4 ms·

Most doctors, nurses, and even scientists dont work for free. The incentive to help people is insufficient alone.

guerrilla 2y ago
I acknowledged that in my comment, but you missed my point. They don't work for free because they can't in our current system. We can change that.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think they would want to, not to the same degree.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    You lack any evidence for that and are ignoring the evidence to the contrary: nurses and teachers are paid shit in almost every country but do it anyway.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      They do it because they want to make money. Give them full salary even if they dont show up for work, and most wouldnt. They would rather be relaxing and having fun. Also, Nurses are a relatively well paid position, ~150% us the US median salary.
consteval 2y ago
Rockefeller famously opened up about 1500 libraries nationwide. Free to use public libraries, but the librarians and such were paid. Meaning, such philanthropy does not require every single soldier ant to be a philanthropist. But it does require them to not seek a "get rich" mentality. Such a mentality is inherently incompatible. And, for the rich philanthropist, he must be ready to lose money. You and I are but lowly ants, and to us losing money is bad. But consider for someone like Rockefeller, there was 0 quality of life decrease after opening those libraries. Of course, if I open even one library, I'm broke.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Surely healthcare requires many ants who want to be compensated. For this reason I think the idea that healthcare should not be contingent on profit seeking individuals to be a pretty hollow statement. It also seems that we have a shortage of Rockefellers to bankroll the US healthcare system as active charity with no profit motive. That seems inconsistent to claim that people will do the work and donate money without returns in the face of reality where very few people do that. The response seems to be that people in our current system are forced to seek compensation to survive. This seems easily testable. Cut back doctor and healthcare workers salaries to a subsistence income or even the median and you will quickly see if people flock to the profession or leave it
  - consteval 2y ago
    This doesn't align with reality, in which almost all developed nation-states have public healthcare systems. It is for the benefit of society as a whole that people be healthy. Therefore, it is in the interest of each and every person our healthcare be funded. Therefore, they should all fund it. It's not like other goods where some people want a toy, and some people don't. It's more in line with education. Everyone needs it, and if everyone has it then things improve for everyone - even those who can't get it, for one reason or another. In my eyes, healthcare as a field almost perfectly fits the description of what should be a nationalized service. We've taken the jump with other low-hanging fruit, like education. And society as a whole has benefited greatly from no longer having the majority of the population be illiterate.
    - slibhb 2y ago
      Developed nation states with public healthcare systems rely on the US pharma industry for an outsize part of drug discovery. It may be better for the whole world that there's one rich country taking the private approach. Also, the idea that if "something is in everyone's interest, it should be nationalized" doesn't address the fact that free markets are better at matching supply to demand. For example, the UK and Canada have significant healthcare supply shortages that only seem to be getting worse. To put the previous paragraph another way: having "a right to healthcare" in the abstract is nice but if you need to see an oncologist, waiting weeks/months/years is going to get you killed. In the US this is much less of an issue. Yes it's expensive but when the alternative is "dying of cancer," people are okay going into debt!

I acknowledged that in my comment, but you missed my point. They don't work for free because they can't in our current system. We can change that.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont think they would want to, not to the same degree.
- guerrilla 2y ago
  You lack any evidence for that and are ignoring the evidence to the contrary: nurses and teachers are paid shit in almost every country but do it anyway.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    They do it because they want to make money. Give them full salary even if they dont show up for work, and most wouldnt. They would rather be relaxing and having fun. Also, Nurses are a relatively well paid position, ~150% us the US median salary.

consteval 2y ago

Rockefeller famously opened up about 1500 libraries nationwide. Free to use public libraries, but the librarians and such were paid. Meaning, such philanthropy does not require every single soldier ant to be a philanthropist. But it does require them to not seek a "get rich" mentality. Such a mentality is inherently incompatible. And, for the rich philanthropist, he must be ready to lose money. You and I are but lowly ants, and to us losing money is bad. But consider for someone like Rockefeller, there was 0 quality of life decrease after opening those libraries. Of course, if I open even one library, I'm broke.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Surely healthcare requires many ants who want to be compensated. For this reason I think the idea that healthcare should not be contingent on profit seeking individuals to be a pretty hollow statement. It also seems that we have a shortage of Rockefellers to bankroll the US healthcare system as active charity with no profit motive. That seems inconsistent to claim that people will do the work and donate money without returns in the face of reality where very few people do that. The response seems to be that people in our current system are forced to seek compensation to survive. This seems easily testable. Cut back doctor and healthcare workers salaries to a subsistence income or even the median and you will quickly see if people flock to the profession or leave it
- consteval 2y ago
  This doesn't align with reality, in which almost all developed nation-states have public healthcare systems. It is for the benefit of society as a whole that people be healthy. Therefore, it is in the interest of each and every person our healthcare be funded. Therefore, they should all fund it. It's not like other goods where some people want a toy, and some people don't. It's more in line with education. Everyone needs it, and if everyone has it then things improve for everyone - even those who can't get it, for one reason or another. In my eyes, healthcare as a field almost perfectly fits the description of what should be a nationalized service. We've taken the jump with other low-hanging fruit, like education. And society as a whole has benefited greatly from no longer having the majority of the population be illiterate.
  - slibhb 2y ago
    Developed nation states with public healthcare systems rely on the US pharma industry for an outsize part of drug discovery. It may be better for the whole world that there's one rich country taking the private approach. Also, the idea that if "something is in everyone's interest, it should be nationalized" doesn't address the fact that free markets are better at matching supply to demand. For example, the UK and Canada have significant healthcare supply shortages that only seem to be getting worse. To put the previous paragraph another way: having "a right to healthcare" in the abstract is nice but if you need to see an oncologist, waiting weeks/months/years is going to get you killed. In the US this is much less of an issue. Yes it's expensive but when the alternative is "dying of cancer," people are okay going into debt!