on a "government actually handles [common scenario] pretty well" post in a thread full of mises.org and lew rockwell references; and just resolve to live with it. 3) Just wait. Sometimes there's two or three quick, reflexive downmods that can dent your self-esteem, but often your comment's opinion-o-meter will rise hours later, and leave you feeling rather silly if you added another comment just to complain about downmods.
- gills 18y ago
  I don't know the answers to our questions. What I do know is that developing effective treatments that are initially affordable only to a few is better for our species than accepting mediocrity across the board. I would rather die form cancer at home with my family than in a hospital with people who are only pretending to treat me.
- eru 18y ago
  No, it's not. Come to eastern Germany any time to see what scars socialism left - even 20 years after it's gone.
Alex3917 18y ago
People without access to medical treatment are more likely to die from any disease that can be treated.
- iamah 18y ago
  Why don't we just stop breathing already? It'd solve a whole lot of problems.
olefoo 18y ago
The flu, diabetes, cancer. Now for the first one, there is a clear and self-interested argument for public health measures that even the most laissez faire libertarian could get behind. Namely, that the prevalence of flu amongst the lower classes means that you and your precious sprogeny are more likely to die of it. For the other two we have to rely on those outmoded and declassé ideals about compassion and bettering the human condition, and the tediously earnest argument that the less suffering there is in a society, the better off everyone in that society is... But, really who cares; I mean you've got yours, or you are on the way to getting yours and the rest of the human race is of no concern to you other than as service providers or as customers right?
- akd 18y ago
  Why should I care about someone who doesn't care about me?
rsheridan6 18y ago
When I worked at a pharmacy I regularly saw people choosing which of their prescriptions they would actually fill based on what they could afford. If these were life-saving drugs, as they were supposed to be, I would have to assume that some of them did or will end up dying prematurely.
MaysonL 18y ago
Infant mortality in the US correlates highly [negatively] with income. In France it doesn't.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  Smoking, obesity, drug use, and general poor lifestyle also correlate highly negatively with income, and can increase infant mortality. Being a Black American correlates negatively with income, and positively with low birth weight and infant mortality (note that Black Americans have an infant mortality rate of 16/1000, vs about 7/1000 among White Americans). With such large confounding factors, how can you draw the conclusion you seem to be implying?
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    Why not in France?

mseebach 18y ago

> If it were socialism, you wouldn't have poor/middle-class people dying from treatable diseases. No, since nobody would be middle-class or above, it would only be poor people dying from treatable diseases.