5 ms·

I advocate for the fairer distribution of wealth in society. Not only because it's fair but because it's better for everyone. There are many reasons for this in

by jmyeet 2y ago

I advocate for the fairer distribution of wealth in society. Not only because it's fair but because it's better for everyone. There are many reasons for this including avoiding the alienation of labor and giving people dignity. All it takes is the ultra-wealthy to have slightly less wealth. So why is wealth concentration bad for society apart from that? Because the ultimate form of wealth distribution is war and revolution. It's way the descendants of Rockefeller, the Medicis or Caesar don't own the world. Society eventually snaps and a lot of violence ensues. Eventually you end up with the French Revolution and heads end up on pikes or separated by guillotines. One of the messages of Fight Club is that the rich and powerful cannot insulate themselves from the people they are oppressing. Your gardener, your driver, your chef, your security guard. Any of them is capable of taking matters into their hands and they will only be pushed so far. You saw this play out in Japan with the reaction to Shinzo Abe's assassination a couple of years ago. While world leaders were outraged, the Japanese kinda got it. You can dig deep into this with the Unification Church, its influence on Japanese politics and, if you really want, how the Unification Church is tied to the CIA. United Healthcare is quite literally killing people for profit. Just like the Sacklers and so many others. We've become completely desensitized to this. Private health insurance is completely inefficient (look at how much the US pays per-capita for health care vs any other developed nation and then compare our coverage). We could literally save millions of lives and cut costs by getting rid of these lecherous middlemen. So I don't condone or justify violence like this. It's simply analysis to see that this kind of thing is going to continue to happen as material conditions worsen and wealth inequality rises. In his ~3 year tenure are United Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson quite literally killed thousands of people yet there's so little outrage over that.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
[flagged]
- Clubber 2y ago
  >You keep saying killed, but there is a difference between letting people die and killing them. Using dubious legalese to deny a life saving claim that happens to cost say $200,000 that you took premiums for is pretty close. If you pay out of pocket, it might save your life, but you're bankrupt, your children get no inheritance, and you probably lose your house. That's a pretty insidious act for profit IMO. >Voters are widely split on healthcare reform and have no consensus beyond the fact that they want it. I want healthcare reform too, but probably dont agree with you on what that means. I don't that that justifies a consequentialist claim that the other is a killer, let alone reprisal. I think the easiest step would be to drop the Medicaid age from 65 to 60. Drop it 5 years every 5 years or so. The lower it goes, the cheaper that bracket will be. I don't know why any politician hasn't suggested this, but I can guess.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont want state funded single player Medicaid for all, and would vote against it. I think my united healthcare plan is better (somewhat ironically). Instead, I think medicaid should be offered, at cost, as a non-profit public option to all ages. This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. We got compulsory private healthcare instead, but I think it is still the best option. Give everyone a non-profit option with a national pool size.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. As someone who voluteered in this field during that time, this is just a repetition of right wing propaganda. There was no serious movement to eliminate private options. Every country with a single-payer system that I'm aware of has private options as well, they just aren't popular because they aren't good or necessary. Right wing extremists want to present this as eliminating options, but in reality, it's just people not choosing private options when they have other options, because private options suck. The real reason the left rejected a the "compromise" of non-profit options is that it still requires people who don't have money to pay for insurance. Simply slapping a non-profit label on an insurance company doesn't fix anything. Note that non-profit health insurance companies exist already, and have solved exactly zero of America's health insurance problems.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away.
        kerkeslager 2y ago
        > Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. Correct, but that's a pretty big change from the propaganda you repeated in your previous comment. What you said was, "This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options." In another now-deleted comment, you also said, "the left was too fixated On preventing people from buying better care". Nothing about having single payer healthcare prevents people from also purchasing private healthcare. Single payer does not require the elimination of private options--when you said that was what the left wanted, you were repeating a lie. People can and do purchase private healthcare in countries with single-payer systems--it's just not common because generally the private healthcare options aren't worth it. > If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away. Single-payer is optional in the same sense that current subsidies to insurance companies are optional, it just costs less and results in less death and human suffering. Your insistence that it has to be "offered at cost" is basically an insistence that people who can't afford that cost but need life saving care can just die. So no, it wasn't "offered at cost"--that's the entire point. I want Americans to be able to receive life-saving medical care when they need it, even if they are poor. That's just basic empathy for our fellow humans.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > You keep saying killed, but there is a difference between letting people die and killing them. There's also a difference between letting people die for whom you have no responsibility, and actively taking on the responsibility to prevent deaths in exchange for profit, and then letting the people whose lives you're responsible for die. If you don't want to be held responsible when you let people die, don't take on that responsibility by becoming a health insurer. Health insurers actually did worse than that: when other people wanted to take on the responsibility (i.e. single-payer healthcare) they actively blocked them from saving lives so they could go on profiting. If this isn't "murder" or "killing" in your eyes, then maybe we just need a new word for the callous abdication of responsibilities that you signed up to provide for profit, when doing so results in the deaths of thousands.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > If this isn't "murder" or "killing" in your eyes, then maybe we just need a new word for the callous abdication of responsibilities that you signed up to provide for profit, when doing so results in the deaths of thousands. We already have a word for that, it's called "capitalism".
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    [flagged]
- FactKnower69 2y ago
  you already knew this when you made your post, but the calculus changes a little bit when there is a positive financial incentive to letting people die
sbalough 2y ago
I have the same thoughts especially thinking how we’re on the precipice of possible mass workforce displacement from ai and robots like waymo. What I just can’t understand is why anyone would feel satisfied being the billionaire in a bunker among miles of slums (picturing India) - even if the desperate folks are successfully oppressed.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  A bunker is just a prison with amenities.

by jmyeet 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

[flagged]

Clubber 2y ago
>You keep saying killed, but there is a difference between letting people die and killing them. Using dubious legalese to deny a life saving claim that happens to cost say $200,000 that you took premiums for is pretty close. If you pay out of pocket, it might save your life, but you're bankrupt, your children get no inheritance, and you probably lose your house. That's a pretty insidious act for profit IMO. >Voters are widely split on healthcare reform and have no consensus beyond the fact that they want it. I want healthcare reform too, but probably dont agree with you on what that means. I don't that that justifies a consequentialist claim that the other is a killer, let alone reprisal. I think the easiest step would be to drop the Medicaid age from 65 to 60. Drop it 5 years every 5 years or so. The lower it goes, the cheaper that bracket will be. I don't know why any politician hasn't suggested this, but I can guess.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont want state funded single player Medicaid for all, and would vote against it. I think my united healthcare plan is better (somewhat ironically). Instead, I think medicaid should be offered, at cost, as a non-profit public option to all ages. This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. We got compulsory private healthcare instead, but I think it is still the best option. Give everyone a non-profit option with a national pool size.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. As someone who voluteered in this field during that time, this is just a repetition of right wing propaganda. There was no serious movement to eliminate private options. Every country with a single-payer system that I'm aware of has private options as well, they just aren't popular because they aren't good or necessary. Right wing extremists want to present this as eliminating options, but in reality, it's just people not choosing private options when they have other options, because private options suck. The real reason the left rejected a the "compromise" of non-profit options is that it still requires people who don't have money to pay for insurance. Simply slapping a non-profit label on an insurance company doesn't fix anything. Note that non-profit health insurance companies exist already, and have solved exactly zero of America's health insurance problems.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away.
      - kerkeslager 2y ago
        > Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. Correct, but that's a pretty big change from the propaganda you repeated in your previous comment. What you said was, "This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options." In another now-deleted comment, you also said, "the left was too fixated On preventing people from buying better care". Nothing about having single payer healthcare prevents people from also purchasing private healthcare. Single payer does not require the elimination of private options--when you said that was what the left wanted, you were repeating a lie. People can and do purchase private healthcare in countries with single-payer systems--it's just not common because generally the private healthcare options aren't worth it. > If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away. Single-payer is optional in the same sense that current subsidies to insurance companies are optional, it just costs less and results in less death and human suffering. Your insistence that it has to be "offered at cost" is basically an insistence that people who can't afford that cost but need life saving care can just die. So no, it wasn't "offered at cost"--that's the entire point. I want Americans to be able to receive life-saving medical care when they need it, even if they are poor. That's just basic empathy for our fellow humans.
kerkeslager 2y ago
> You keep saying killed, but there is a difference between letting people die and killing them. There's also a difference between letting people die for whom you have no responsibility, and actively taking on the responsibility to prevent deaths in exchange for profit, and then letting the people whose lives you're responsible for die. If you don't want to be held responsible when you let people die, don't take on that responsibility by becoming a health insurer. Health insurers actually did worse than that: when other people wanted to take on the responsibility (i.e. single-payer healthcare) they actively blocked them from saving lives so they could go on profiting. If this isn't "murder" or "killing" in your eyes, then maybe we just need a new word for the callous abdication of responsibilities that you signed up to provide for profit, when doing so results in the deaths of thousands.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > If this isn't "murder" or "killing" in your eyes, then maybe we just need a new word for the callous abdication of responsibilities that you signed up to provide for profit, when doing so results in the deaths of thousands. We already have a word for that, it's called "capitalism".
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  [flagged]
FactKnower69 2y ago
you already knew this when you made your post, but the calculus changes a little bit when there is a positive financial incentive to letting people die

sbalough 2y ago

I have the same thoughts especially thinking how we’re on the precipice of possible mass workforce displacement from ai and robots like waymo. What I just can’t understand is why anyone would feel satisfied being the billionaire in a bunker among miles of slums (picturing India) - even if the desperate folks are successfully oppressed.

throwaway48476 2y ago
A bunker is just a prison with amenities.