11 ms·

>with the objective of pushing private for-profit healthcare (which just doesn't make sense) Maybe it doesn't make sense for you, but it makes their buddies in

>with the objective of pushing private for-profit healthcare (which just doesn't make sense) Maybe it doesn't make sense for you, but it makes their buddies in the private sector a lot of money. And that's the game in capitalism, making a lot of money. The government competing with affordable options for everyone against the private sector is "bad for business".

cjbgkagh 4y ago
Let’s not pretend corruption is unique to capitalism.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  That's not what I said.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    The game in socialism is also making a lot of money.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Problem: Politicians are corrupt! Solution: Give more power to politicians! Lack of power corrupts, need to give them more until they stop being corrupt! Not sure why anyone thinks that would work.
      - pydry 4y ago
        Because politicians are accountable to voters and unless the monopolies are nationalized the monopolies are accountable to no one.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        > politicians are accountable to voters And then what happens to minority interests? How about we have a national vote on what phone you get? Which car you get? Whether carrots or tomatoes get produced? What movies get produced? What clothes are produced? Which diseases get funding? What apartment you get? How many ounces of meat you get per week? What music you get to listen to? What could go wrong with that?
      - imtringued 4y ago
        Just do Sortition, give more power to a representative sample of the population.
      - asdff 4y ago
        I really don't understand how people can simultaneously believe that governments are corrupt and the private sector would support the public's interests. Guess who is corrupting government: the private sector who only support their own interests.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        I know this is difficult to understand how it works, but the beauty of the free market is everyone benefits while selfishly working for their own self-interest. Socialism, however, requires altruistic behavior, and very few people are consistently altruistic and self-sacrificing for the common good.
        kingkawn 4y ago
        Too much koolaid
        asdff 4y ago
        How can people benefit when in the free market system consumers are seen as a resource to be exploited?
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Because the seller, in a free market, has to please is customer. The way to please the customer is to have the customer benefit from the transaction. For example, how long do you think McDonald's would last if its McBurgers tasted bad? McDonald's success is extremely tied to customer satisfaction. Tossing the ball back to you, under socialism, why would the socialist service care if you're pleased with the service or not?
        asdff 4y ago
        Because a socialist system is ran by the public. It is beholden to the public as its shareholders. Mcdonalds needs to taste tasty, but only to get you hooked enough to choose mcdonalds over other foods. You think the shareholders would rather their customers actually eat healthy which means limiting consumption of Mcdonalds? No, they are practically in the business of selling cigarettes but in the form of fats and sugars. They want you addicted. The goal of the capitalist isn't to make their customer happy, its to extract as much of their available disposable income as possible.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      The Soviet Union seems to have failed that game by collapsing through external debt.
      - groby_b 4y ago
        The game has never been to make money for the country, or the government. And IIRC, a lot of people in power in the USSR made a lot of money out of the collapse of the USSR. Heck, there's some mid-level KGB dude who made $200 billion off it.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        The Soviet Union accrued massive debt due to internal production inefficiencies caused by corruption and mismanagement. Russia has extraordinary natural resources, by all rights they should be one of the most wealthy countries on earth.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        The same goes for South America. Yet they remain mired in poverty thanks to their predilection for socialism.
        trs8080 4y ago
        Actually they remain mired in poverty largely because the US keeps meddling in their affairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... So it's more like "they remain mired in poverty because of the United States' predilection for predatory capitalism."
        relativ575 4y ago
        Notice how on that list none of South America countries appear after 1990s? Venezuela has been hostile to the US, yet they are still there. Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia have elected socialism-leaning governments multiple times during the last 30 years. Not to mention Nicaragua or Mexico, that are not considered South America. Colombia is the latest example. So they are poor because of US meddling, and not even a tiny part due to their policies? You have to try harder if you want to blame their issues on the US.
    - isk517 4y ago
      The game of any ecological/political system is to acquire power, the exact system is merely the set of rules you play by to get it.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    It definitely came across that way to me in your comment as well. You associated corruption with capitalism via "and that's the name of the game" as though the objective of capitalism is to destroy public institutions, when what's actually the case is that the objective of corrupt people is to destroy or co-opt public institutions for their own benefit. The economic system is largely immaterial in that effort. Actually, you could argue the opposite in that capitalism helps prop up public institutions versus other economic systems because there are minimum levels of regulation, rule of law, and security that are required for capitalistic economies (ranging from the US, to Sweden, to Singapore) to function and for capital owners to profit.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Valakas_ 4y ago
  Corruption is a human ingrained need for trickery to gain advantage of potential gene competition. It is ubiquitous for humans and increases with perceived genetic difference, up to a maximum.
xupybd 4y ago
You're correct that the game is to make a lot of money but the key to making that work is ensuring transactions are beneficial to all parties. It doesn't matter how you structure things you end up with some way to climb the hierarchy. The problem with pure communist systems is they try to prevent all hierarchies. Human nature attempts to circumvent this, the only way to do so is via corruption and political power. Corruption and political power exist in abundance in free markets as well, but there is another outlet for personal ambition. People can get rich. The hope is that you can build a system that incentivizes people to get rich by providing value for everyone. You can have private for-profit healthcare but you have to make sure that people get a good deal out of that. Normally we rely on competition to ensure customers always get a good deal. I don't think that works in this setting. Healthcare is tricky, I don't think we've found a good way to setup incentives for heath systems to have the best outcomes. We will need strong government regulation no matter what we do. Competition will not provide sufficiently good outcomes. In the US you have great hospitals but at astronomical costs, the entire system is distorted by insurance companies and massive bureaucracies. Here in NZ the hospitals are terrible underfunded socialist messes. We can't hold on to staff because we don't pay enough. Emergency waits are hours. My friends wife just spent 3 days before getting emergency surgery to reattach nerves and tendons in her hand. She had to travel 3 hours to another city to get that care. The last two times I required emergency care the wait was over 8 hours. I can't pay for better service and there is no private emergency option.
- diob 4y ago
  Hate to say it but even with money here in the US you can't get emergency care these days. It's all about connections instead.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > It doesn't matter how you structure things you end up with some way to climb the hierarchy. The problem with pure communist systems is they try to prevent all hierarchies. That is a massive non-sequiter though, nobody is suggesting that factory workers rise up and sieze control of the hospitals. Or even that nurses do so. The proposals for healthcare usually involve the oligarchs being in control and the public enforcing standards. Which typically turns out to be unsustainable because the middle class is where the people who know how to run things come from and they just got cut out. The problem here is excessive centralisation where if (more practically, when) the government becomes corrupt or makes a bad decision it becomes illegal to do something different to the regulatory standard. Politics by people with communist leanings isn't helping the situation, but the fundamental issue here is people keep proposing 'solutions' that don't work and effectively block people from actually solving the problems. Eg, I bet someone with a good idea of how to organise an independent emergency healthcare service wouldn't be allowed to do it in England.
redeeman 4y ago
> And that's the game in capitalism, making a lot of money. yeah, but in real capitalism, this is done by consumers voluntarily choosing a product. What we are seeing here is crony capitalism play out.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
Well the comment did say it was corrupt government officials conspiring against the people and causing the problems with the healthcare system. Not sure if giving the corrupt government more money and power is a good idea in that case.

cjbgkagh 4y ago

Let’s not pretend corruption is unique to capitalism.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
That's not what I said.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The game in socialism is also making a lot of money.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Problem: Politicians are corrupt! Solution: Give more power to politicians! Lack of power corrupts, need to give them more until they stop being corrupt! Not sure why anyone thinks that would work.
    - pydry 4y ago
      Because politicians are accountable to voters and unless the monopolies are nationalized the monopolies are accountable to no one.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > politicians are accountable to voters And then what happens to minority interests? How about we have a national vote on what phone you get? Which car you get? Whether carrots or tomatoes get produced? What movies get produced? What clothes are produced? Which diseases get funding? What apartment you get? How many ounces of meat you get per week? What music you get to listen to? What could go wrong with that?
    - imtringued 4y ago
      Just do Sortition, give more power to a representative sample of the population.
    - asdff 4y ago
      I really don't understand how people can simultaneously believe that governments are corrupt and the private sector would support the public's interests. Guess who is corrupting government: the private sector who only support their own interests.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I know this is difficult to understand how it works, but the beauty of the free market is everyone benefits while selfishly working for their own self-interest. Socialism, however, requires altruistic behavior, and very few people are consistently altruistic and self-sacrificing for the common good.
        kingkawn 4y ago
        Too much koolaid
        asdff 4y ago
        How can people benefit when in the free market system consumers are seen as a resource to be exploited?
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Because the seller, in a free market, has to please is customer. The way to please the customer is to have the customer benefit from the transaction. For example, how long do you think McDonald's would last if its McBurgers tasted bad? McDonald's success is extremely tied to customer satisfaction. Tossing the ball back to you, under socialism, why would the socialist service care if you're pleased with the service or not?
        asdff 4y ago
        Because a socialist system is ran by the public. It is beholden to the public as its shareholders. Mcdonalds needs to taste tasty, but only to get you hooked enough to choose mcdonalds over other foods. You think the shareholders would rather their customers actually eat healthy which means limiting consumption of Mcdonalds? No, they are practically in the business of selling cigarettes but in the form of fats and sugars. They want you addicted. The goal of the capitalist isn't to make their customer happy, its to extract as much of their available disposable income as possible.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    The Soviet Union seems to have failed that game by collapsing through external debt.
    - groby_b 4y ago
      The game has never been to make money for the country, or the government. And IIRC, a lot of people in power in the USSR made a lot of money out of the collapse of the USSR. Heck, there's some mid-level KGB dude who made $200 billion off it.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      The Soviet Union accrued massive debt due to internal production inefficiencies caused by corruption and mismanagement. Russia has extraordinary natural resources, by all rights they should be one of the most wealthy countries on earth.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        The same goes for South America. Yet they remain mired in poverty thanks to their predilection for socialism.
        trs8080 4y ago
        Actually they remain mired in poverty largely because the US keeps meddling in their affairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... So it's more like "they remain mired in poverty because of the United States' predilection for predatory capitalism."
        relativ575 4y ago
        Notice how on that list none of South America countries appear after 1990s? Venezuela has been hostile to the US, yet they are still there. Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia have elected socialism-leaning governments multiple times during the last 30 years. Not to mention Nicaragua or Mexico, that are not considered South America. Colombia is the latest example. So they are poor because of US meddling, and not even a tiny part due to their policies? You have to try harder if you want to blame their issues on the US.
  - isk517 4y ago
    The game of any ecological/political system is to acquire power, the exact system is merely the set of rules you play by to get it.
- ericmay 4y ago
  It definitely came across that way to me in your comment as well. You associated corruption with capitalism via "and that's the name of the game" as though the objective of capitalism is to destroy public institutions, when what's actually the case is that the objective of corrupt people is to destroy or co-opt public institutions for their own benefit. The economic system is largely immaterial in that effort. Actually, you could argue the opposite in that capitalism helps prop up public institutions versus other economic systems because there are minimum levels of regulation, rule of law, and security that are required for capitalistic economies (ranging from the US, to Sweden, to Singapore) to function and for capital owners to profit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Valakas_ 4y ago
Corruption is a human ingrained need for trickery to gain advantage of potential gene competition. It is ubiquitous for humans and increases with perceived genetic difference, up to a maximum.

xupybd 4y ago

You're correct that the game is to make a lot of money but the key to making that work is ensuring transactions are beneficial to all parties. It doesn't matter how you structure things you end up with some way to climb the hierarchy. The problem with pure communist systems is they try to prevent all hierarchies. Human nature attempts to circumvent this, the only way to do so is via corruption and political power. Corruption and political power exist in abundance in free markets as well, but there is another outlet for personal ambition. People can get rich. The hope is that you can build a system that incentivizes people to get rich by providing value for everyone. You can have private for-profit healthcare but you have to make sure that people get a good deal out of that. Normally we rely on competition to ensure customers always get a good deal. I don't think that works in this setting. Healthcare is tricky, I don't think we've found a good way to setup incentives for heath systems to have the best outcomes. We will need strong government regulation no matter what we do. Competition will not provide sufficiently good outcomes. In the US you have great hospitals but at astronomical costs, the entire system is distorted by insurance companies and massive bureaucracies. Here in NZ the hospitals are terrible underfunded socialist messes. We can't hold on to staff because we don't pay enough. Emergency waits are hours. My friends wife just spent 3 days before getting emergency surgery to reattach nerves and tendons in her hand. She had to travel 3 hours to another city to get that care. The last two times I required emergency care the wait was over 8 hours. I can't pay for better service and there is no private emergency option.

diob 4y ago
Hate to say it but even with money here in the US you can't get emergency care these days. It's all about connections instead.
roenxi 4y ago
> It doesn't matter how you structure things you end up with some way to climb the hierarchy. The problem with pure communist systems is they try to prevent all hierarchies. That is a massive non-sequiter though, nobody is suggesting that factory workers rise up and sieze control of the hospitals. Or even that nurses do so. The proposals for healthcare usually involve the oligarchs being in control and the public enforcing standards. Which typically turns out to be unsustainable because the middle class is where the people who know how to run things come from and they just got cut out. The problem here is excessive centralisation where if (more practically, when) the government becomes corrupt or makes a bad decision it becomes illegal to do something different to the regulatory standard. Politics by people with communist leanings isn't helping the situation, but the fundamental issue here is people keep proposing 'solutions' that don't work and effectively block people from actually solving the problems. Eg, I bet someone with a good idea of how to organise an independent emergency healthcare service wouldn't be allowed to do it in England.

redeeman 4y ago

> And that's the game in capitalism, making a lot of money. yeah, but in real capitalism, this is done by consumers voluntarily choosing a product. What we are seeing here is crony capitalism play out.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

Well the comment did say it was corrupt government officials conspiring against the people and causing the problems with the healthcare system. Not sure if giving the corrupt government more money and power is a good idea in that case.