3 ms·

Keeping anybody alive is worth it. The human species became a civilization only because it kept its then-unproductive weaker members alive - which allowed it to

by zrn900 2y ago

Keeping anybody alive is worth it. The human species became a civilization only because it kept its then-unproductive weaker members alive - which allowed it to develop learning, technology, and all the things that revolve around them. Even before that, it was able to survive and exist as a physically weaker species by taking care of and keeping alive its sick and wounded. This shows how destructive capitalism is: In its pursuit of maximizing the profits to increase the hoards of imaginary wealth, it even destroys the most fundamental tenets that made humans a successful civilization.

nosefurhairdo 2y ago
Capitalism is the engine that has lifted more humans out of poverty than any other. Countries which have embraced that fact have been better places to live than others. Cost/benefit analysis of medical treatment for the terminally ill does not suggest capitalism is "destructive".
- hypeatei 2y ago
  Ah yes, the engine that brought you a health insurance industry which treats humans as numbers on a spreadsheet. One where people don't seek medical treatment because the threat of being put into financial peril is too big. This really is a better place to live, I guess.
- zrn900 2y ago
  > Capitalism is the engine that has lifted more humans out of poverty than any other. Countries which have embraced that fact have been better places to live than others Capitalism didn't lift anyone out of sh*t. In its heyday people were living and dying in industrial slums at a ripe old age of 40. Only after the USSR won Ww2 instead of 'crumbling down like a house of cards' how the capitalist press was expecting before the war that the sociopaths in the West had to give concessions to their people to compete with the Eastern Bloc so that the people wouldn't overthrow them. When the USSR dissolved, they declared 'We won', and they started taking back all of those concessions. As a result, there are countries where people are killed if they cant pay for healthcare now. > Cost/benefit analysis of medical treatment for the terminally ill does not suggest capitalism is "destructive" It does.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> Keeping anybody alive is worth it. This might be true on average. But if you need to spend $1 million keeping a death row inmate alive who tried to commit suicide, that money might be better spent on infants with heart defects. Money being finite (and being an abstraction of medical equipment/expertise/hours which are also finite), you ultimately have scenarios where you have to choose one or the other. > This shows how destructive capitalism is: In its pursuit of maximizing the profits If something costs more than you can afford, then it is unaffordable. This remains true even for those who despise capitalism. The great innovation of communism was the destruction of all the data that would allow one to have insight about whether or not something was unaffordable or not. In the United States, insurance companies are heavily regulated, and premiums must reflect how much it costs to pay out claims, plus some small percentage for overhead. Nor do the hospitals themselves strictly seek profit... their adversarial relationship with insurance companies compels them to overbill in the theory that if one claim fails, the next can succeed... so price it for both. Profit-minimization isn't a very good strategy for long-term anything. If you want to be able to stay in business until next year so you can perform surgeries, you might have to, I dunno, at least break even.
- zrn900 2y ago
  > But if you need to spend $1 million keeping a death row inmate alive who tried to commit suicide, that money might be better spent on infants with heart defects. Money being finite (and being an abstraction of medical equipment/expertise/hours which are also finite), you ultimately have scenarios where you have to choose one or the other. These are fallacies of the capitalist ideology - it creates scarcities and then imposes these as truisms. There is more 'money' in the capitalist west than what's needed to treat every single person living there. Its just being hoarded. > In the United States, insurance companies are heavily regulated, and premiums must reflect how much it costs to pay out claims, plus some small percentage for overhead. Nor do the hospitals themselves strictly seek profit... their adversarial relationship with insurance companies compels them to overbill in the theory that if one claim fails, the next can succeed... so price it for both. You are talking literal nonsense. The most expensive healthcare with the worst results on the planet is in the US. Statistically. Every argument you made above is null and void.

by zrn900 2y ago

nosefurhairdo 2y ago

Capitalism is the engine that has lifted more humans out of poverty than any other. Countries which have embraced that fact have been better places to live than others. Cost/benefit analysis of medical treatment for the terminally ill does not suggest capitalism is "destructive".

hypeatei 2y ago
Ah yes, the engine that brought you a health insurance industry which treats humans as numbers on a spreadsheet. One where people don't seek medical treatment because the threat of being put into financial peril is too big. This really is a better place to live, I guess.
zrn900 2y ago
> Capitalism is the engine that has lifted more humans out of poverty than any other. Countries which have embraced that fact have been better places to live than others Capitalism didn't lift anyone out of sh*t. In its heyday people were living and dying in industrial slums at a ripe old age of 40. Only after the USSR won Ww2 instead of 'crumbling down like a house of cards' how the capitalist press was expecting before the war that the sociopaths in the West had to give concessions to their people to compete with the Eastern Bloc so that the people wouldn't overthrow them. When the USSR dissolved, they declared 'We won', and they started taking back all of those concessions. As a result, there are countries where people are killed if they cant pay for healthcare now. > Cost/benefit analysis of medical treatment for the terminally ill does not suggest capitalism is "destructive" It does.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> Keeping anybody alive is worth it. This might be true on average. But if you need to spend $1 million keeping a death row inmate alive who tried to commit suicide, that money might be better spent on infants with heart defects. Money being finite (and being an abstraction of medical equipment/expertise/hours which are also finite), you ultimately have scenarios where you have to choose one or the other. > This shows how destructive capitalism is: In its pursuit of maximizing the profits If something costs more than you can afford, then it is unaffordable. This remains true even for those who despise capitalism. The great innovation of communism was the destruction of all the data that would allow one to have insight about whether or not something was unaffordable or not. In the United States, insurance companies are heavily regulated, and premiums must reflect how much it costs to pay out claims, plus some small percentage for overhead. Nor do the hospitals themselves strictly seek profit... their adversarial relationship with insurance companies compels them to overbill in the theory that if one claim fails, the next can succeed... so price it for both. Profit-minimization isn't a very good strategy for long-term anything. If you want to be able to stay in business until next year so you can perform surgeries, you might have to, I dunno, at least break even.

zrn900 2y ago
> But if you need to spend $1 million keeping a death row inmate alive who tried to commit suicide, that money might be better spent on infants with heart defects. Money being finite (and being an abstraction of medical equipment/expertise/hours which are also finite), you ultimately have scenarios where you have to choose one or the other. These are fallacies of the capitalist ideology - it creates scarcities and then imposes these as truisms. There is more 'money' in the capitalist west than what's needed to treat every single person living there. Its just being hoarded. > In the United States, insurance companies are heavily regulated, and premiums must reflect how much it costs to pay out claims, plus some small percentage for overhead. Nor do the hospitals themselves strictly seek profit... their adversarial relationship with insurance companies compels them to overbill in the theory that if one claim fails, the next can succeed... so price it for both. You are talking literal nonsense. The most expensive healthcare with the worst results on the planet is in the US. Statistically. Every argument you made above is null and void.