7 ms·

The streaming never managed to start and every time I clicked on watch the application was downloaded again (and again). The saddest thing anyway in my opinion

The streaming never managed to start and every time I clicked on watch the application was downloaded again (and again). The saddest thing anyway in my opinion is that the man featured must raise funds for his healthcare, otherwise, his words, "he wouldn't be alive today". So only rich people have the right to live in US? And no that's not socialist or communist, it's just common sense because many rich men were just born rich, their families may have been rich from generations, so the "survival of the fittest" doesn't make any sense at all here.

lukifer 15y ago
At the risk of sparking pointless political debate: yes, it's nuts, bordering on inhumane. What's funny is that the same people who vehemently oppose any form of socialized medicine would likely be appalled by the notion of having to pay out of pocket to call the police (or perhaps, monthly crime insurance premiums?). The one that we're used to is so normalized that it's unthinkable to do without, while the other is a scary abomination concocted by foreigners. In fairness, some libertarians do favor privatizing things like fire and police, in which case I respectfully disagree, but admire their consistency.
- lhnn 15y ago
  With a uniform code of law, and a watcher for the watchers, I think private security for towns and cities can work. Look at anyone with lots of money: They're already paying for private security services (technological or human) because there isn't much faith in the response time or usefulness of police in many instances.
- rick888 15y ago
  "The one that we're used to is so normalized that it's unthinkable to do without, while the other is a scary abomination concocted by foreigners." It's different. 100% of the population doesn't need to use the police or fire. I've never had to use either my entire life, but I've gone to the doctor many times. I don't like the current system, but complete socialization isn't what I want either. When you socialize it completely, private care is truly in the hands of the very rich (because private companies can't compete with the government). Take a look at the UK for a good example of this. I would like to be able to pay for better care, if I have the money and complete government care means I will have no options but to take what the government gives me, which is usually sub-par (or ends up that way when the government runs out of money). In addition to this, when something is free (or can't feel it because they are paying money in taxes), people generally don't appreciate it, and in fact, will abuse it. We will have more people in the hospitals for things that don't require medical care with less room for people that actually need it. I see a parallel with tech support. If you are the tech guy that always helps people out for free, you (the resource) will eventually get tired of helping everyone out for free because people will come to you with questions they could have easily Googled or figured out themselves (like going to the hospital for something that doesn't require a doctor's attention). If you charge money (even if it's a little bit), only the serious people will ask you to do work for them. I think many people (including myself) got into trouble with credit cards because of this. I would buy things and I it didn't really feel like I was spending money. $20,000 later, I felt it, but it was almost too late by then. It took me 3 years to pay it off. Now, I only spend money that I have and $10 feels like I'm spending $10. Money is a good way of dividing up a finite resource. Hospitals are a finite resource. If we got rid of the insurance companies, hospitals wouldn't be able to charge $80 for Aspirin, because most people can't afford it. We would see the actual cost for things and the rates for everything would go down. A small percentage of the population would still need some form of subsidized, government care, but it could easily be supported by the rest of the system. Nobody will talk about the downsides of universal care. All of the supporters will only talk about how great it is. I want to know both sides and if you can't tell me as a supporter, I'm less likely to listen to you in the future.
  - william42 15y ago
    "We will have more people in the hospitals for things that don't require medical care with less room for people that actually need it." That's actually the problem with the current American system. Because people have to pay, they avoid going to the doctor early when the care could be preventative, and instead end up in the emergency room. Healthcare is something that is cheaper when used frequently.
ja30278 15y ago
Your comment seems to suggest that healthcare is an infinite resource. It isn't. There are a finite number of brilliant surgeons, a finite number of expensive MRI machines, a finite number of hospital beds, etc. A market is just a means of determining distribution of a rivalrous resource. If it wasn't money, it would be something else (influence, political power, etc). Having money, in general, is a proxy for the ability to create wealth. Thus, if you can't save everyone, and you have to use some mechanism for choosing who to save, then choosing to save the rich is a decent proxy for saving the people who create wealth. I happen to think that's a better system than some of the others ('who you know', 'how "good" your politics are')
- william42 15y ago
  Well, at the scales we're dealing with, healthcare is an infinite resource. Emergency rooms in the United States cannot turn anyone down, and even uninsured Americans will end up going to the hospital when something serious happens, because the choice is between debt and debilitating illness, people will pick the former. Wouldn't it be a lot better if we could spend more resources on preventing disease by removing the disincentive for going to the doctor for early detection? Not to mention, with communicable diseases, herd immunity is a very real thing.
sp332 15y ago
So only rich people have the right to live in US? People die here all the time, it's crazy! I've never heard of even one person who lived forever. /s

lukifer 15y ago

At the risk of sparking pointless political debate: yes, it's nuts, bordering on inhumane. What's funny is that the same people who vehemently oppose any form of socialized medicine would likely be appalled by the notion of having to pay out of pocket to call the police (or perhaps, monthly crime insurance premiums?). The one that we're used to is so normalized that it's unthinkable to do without, while the other is a scary abomination concocted by foreigners. In fairness, some libertarians do favor privatizing things like fire and police, in which case I respectfully disagree, but admire their consistency.

lhnn 15y ago
With a uniform code of law, and a watcher for the watchers, I think private security for towns and cities can work. Look at anyone with lots of money: They're already paying for private security services (technological or human) because there isn't much faith in the response time or usefulness of police in many instances.
rick888 15y ago
"The one that we're used to is so normalized that it's unthinkable to do without, while the other is a scary abomination concocted by foreigners." It's different. 100% of the population doesn't need to use the police or fire. I've never had to use either my entire life, but I've gone to the doctor many times. I don't like the current system, but complete socialization isn't what I want either. When you socialize it completely, private care is truly in the hands of the very rich (because private companies can't compete with the government). Take a look at the UK for a good example of this. I would like to be able to pay for better care, if I have the money and complete government care means I will have no options but to take what the government gives me, which is usually sub-par (or ends up that way when the government runs out of money). In addition to this, when something is free (or can't feel it because they are paying money in taxes), people generally don't appreciate it, and in fact, will abuse it. We will have more people in the hospitals for things that don't require medical care with less room for people that actually need it. I see a parallel with tech support. If you are the tech guy that always helps people out for free, you (the resource) will eventually get tired of helping everyone out for free because people will come to you with questions they could have easily Googled or figured out themselves (like going to the hospital for something that doesn't require a doctor's attention). If you charge money (even if it's a little bit), only the serious people will ask you to do work for them. I think many people (including myself) got into trouble with credit cards because of this. I would buy things and I it didn't really feel like I was spending money. $20,000 later, I felt it, but it was almost too late by then. It took me 3 years to pay it off. Now, I only spend money that I have and $10 feels like I'm spending $10. Money is a good way of dividing up a finite resource. Hospitals are a finite resource. If we got rid of the insurance companies, hospitals wouldn't be able to charge $80 for Aspirin, because most people can't afford it. We would see the actual cost for things and the rates for everything would go down. A small percentage of the population would still need some form of subsidized, government care, but it could easily be supported by the rest of the system. Nobody will talk about the downsides of universal care. All of the supporters will only talk about how great it is. I want to know both sides and if you can't tell me as a supporter, I'm less likely to listen to you in the future.
- william42 15y ago
  "We will have more people in the hospitals for things that don't require medical care with less room for people that actually need it." That's actually the problem with the current American system. Because people have to pay, they avoid going to the doctor early when the care could be preventative, and instead end up in the emergency room. Healthcare is something that is cheaper when used frequently.

ja30278 15y ago

Your comment seems to suggest that healthcare is an infinite resource. It isn't. There are a finite number of brilliant surgeons, a finite number of expensive MRI machines, a finite number of hospital beds, etc. A market is just a means of determining distribution of a rivalrous resource. If it wasn't money, it would be something else (influence, political power, etc). Having money, in general, is a proxy for the ability to create wealth. Thus, if you can't save everyone, and you have to use some mechanism for choosing who to save, then choosing to save the rich is a decent proxy for saving the people who create wealth. I happen to think that's a better system than some of the others ('who you know', 'how "good" your politics are')

william42 15y ago
Well, at the scales we're dealing with, healthcare is an infinite resource. Emergency rooms in the United States cannot turn anyone down, and even uninsured Americans will end up going to the hospital when something serious happens, because the choice is between debt and debilitating illness, people will pick the former. Wouldn't it be a lot better if we could spend more resources on preventing disease by removing the disincentive for going to the doctor for early detection? Not to mention, with communicable diseases, herd immunity is a very real thing.

sp332 15y ago

So only rich people have the right to live in US? People die here all the time, it's crazy! I've never heard of even one person who lived forever. /s