With monopolies there is no real freedom of choice.
And there is such a thing as class. Denying it is a tool used to keep people blind and complacent. The rich game the system as much as they can to benefit themselves often at the expense of the lower classes. I.E. tax breaks for them with the cutting of social programs. So more for them, less for others.
What a derelict. Can’t defend your ideology so you are resorted to poking fun. Pathetic!
As usual you contribute nothing.
There is no such thing as class in the USA. The guy teaching me real estate right now was a D student in high school from a poor family. He worked as a day laborer.
Now he owns a multi million dollar a year roofing business and owns 100+ properties. He has never even turned on a computer.
If you look at the Indian caste system, that’s a classicist system. Where your’re born is where you stay. In the USA you can rise or fall.
But it is still a problem, no? Just because YOU deem it isn’t doesn’t make it so. Tell me what are the BK percentages in other countries?
You may say that but these are the results from the ideology you are married to.
I would disagree. Here’s an interesting take on the subject:
Classic! Single-payer is, like, the ultimate monopoly.
Derelict? You dumb dumb, you don’t even know whats happening within your own supposed field of interest.
Free market solution-
They make suppositories too, but good luck using those with your head so far up your ass.
Not surprisingly I would take issue with the premise and the execution of everything in that article. Considering the broadsides we fired in the income inequality thread over hundreds of posts I doubt we’ll solve our differences over wealth inequality and mobility here.
One simple thing I’d like to point out is that their definition of class is undefined and shifting. When I speak of class I’m talking about the traditional sense of the word.
In Europe class meant your birth station. If you were born an aristocrat you died one, regardless of the amount of wealth they had their caste was set. If a British aristocrat ran up large bills and the collectors came calling they’d escape to France, never even dream of taking a job, that was beneath them. They have legal and societal status over and above the commoners always. Their legislature is split into a house of lords and house of commons. Wouldn’t want the riff-raff passing many laws now.
In the USA what determines your standing in society is largely your net worth. If you want more status and prestige in the US, earn more money.
Andrew Carnegie is a prime example. He went from a day laborer making pennies/day to one of the most influential power brokers of his era in one lifetime.
Who here knows the name of Bill Gates’ sister without googling it? Nobody. You know why? She doesn’t matter. Bill and Melinda Gates are household names with massive influence because of their net worth. Bill’s sisters, born and raised in the exact same place to the same parents have 1/100000000th the status Bill has.
In the US money talks. Bullshit walks.
Also from the article I knew Lyndon Johnson was a racist. But the more quotes I read from him, the man was a real nasty dude.
No, it is not a problem.
A problem is 30+% of the country being obese. A problem is a deficit every god damn year. A problem is $19T in debt. Those are problems.
Why don’t you tell me. Control for all the differences in bankruptcy laws internationally and let me know. Also, let me know how much more all these other countries pay in taxes.
You’re a fucking clown.
Zep has used this word several times by now.
Guys, the obvious answer is that Zep is a bot. No actual person would just keep copy/pasting the same five phrases (“Stop embarrassing yourself” / “You’re blinded by your ideology” / “Universal healthcare costs less with better results” / “Profits are worshipped above all else” / “The government conspiracy keeps us all fat and sick so we’re dependent on Big Pharma”) like this.
Only bots can “stay woke” all the time.
This is my personal favorite when I literally created a spreadsheet and showed him how two countries (out of like 10) with universal systems cost more on average.
Another personal favorite. The company I’m starting will be giving 10% of all profits to Toys for Tots (and possibly others). How is that possible? I’m a greedy Capitalist who cares about profit above all else!
Agreed, the European definition of class doesn’t fit well. But that doesn’t mean our society isn’t stratified in a way that could reasonably be called class-based.
The hypothetical was me being splattered on the road…
Anyways, I’m talking about TRUE free market medical care. Not what is currently offered. That changes the discussion as you are talking as it currently stands. Ya, care/insurance isn’t very affordable but why is that? I’m going to go with medicaid enrollments going up, routine visits (no risk) and people with pre-existing conditons not being able to be charged more(no risk) and that being paid for by insurance and also people not taking care of themselves in general, seeing how heart disease/obesity is a substantial cost of medical care. Until we address those, costs will not lower.
I do understand my idea of medical care is a pipe dream that relies on people being responsible, having personal freedom to choose and government leaving health care in general(or substantially,) which will NEVER happen( Trump finds that stuff mean,) but that seems to be the only way to lower medical costs.
Good article I came across today and I wouldn’t be totally opposed to government funded catastrophe coverage and free market for everything else…
norse84
Thank you for your response.
And I apologize for being a little “snarky” about all this. In the Political Climate of today; I’ve had it with “Bumper-Sticker/MEME/Your-Side-is-EVIL-My-SIDE-is-the TRUE SALVATION!” simplistic answers to complex problems like Health Care in the U.S.
BG brought up something similar to what the article you posted proposed…Government Funded catastrophic Coverage with the free market for everything else. (Which I so poorly…and angrily…was trying to illustrate when people were taking the simplistic, unrealistic (and quite honestly condescending and hypocritical) “Why don’t we just take care of our own?” “answer” to our Health Care problems in the U.S.
I could get on Board with; as a start; a system that “blends” a combination of Government and the Free Market.
Again; thank you for the input, and for not getting angry in your response. (As I often do).
The nature of HC delivery has characteristics that make it uniquely unable to foster the feedback loops that allow the ‘invisible hand’ to render a HC free market efficient and effective. Chief among these is the insurmountable information asymmetry that exists between the pt and the medical-services provider. Consider: With a little time spent on the computer, a car buyer can turn him/herself into an ‘educated consumer’ with regard to the relative value of various car models. In contrast, it is simply impossible for a non-physician pt to understand the costs/risk-benefit ratio involved in most medical decisions. (And even physician-pts find themselves out of their depth when it comes to medical decision-making regarding issues far afield of their area of expertise.) This is why medical ethics–the notion that a physician’s decision-making is predicated on what’s in the pt’s best interest, not the physician’s best interest–is absolutely indispensable. When car shopping, no one expects a car salesman to act in their (the buyer’s) interest; rather, it is understood the salesman is going to try and sell you the most expensive car at the highest price s/he can, and that it is up to you to be prepared to ‘do battle’ in order to not overpay or make an unnecessary purchase. Caveat emptor. In stark contrast, we all expect our physician to recommend only those tests and treatments needed to maximize our health. I don’t think any of us want our physician to act like a car salesperson, trying to persuade us to have tests, procedures, surgeries, etc, we don’t really need. No one wants to feel they have to ‘caveat emptor’ their doctor visits.
Kenneth Arrow wrote the seminal economics paper on this subject 50+ years ago:
www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf
Agree, ED…
But what you posted is why I stated that what was being proposed was a start.
And you are correct; even though there are many people who think information is knowledge…(as the now famous quote floating among physicians says):
“…Your Google Search is not a substitute for a Medical Degree…”
(Nor is it a substitute for the complex knowledge gained by individuals in many professions).
You also have to be careful about “cost shopping” for medical expertise.
As many past, present and future medical disasters have proven…you may end up getting what you pay for.
While that’s not an “absolute” (some top medical Centers and Physicians have made some disastrous mistakes); searching for “the bottom line” in terms of medical expertise can prove to be extremely problematic.
With lower costs and better outcomes it is only reasonable.