The death of eternal truths and the new Paganism

Yes, there is regulation.

It is still capitalism. Pharma makes its decisions on price and on what problems to solve based on maximizing profit. Health insurance companies make their decisions based on maximizing profit.

 

In actual capitalism, the market determines the price, not the company. It's only when the market is corrupted can you price your products like Pharma does.

 

You seem to be spouting reactionary right-wing tropes that you haven’t thought through, because when given a chance to clarify you have nothing. What you would cut from government is “EVERYTHING”? I think they tried that in Somalia and it didn’t work out. How was the past better? Silence.

You do go on with right-wing bigotry of liberals. Liberals “moronically” value fairness and you ask, determined by who? Liberals may agitate for social change but the general public must come around to agree with that change for that change to happen. In other words the general public determines it. Also no one with any sense would expect equal outcomes from unequal individuals, but one would hope there is equal opportunity. Do you have a problem with that?

So capitalism should be left alone? Healthcare should only be available to those that can afford it? You go on about having to take the bad with the good, but why do you have to take the bad if avoidable?

 

What we have failed to take seriously is the problem that our personal health is not a commodity best addressed by capitalism, because the free choice that capitalism DEPENDS on is just not really there.

If you need healthcare, you aren't in a position to decide to buy something else instead.

I'm sure there are cases where pharma is corrupt. We've seen some of those cases in court.

But, in general, the bringing to market of a medical solution is stupendously expensive. As we saw with COVID, it includes multiple rounds of testing, starting with animals (perhaps) and then expanding into larger and larger tests with humans. Even outside of the initial creation of the product, the expenses are enormous.

As for insurance companies, the problem has been that the profit motive is oriented to NOT paying for healthcare. The result is that we have increased regulation to force insurance companies to pay for healthcare that they didn't used to cover. Yet, we do need insurance, as the cost of healthcare for many conditions or emergencies is readily available, but at a price the average individual simply can not pay. And, as above, there is no choice. If you need a new heart or kidney, a snazzy TV is just not an option. Capitalism just doesn't work when you have no choice.

 

Can you have a conversation without the personal comments? It makes you seem really insecure [and it's a complete waste of time]. Everything means everything. The federal government should only be occupied with home land security, creating what few national rules and regulations needed, and enforcing such. Get out of the education, housing, health care, and all the other stuff it completely messes up.

I rather doubt comparing Somalia and the U.S. is valid in any way, shape, or form.

None what-so-ever. But that will never happen either. How could you possibly afford everybody the same opportunity when a great deal of what determines success in an individual is the success of their parents.

Did the general public censor the social media platforms? Did the general public have anything to do with all the non-sense coming out of the Democrat party over the past years? The general public just wants to be left alone. It's only the idealistic young people and older morons who believe that anything radical can work.

Because that's life. You being a Utopian probably don't subscribe to the "life is about good and bad" meme.

 

Where did you get the idea that health care is some kind of "right." When it becomes something like a right, people act like complete morons. Look at what people do thinking that the health care system is going to bail them out. It a complete joke.

How about trying to keep yourself healthy? What a radical idea!

There should be a new word for what Pharma has pulled off. Corruption does not even come close.

While we're at it, why don't we buy everybody a brand new SUV of their choice?

You either live within your means or you eventually become insolvent.

 

Nonsense. All other first world countries have found ways to solve the problem of healthcare that is too expensive for an individual to pay.

Suggesting that all those who can't pay for life should die is just plain NOT acceptable - besides being totally unnecessary.

 

Our system and the far less expensive systems of every other first world country show that we can provide healthcare services to our populations.

Choosing NOT to do that is what is absolutely immoral.

Great idea! We should all do that! However, many problems occur regardless of how healthy you manage to be.

Some problems are congenital, for example. Others have to do with unavoidable occurrences.

What pharma does IS capitalism.

Your last two sentences indicate a moral deficit so large I don't even know how to address it.

 

Then don't.

 

Leaving people to suffer or die simply because they didn't become wealthy is NOT ACCEPTABLE when we have clear solutions.

 

In actual capitalism, all wealth gets funneled to a very few people, while everyone else is forced to live on just enough to keep the capitalist machine working. In both pure socialism and pure capitalism, the elite prosper, and everyone else is screwed. There is just a different way to screw the little guy.

 

What are your clear solutions? You want all the technology of the U.S. and the cheap prices of everywhere else. Not going to happen.

The bottom-line is that we can not afford to keep everybody alive for as long as technology permits. Just like we can't continue to do all the other fiscally absurd things we do in this country. It's just the way it is. People must learn to take care of themselves.

 

Ok, so let's continue to allow the morons to be in charge and see where that gets us. The idea isn't to get rid of the elite, instead, it's to control them. These are many of the folks who have made life considerably easier for the rest of us. All the elite are not bad people. Some are pretty damn smart and have created amazing things whereas others should be packed up and shipped off to another planetary system.

 

Every first world country has a variant of single payer healthcare, with the cost being FAR lower than what we pay while still delivering comparable healthcare.

Now, you give me the "America Can't". Sorry. If they can do it, we can do it. In fact, we could create our system based on what we see as the best points of the numerous solutions that other countries have created. It's not as if we have some insurmountable design task.

Please remember these aspects of care in other countries:
- far less is paid for healthcare.
- the care is comparable. Plus, the population can vote for improvements.
- everybody gets covered.

Remember that when WE pay for healthcare, we have to pay insurance companies the profit they want. Then, when people can't pay for that, we pay insurance companies from our tax dollars, then when people are aged we pay for Medicare. Then we pay hospitals that are required to treat people who show up (such as in emergency rooms) regardless of whether they can pay.

The multiply overlapping systems that we have add huge costs that are NOT being controlled by the FACT that providers (hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, etc.), insurance companies, big pharma, etc. are capitalist - required to make a profit that is of interest to their stock holders.

 

Corporations (those who get called the "elite") are controlled by regulation.

We have the SEC, which works to maintain an environment where there is competition - important as capitalism works when there is competition.

We have regulation on healthcare insurance companies, requiring that they can't dump their customers when their customers get sick - like they did before Obamacare.

We have regulation requiring labeling of food, so people know what they are getting.

Etc.

 

You have heard of regulatory capture, no? This has been going on for many, many decades now and has completely corrupted the system [along with many other things].

In order for the system to work well, you need actual regulators and other checks and balances to function properly.

 

I agree that this is going on.

We have congressmen who are beholding to industries that fund their elections. Thus those industries buy safety from proposed regulation - or even push for an end to existing regulation.

Also, we have congressmen and regulators who must consider their employment options after they are no longer in those jobs.

In fact, we have people lobbying for term limits, which ensures that legislators are focused on future employment and no longer committed to their constituencies.

Term limits is the worst. After all, it FORCES legislators to be focused on their future employment. Also, it increases the turnover rate in our legislatures. There is clear evidence that this causes permanent staff to have significantly more influence on legislation - staff that we the people did not vote for. Also, it would mean that I can't vote for my congressman who is doing a good job. Anyone who thinks there isn't a learning curve for the job of congressman is just plain NUTS.

This strongly ties into election finance reform and regulation related to making it less likely that our legislature becomes focused on future employment rather than what's best for their constituents.

So, again - I agree with the problem you identify.

 

Some people who get into politics are so hated when they leave they can’t get a job and will even sometimes kill themselves.

 

We're making progress!

The problem is not the system [it's the best one ever devised], instead, it is corruption, always has been...always will be. Post WWII was an era where corruption was under much better control [for many reasons]. I suppose the wealth that was created/accumulated over the next couple of decades was too much for the greedy to leave be...and then starting in the 80's, the damn broke and it was everybody for themselves until today where corruption seems pretty much accepted because so many people are corrupt...the administrative class, the professional class, and of course, the politicians and the elite who simply cannot help themselves.

This is why I say that socialism is not the answer. It just creates many more chances for corruption. You want to design your system to minimize such...small government, less complexity, more transparency, etc.

 

So to end a system where it’s everyone for themselves you should create a system where it’s everyone for themselves?

 

The problem you identify is NOT Socialism. Socialism is where the state owns the means of production. In the USA, corporations own the means of production.

And, I pointed to strong solutions. If we had election finance reform and other such controls, there would be far less opportunity for what YOU call corruption. Same with term limits.

I wouldn't call that corruption, by the way. After all, we DESIGNED the system to be used in that way. What the heck do we expect congressmen to do when they have to raise gigantic dollars for elections? They can't take millions of dollars and then bite the hand the fed them.

The total expenditure for Senate races this time around was $2.4 BILLION divided between 34 races.

Look what it costs to become a senator in the USA:

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/most-expensive-races

At those prices for getting a job, you best believe congressmen owe huge debts of gratitude to their benefactors.

 

That's pure socialism which is communism [or state capitalism, if you prefer]. Most all socialism is a hybrid of capitalism and state control [like the U.S.]. The state controls a fairly large percentage of the economy [either directly or indirectly], e.g., military expenditures, medicare and medicaid, education, road construction and maintenance, research, so on and so forth.

This creates all kinds of problems due to corruption, economic inefficiencies, and the elimination of market forces in decision making. The most important part of democracy is not necessarily the electing of representatives, instead, it is voting [with your wallet] which products and services deserve to be supported and sustained. Much of what the government supports is because of other not so wonderful reasons.

 

Wow. You need to look up definitions for some of those words about economic systems that you bandy about.

Until words have meanings, I don't really know how one can hold a discussion on this topic.

Also, when you make accusations (such as "corruption") you need to identify the who and how.

We were talking about regulation. Regulation is not done by "voting with your wallet".

 

First you complain about me making personal comments and in the next sentence you say I must be insecure. I think I already mentioned you not being self aware.

You believe the federal government should not be enforcing national standards agreed upon by our representatives. That pretty much turns the clock back to the 19th century. I don’t know how much you know of history but it won’t be a pretty sight. It would be a right-wing dystopia.

The elderly who can’t afford healthcare would be cut off “because that’s life”, as you say unironically. Maybe you had your fingers crossed when you took that oath to the Greek gods.

No one is guaranteed success but opportunity should be available to all. Having “successful” parents does provide more opportunity and “successful” conservatives are fine with an unequal world.

No matter your political bent no one should agree with the presence of threats, hate speech and lies on social media. The companies that own social media platforms are free to put up rules that limit such speech or not, but their business model would suffer if they did not. It’s called capitalism.

 

To use a legal definition:

Absolute evidence is full and total proof;

Weight of evidence is a convincing argument.

As far as a supernatural God or spiritual world goes, you neither present absolute evidence nor make a convincing argument. Just a few dogmatic and unsupported assertions.