Down with the corruption. Down with the elites. Down with the establishment.

@"our obesity epidemic is a product of FREE HUMAN CHOICE." - no it isn't.

if advertising wasn't effective at influencing the 'free'ness of human choice, it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no such thing as a completely free individual. You are always influenced. And while i do believe people should be held accountable for their choices, there are mitigating circumstances, for example, being mislead, by someone intentionally trying to exploit/profit from you.

if someone makes you think your family will die unless you kill their enemy, and you do it, you should still be held accountable, but the mitigating circumstances must be taken into account.

@"i would like it if more people voluntarily bought insurance but some people make the FREE HUMAN CHOICE not to. this is their own fault." - this is a even worse example. It is not a free choice to buy healthcare you can't afford.

If you have to choose between food and healthcare which you *might* need, you're going to eat every time... But it wasn't a choice at all.

@"people work for a living, and people who work and produce something, are allowed to buy things with the fruit of their labor. " - some people started life with enough wealth that they've never had to work a day in their lives. Trump has 'worked' but made less money than he would have made if he invested all he inherited in a index-linked stock fund.

Not everyone got the same opportunities, and everyone who buys things with 'the fruit of their labor' has done so because of the massive community they are part of. Whether that is the roads or educators they used to get where they are (see what i did there?) or the security afforded them by police and military forces, or the existance of other people to buy and sell things from (who likewise all depend on the community).

Nobody does anything 'by the fruit of their labours'. That is a very limited viewpoint.

@"but we're still going to be 100% on the abortion train, correct mr. liberal? just checking in on that point"

Yep, because i never said a clump of undifferentiated cells was a person. Just clarifying some biology...

@"well, i got to a day center for the homeless every week and help by volunteering. it's a lot more useful that whining that people aren't going the government enough money to spend on healthcare."

i would infact argue that it is a bandage when you need massive political reform to fix the causes of the disease, not treat the sympthons... And good for you, i can see you clearly do have a conscience, you are a good person. It is a pity your politics make your contribution so limited... thinking that every person is responsible only for what they choose, you choose to do all one man can. And yet fail to see that collectively we can do better. It is a shame.

@"capitalism is free and consensual transactions.." free assumes advertising doesn't work. Which i've addressed. Consensual is great, but when people have no choices because of the system, they are forced to labour for a wage which will leave them below the poverty line, and then choose between food and healthcare... you can call it 'free and consensual' but that doesn't mean it is moral or good.

@"meanwhile, it's narcissistic to say that the soviets weren't smart enough to make socialism work in the 30s, but WE could have done it."

They never had 'true' socialism. Which is a classless system. Nobody has ever managed to do so. Just like nobody has ever managed to have a pure 'free market'.

The social democratic models in Scnadanavia however are possible, and it didn't require people much smarter than you to figure it out. Don't put yourself down!

I wasn't advocating the system used by the USSR in the 30s, FYI. Maybe i wasn't clear. I was saying they were as evil as capitalism in the US is today - that was the just i was going for, right? you picked that up?

@"on nearly every measurable scale, more economic freedom produces better results for society" - tell that to poor black kids. Or to client states who were buying the glut of over produced goods, or to... nah all the externalities which the US didn't count. Mostly driven by oil wealth which powered the economy (literally, released more energy than previous economic systems every could have achieved with only solar powered plants feeding human powered muscles to do all the work - and maybe the occasional horse). Did you count the cost of destroying the environment?? Maybe you can pay for that later...

@"nhs-fail-winter-without-cash-injection-hospital-doctors-tell-theresa-may" - so a conservative who want the British healtcare system to be more like the American one has cut funding for it (to benefit her elite wealthy landlord party members and friends) and you somehow blame this on what? the limits of the NHS??

This is entirely neo-liberal policy at work.

@"single payer isn't actually some amazing perfect beauty" - never said it was. It has to be paid for. So well done for inventing another strawman. All i claimed was that it was better than what you have in the US.

@"my god... you're insulting the fact that we're so well fed. you're delusional."

I'm delusional? You're so well fed it has become a disease... yep, you're god damn right i'm insulting it. I'd stoop so far as to insult your intelligence for ever saying that - but ad hominen attacks are something i strive to avoid. And i think you've proven you're not an idiot.

How can you not see that being the most obese nation in the world is not a positive to be celebrated? (regardless of the causes or possible solutions...)

@"2. i've actually seen the healthcare triage channel before, and much of their material i like, but they have a great blindspot for the economic and fiscal consequences of a single payer system, up to the point of blatant omission."

cool, at least that means you can see things aren't as simple as 'too much regulation makes things too expensive in the US' but economic and fiscal consequences aren't really their expertise i guess.

@"The ACA's individual mandate essentially destroyed the entire notion of insurance, which also has hurt premium prices across the board."

i entirely disagree. The notion of insurance is that some people will definitely suffer bad things (lets take fire insurance as an example) and if everyone collective invests in a fund to pay to cost of rebuilding the homes of those who do have their homes destroyed by fire then the whole community minimizes the collective risk.

That is not destroyed by forcing people to contribute. Not even slightly. Average premiums should go down, because those at lower risk are forced to contribute instead of being out of the system - a system where only ill people buy health insurance will have higher average premiums, because the insurance companies keep having to pay out.

Of course the TOTAL premiums paid may be higher (so yeah, this is kinda shite, and the insurers must love it) but i'm not advocating the current US system, i'm in favour of single payer without insurance companies.

@"forcing preexisting conditions and then making a cap on the amount they can charge, and pretending that it's still "insurance."" - at that point you have a valid concern. It is single payer without a tonne of extra paper work... but unfortunately, they can't get the constitutional amendments to force a federal single payer system, so they made do with the best bad solution the democrats could manage...

@"in our country: neither the free market NOR the gov't sets the price. this is BAAAAD for costs"
- i never said your system was good.

@"clearly we need to address the fact that this is not just inflation driven, and regulations are making these investments expensive."

You know how all the low hanging fruit has already been picked? Of course there are technical reasons why new drug discovery might be harder, you need to do more work...

The only reason we have any chance of keeping costs down is the massive increase in effectiveness of computers, which can automate so much that we're still able to make some progress... (that and the growth of an educated population) - there are still reasons other than regulation for new things becoming harder and harder to find.

@"nobody smart: i.e. the gov’t. the gov’t MUST subsidize, and eventually, nationalize. this is because of massive overregulation." - i have literally no problem with nationalizing big pharma. Infact i think it would be a huge improvement.

@"I propose two markets, and FDA regulated, and a completely unregulated, free, buyer beware market. now you can still sue if a family member dies, and they can’t weasel out of money (we’ll have to change some statutes) but this way, drugs get put out on the market quickly and cheaply." -

i see that you're using your infinite faith in 'free will' and 'personal responsibility' - how will you deal with doctors who give bad advice?

Should anyone be able to say they are a doctor and give advice? Cheap and quick, that is the american way... sure why not legalise heroine and crack, you'll save loads on policing, and people can choose whatever drugs they want, right?

@"let’s also not forget that the FDA has to pull every 1 of 3 drugs it APPROVES. this is taxpayer money wasted."

Again, 'oh no, neo-liberal policies have driven the FDA into failure at its job, so now we should go for the neo-liberal end-game of completely abolishing it...' - of course there are some merits to your suggestion. Unfortunately the people with power don't want to see the liability bit coming in. I mean they'll be fine with getting rid of the FDA and what not, so long as they can safely make their profits it's all peachy.

@"i'm not sure what else i can give you, but this is a comprehensive analysis of USA healthcare. if it doesn't convince you, i don't know what will"

You seem to have me convinced. We both agree the current system is pretty shit. The fact that we disagree completely on the solution is a fact of our different perspectives. I believe in community, and a larger society, you believe in* only individuals (and their contribution to their local community) and the pre-eminence of free will.

*correct me if i'm wrong.

@"No! humans are NOT hive mind creatures, we are individuals, who should be judged as such." - i suspect you misunderstand the concept of a hive mind...

@JamesYanick

Of course sewerage is not a right! but it is a public good. I respect the right of a society to say, at the ballot box, "no thanks, we'll handle that shit ourselves", however I believe that generally it is something that is better organised collectively, which probably means government. The same goes for education, or health care, or courts, or the military, and so on.

For me the principle of subsidiarity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity) is important. Flower boxes on lamp-posts is not a national government matter, but the military is.

My attitude is essentially pragmatic. I have lived in five countries (Europe & Asia) and travelled often to many others, ranging from well-managed to basket-case. A country without good roads, reliable power supplies, and a host of other services is not a good place to live.

@orathaic

"@"our obesity epidemic is a product of FREE HUMAN CHOICE." - no it isn't.

if advertising wasn't effective at influencing the 'free'ness of human choice, it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no such thing as a completely free individual. You are always influenced."

1. advertising is important, but it's also oversold. it addresses only a segment of the population who actually IS impressionable, and it's not always even effective, and sometimes have NEGATIVE effects. to pretend that we are all puppets is a vast oversimplification of the human mind and a lazy argument

2. so. fucking. what. go into a bazaar and people offer you many things and try to influence you in different ways, but there's an old saying, "you can't sell a blind man a book." clearly it was before braille, but the sentiment remains true: humans are not entirely manipulatable creatures. this is backed by psychology, and how even undoing some basic neurological programming can take YEARS of therapy. advertising isn't controlling us, stop exaggerating.

3. even if we are influenced, and not "completely free" does this mean all of our rights are forfeit? where's the logic in THAT?

4. also you're wrong, advertising did not cause the obesity epidemic. REALLY cheap food did. if you go to a supermarket, have you seen an advertisement for EVERY thing you buy? there are polls and time calculation companies do to get maximum exposure to the American public for global companies: they're happy at 20% recognition rates, many will go lower. the truth is our obesity epidemic is because Americans LOVE sugar and fat, and companies are willing to respond to this demand by making it cheap.


"And while i do believe people should be held accountable for their choices, there are mitigating circumstances, for example, being mislead, by someone intentionally trying to exploit/profit from you."

yes and we have laws against people overtly misleading you. but what YOU have already attacked are subconscious influences, that you put MUCH to much weight into.


"if someone makes you think your family will die unless you kill their enemy, and you do it, you should still be held accountable, but the mitigating circumstances must be taken into account."

you can use an extreme example, but quite frankly you put too much into advertising. yes it's a multi billion dollar industry: that's what competition gives you. jobs. the simple fact with advertising is that companies spend SOOOO much money getting their product out their: without massive increasing exposure rates, because their competitors will also up their spending too. it's an uphill spending war, that only hurts the consumer in prices.


"@"i would like it if more people voluntarily bought insurance but some people make the FREE HUMAN CHOICE not to. this is their own fault." - this is a even worse example. It is not a free choice to buy healthcare you can't afford."

wrong. people who CAN afford healthcare, and who it would be a wise economic decision to get healthcare, but STILL don't: by them NOT entering into the market, the price goes up, and more people can't afford it.

the is the basis of the individual mandate, but i already covered that in my last post, and i see you've skipped over that.


"If you have to choose between food and healthcare which you *might* need, you're going to eat every time... But it wasn't a choice at all."

and this also isn't a massive segment of the population. but as long as you are going to address this, you're still wrong. it's a choice. it's a choice were one option is potentially cataclysmic, but it's still a choice. stop pretending it's not. meanwhile, the idea that government redistribution is the single best way to help these people, i'm still yet to be convinced by. we used to have massive problems with getting heat into houses, and food scarcity used to be much higher. however over the decades the solution has NOT been to stop progress and start redistributing, but rather to move forward and let the rising tide DRASTICALLY improve living standards. interestingly enough, we see these standards improve with more economic freedom, over extended periods of time. we do not see these improvement trends over large periods of time in socialist countries.


"@"people work for a living, and people who work and produce something, are allowed to buy things with the fruit of their labor. " - some people started life with enough wealth that they've never had to work a day in their lives. Trump has 'worked' but made less money than he would have made if he invested all he inherited in a index-linked stock fund. "

and now you're addressing a fairly small percentage of the population. what you don't mention is that roughly 50% of the top quintile of income earners actually DROP out of the top quintile in the united states. it's not the SAME people in the top 20% their entire life, or even the 1% for that matter. in fact the lowest 20% sees 49.4% of it's members (these are the POOR) move into the middle class OR higher, and we see nearly 73% move up at least one quintile range.

people talk about how the USA has relatively lower income mobility compared to Europe, and how Europe doesn't have much higher poverty rates, when in truth poverty is a measure RELATIVE to the median income. our income mobility is much lower because our median income is much higher, and our poor are actually in the middle class of many european countries

https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-europe

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/Report-Income-Mobility-2008.pdf


"Not everyone got the same opportunities, and everyone who buys things with 'the fruit of their labor' has done so because of the massive community they are part of."

you accumulate wealth because either you, or a member of your family, has engaged in a LARGE number of consensual transactions in which both parties got something they wanted. where we see accumulations of wealth where someone did NOT benefit society: government influence is ALWAYS involved.

there was a 10,000$ challenge a year or two back to find an individual human being where this was no the case, with a basic exclusion of lotteries and gambling - although there is an argument to be made that is still a transaction with the casino.

to my knowledge the 10,000$ has yet to be collected. because while liberals like to pretend that it's an entire community working so hard just so a few individuals can become rich: those individuals are guaranteed to either be government backed (which i will stand side by side with you against every day of the week) or the hardest workers at meeting consumer demand


"Whether that is the roads or educators they used to get where they are (see what i did there?) or the security afforded them by police and military forces, or the existance of other people to buy and sell things from (who likewise all depend on the community)."

ok. now let's also keep in mind that the top 1% pays 45% of all federal income taxes. meanwhile, the top 16% of taxpayers pay 80% of income taxes.

something tells me they're paying (if anything) MORE than their "fair share" for educators and the police and the military.

hell, the bottom 45% pay only 1.5% of ALL income taxes. the rich aren't abusing the system: they're PAYING FOR IT.


"Nobody does anything 'by the fruit of their labours'. That is a very limited viewpoint."

yes. my viewpoint is the limited one. sure


"@"but we're still going to be 100% on the abortion train, correct mr. liberal? just checking in on that point"

Yep, because i never said a clump of undifferentiated cells was a person. Just clarifying some biology..."

except the zygote is actually a totipotent stem cell, and in theory can develop in an artificial womb with resources given through an artificial umbilical cord. it's not just some undifferentiated cells, the cells ALL have unique chromosome structure, and are in no way part of the natural bodily function of the mother. they also meet all 4 scientific requirements for life: capacity for growth, capacity for reproduction, capacity for functional activity, capacity for continual change preceding death.

so it's scientifically a life, is not just a part of the mom... sounds like there's zero problem killing it!

i kid of course, i do have legitimate qualms with the mother's liberties conflicting with the child's, but i'm not as dismissive as much of the left. also, i use science.


"@"well, i got to a day center for the homeless every week and help by volunteering. it's a lot more useful that whining that people aren't going the government enough money to spend on healthcare."

i would infact argue that it is a bandage when you need massive political reform to fix the causes of the disease, not treat the sympthons..."

using my own phrase against me: the DISEASE is a lazy culture, that never volunteers. the DISEASE is a welfare state that slowed down the decreasing poverty rate and reversed it in the black community. the DISEASE is social security being bankrupt and benefits potentially being slashed by politicians lining their pockets. the DISEASE is liberals in big cities where the poverty rates and crime rates are the highest, with the highest income inequality and lack of income mobility under DEMOCRAT rule in large cities.

THAT is the disease. I am simply volunteering my time, attacking the cultural end of the disease.


"And good for you, i can see you clearly do have a conscience, you are a good person. It is a pity your politics make your contribution so limited..."

being a good human being, while small for an individual, would solve poverty if everyone did it. if every able bodied man and woman volunteered an hour every week of their time to helping the poor (much less that what i do) then poverty would be almost entirely wiped out. there are surveys and studies of the necessary rates of help these people need, and some even think LESS than 1 hour out of an 168 hour week would push the poverty rate to below 1%

imagine that. too bad some people are too lazy to do what actually matters


"thinking that every person is responsible only for what they choose, you choose to do all one man can. And yet fail to see that collectively we can do better. It is a shame."

this is where we differ. i want the human race to thrive, and i want to everyone to contribute to one another's success. yes, this can be done collectively. YOU want to forcefully take their money, give it to corrupt politicians, and create a giant forced redistribution network where the poor are incentivized to stay poor, and keep voting in the people who have them at their mercy.

that's the difference between a libertarian and a socialist. libertarians believe that if we promote a strong culture and teach our kids good values, then the collective can solve anything. Marx actually didn't hate this, but his disciples decided the mechanism to FORCE the collective into action should be a governing class. socialists don't care about freedom and good intentions, they use threat of government to force people to work. libertarians want to change the culture with freedom and value. socialists want governments to strong arm it.


"@"capitalism is free and consensual transactions.." free assumes advertising doesn't work. Which i've addressed."

goddamn you are so deluded. you need to do more research on the neuroscience of human influence. if you think advertising is SOOOO powerful, then your entire world view is irreversibly warped. so much of our psyche simply cannot be changed in the human life span, and so much of it is set at a young age. the idea that we lose our freedom to advertising and suggestive phrases or billboards is downright laughable. you are laughable.


"Consensual is great, but when people have no choices because of the system, they are forced to labour for a wage which will leave them below the poverty line, and then choose between food and healthcare..."

the only "system" that is creating massive poverty and crime rates in america, are the democrat controlled cities. sorry to burst THAT bubble.


"you can call it 'free and consensual' but that doesn't mean it is moral or good."

once again i must ask, rowdies moving down the spectrum to slavery and rape increase morality and goodness?


"@"meanwhile, it's narcissistic to say that the soviets weren't smart enough to make socialism work in the 30s, but WE could have done it."

They never had 'true' socialism. Which is a classless system. Nobody has ever managed to do so. Just like nobody has ever managed to have a pure 'free market'."

do you want to know why? because it's the same thing. sorry to red pill you, but marx was MUCH closer to a libertarian than a modern socialist. he wanted to destroy the politicians and corporatists, and let workers control factories, and trade among themselves. he also was a historian, and saw a future of complete generosity. this is still applicable in the context of libertarianism. Marx never wanted people thrown in prison for not paying so much in taxes like modern socialists, but rather Marx believed a changed culture would never produce greed of that kind.

the ONLY conflict between adam smith's free market ideas and marx was the idea of demand increasing the value of a good. the value of a good was intrinsic to marx, whereas smith said value was determined by how much people were willing and able to pay for it.

i've read das kapital and the communist manifesto. modern socialists are nut jobs. what i wouldn't give to have a man like christopher hitchens back on the left


"The social democratic models in Scnadanavia however are possible, and it didn't require people much smarter than you to figure it out. Don't put yourself down!"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/why-denmark-isnt-the-utopian-fantasy-bernie-sanders-describes/?utm_term=.586fccb6b449

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/

UH OH. you see, Denmark actually has more economic freedom in it's markets than most, but i see you lack nuance in conversation so i'll explain this to you simply ora. liberal in the USA believe in personal choice but regulated markets, liberals in europe believe in restricted choices but free markets.

notice i don't mince liberals and left, those are not the same anymore, as the left has moved to socialism full out in europe.

you see, "social democrat" models in Scandinavia actually embrace free markets more than we do to a large extent. with this having been said, they have HIGH tax rates, and STILL have a debt problem. but what does this mean? after all, these countries have a lower debt as a % of GDP than us. well...

GDP is based off of Personal consumption expenditures, Investment, Net exports, and Government expenditures. Gov't expenditures in Denmark are much higher, and also CONTRIBUTE to the debt.

you need to compare JUST Personal consumption expenditures, Investment, Net exports, TO Government expenditures. THEN you can see the problems with debt. otherwise, the more you increase government spending, the more GDP rises! does that mean that the rise in GDP will help with the debt?

no.

because you cannot tax gov’t expenditures. so debt as a % of GDP is a bad measurement for determining the extent to which a country can pay off debt.

many of these countries as i said before already have MUCH higher taxation rates than the USA, and they’re not able to raise them as much. this si the problem Scandinavia is in, and they're also going through currency crisis, and this is ALL with a SMALL culturally homogenous population. look at all the Scandinavian countries' GDP, it's started a BIG decline since about 2010, that includes Sweden Denmark AND Norway.

so once again, i'm still waiting on you to present me with a hard question.


"I wasn't advocating the system used by the USSR in the 30s, FYI. Maybe i wasn't clear. I was saying they were as evil as capitalism in the US is today - that was the just i was going for, right? you picked that up?"

once again, the USA is NOT CAPITALIST!!! it's a mixed economy, and much closer to corporatist: where the government has business ties! i mean holy shit Ora, you can't insult Trump for having business ties as President and then turn around and slam Free Markets. it's a double standard


"@"on nearly every measurable scale, more economic freedom produces better results for society" - tell that to poor black kids."

OH MY GOD! Democrat controlled cities produce the large black poverty rates and the 70%+ single motherhood rate (a modern phenomenon NOT explained by slavery, that came AFTER the civil rights act), and Democrat controlled cities have some of the LEAST economic freedom!!!


"Or to client states who were buying the glut of over produced goods, or to... nah all the externalities which the US didn't count. Mostly driven by oil wealth which powered the economy (literally, released more energy than previous economic systems every could have achieved with only solar powered plants feeding human powered muscles to do all the work - and maybe the occasional horse). Did you count the cost of destroying the environment?? Maybe you can pay for that later..."

1. you just said government influence was bad. i agree. that's a libertarian / TRUE marxist viewpoint

2. we wouldn't have nearly as many carbon emissions if the left weren't irrationally and anti-science afraid of nuclear energy as they are. if we had a FREE MARKET since the 1950s and with nuclear energy, carbon emissions would be near zero for the USA.

yup. look up the data, nuclear efficiency has constantly beat out fossil fuels for decade after decade, if you don't cherry pick data from old USA reactors and look at the most up to date reactor for the time period.

global warming was because of GOVERNMENT REGULATION on energy. it also was due to the right and left both subsidizing oil companies. sorry to burst your bubble on global warming, but libertarians are the true victims, and this leftists purity-in-science bullshit pisses me off


"@"nhs-fail-winter-without-cash-injection-hospital-doctors-tell-theresa-may" - so a conservative who want the British healtcare system to be more like the American one has cut funding for it (to benefit her elite wealthy landlord party members and friends) and you somehow blame this on what? the limits of the NHS??"

WHAT? the article said that without EXTRA-UNBUDGETED cash injections the NHS would fail. the NHS has had these finance problems for decades, that have led to tax increases and solvency problems, along with MASSIVE care problems.

AND WHERE ARE THE OTHER ARTICLES??? ANSWER ME THAT RIGHT NOW.

you little wuss, you pick one article you think you can get a jab in on, but ignore the DISCRIMINATION against he elderly, the horrible death rates, the inefficiency, just to get in a single snide comment that isn't even true? i address EVERY SINGLE LINE OF WHAT YOU SAY. i leave NOTHING out. you are disgraceful


"This is entirely neo-liberal policy at work.

@"single payer isn't actually some amazing perfect beauty" - never said it was. It has to be paid for. So well done for inventing another strawman. All i claimed was that it was better than what you have in the US."

i'll give you this one, but much of the left HAS glorified projects like the NHS. my comment was more addressing the general theme in politics right now.


"@"my god... you're insulting the fact that we're so well fed. you're delusional."

I'm delusional? You're so well fed it has become a disease... yep, you're god damn right i'm insulting it. I'd stoop so far as to insult your intelligence for ever saying that - but ad hominen attacks are something i strive to avoid. And i think you've proven you're not an idiot."

Ora. the fact that we're so well fed, that your obesity is now considered a disease, is a disease of AFFLUENCE!!! this is a disease that comes from having amazingly cheap food. this is a DISEASE that EVERY COUNTRY IN AFRICA WANTS.

the obesity epidemic i only ever am concerned about when parents overfeed children, and the conflicting rights between the state and guardians is another argument ENTIRELY, but the basic idea that having so much excess food we're dying from becoming too fat is a tragedy, i find ridiculous. this is the (quite literally) LAST social issue i'm worried about.


"How can you not see that being the most obese nation in the world is not a positive to be celebrated? (regardless of the causes or possible solutions...)"

NO. NO NO NO. it's NOT regardless of causes: the causes are we're SOOOO much more well off than the rest of the world, THAT is the cause. you amy not like it forma cultural standpoint, i'm a runner, i would never like to be fat: but i am SOOO happy that if someone loves to eat, and wants to eat so much they die of heart failure at age 60, they are able to do that. because that is their choice


"@"2. i've actually seen the healthcare triage channel before, and much of their material i like, but they have a great blindspot for the economic and fiscal consequences of a single payer system, up to the point of blatant omission."

cool, at least that means you can see things aren't as simple as 'too much regulation makes things too expensive in the US' but economic and fiscal consequences aren't really their expertise i guess."

Ora i think you need to look closer at just how much cost for producing drugs is based off of regulation, and just how much is superfluous. i left a link later on in the post, i hope you address it.


"@"The ACA's individual mandate essentially destroyed the entire notion of insurance, which also has hurt premium prices across the board."

i entirely disagree. The notion of insurance is that some people will definitely suffer bad things (lets take fire insurance as an example) and if everyone collective invests in a fund to pay to cost of rebuilding the homes of those who do have their homes destroyed by fire then the whole community minimizes the collective risk.

That is not destroyed by forcing people to contribute. Not even slightly. Average premiums should go down, because those at lower risk are forced to contribute instead of being out of the system - a system where only ill people buy health insurance will have higher average premiums, because the insurance companies keep having to pay out."

Ora. then why have they gone up? reality is disagreeing with you, and here's why: by having everyone insured, you do get a lowering of the collective risk by adding more low risk clients into the pool, but you're adding in FAR more high-risk clients. also, the price caps on insurance that the ACA also MANDATED, makes the costs of assuming so much risk unbearable by insurance companies. they are forced to either race prices on everyone, or go bankrupt.

this is true, and we are seeing the spikes, even with extra-government subsidies. this is simply what happens when you make everyone buy insurance.


"Of course the TOTAL premiums paid may be higher (so yeah, this is kinda shite, and the insurers must love it) but i'm not advocating the current US system, i'm in favour of single payer without insurance companies."

what is with you attacking insurance companies? so many of them are seeing the narrowest profit margins in their histories, and many have shut down. they are not exactly giant blobs of corporate greed and profiteering.


"@"forcing preexisting conditions and then making a cap on the amount they can charge, and pretending that it's still "insurance."" - at that point you have a valid concern. It is single payer without a tonne of extra paper work... but unfortunately, they can't get the constitutional amendments to force a federal single payer system, so they made do with the best bad solution the democrats could manage..."

that's just the thing, they tried to cut corners and gave us a worse system.


"@"in our country: neither the free market NOR the gov't sets the price. this is BAAAAD for costs"
- i never said your system was good.

@"clearly we need to address the fact that this is not just inflation driven, and regulations are making these investments expensive."

You know how all the low hanging fruit has already been picked? Of course there are technical reasons why new drug discovery might be harder, you need to do more work..."

i HAVE done the work. check the end of my post, i posted link to about 20 different economic studies PROVING that the regulatory environment is spiking drug costs.


"The only reason we have any chance of keeping costs down is the massive increase in effectiveness of computers, which can automate so much that we're still able to make some progress... (that and the growth of an educated population) - there are still reasons other than regulation for new things becoming harder and harder to find."

the growth of the educated population... have you seen college prices? education rates? we're not in a great place right now, and automation actually is hurting us, and with investment failing to recover under Obama, our economy is far from healthy.


"@"nobody smart: i.e. the gov’t. the gov’t MUST subsidize, and eventually, nationalize. this is because of massive overregulation." - i have literally no problem with nationalizing big pharma. Infact i think it would be a huge improvement."

i've addressed this in other threads, but the idea of nationalization of pharmaceutical companies had several problems:

1. most of them are international companies, making a massive legal dispute inevitable
2. most new drugs come from pharmaceutical companies or biotechs, with most new innovative drugs coming from biotechs. universities make up less than a quarter of new drugs, and the government controlled pharmaceutical world would be depleted from new drugs. universities with grants and funds are MASSIVELY less efficient that of the private sector.

https://www.aol.com/2010/11/30/where-do-new-drugs-come-from-u-s-biotechs-lead-the-way/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/07/01/obama-care-will-end-drug-advances-and-europes-free-ride-unless-china-steps-in/#169b8dee1c05



"@"I propose two markets, and FDA regulated, and a completely unregulated, free, buyer beware market. now you can still sue if a family member dies, and they can’t weasel out of money (we’ll have to change some statutes) but this way, drugs get put out on the market quickly and cheaply." -

i see that you're using your infinite faith in 'free will' and 'personal responsibility' - how will you deal with doctors who give bad advice?"


really. THAT is your concern? under a completely socialized systems, most doctors and surgeons would see MASSIVE pay cuts. THAT would lead to some discontent workers, and bad advice. i mean really, the ONLY critique of my system, is something your system CANT solve


"Should anyone be able to say they are a doctor and give advice? Cheap and quick, that is the american way... sure why not legalise heroine and crack, you'll save loads on policing, and people can choose whatever drugs they want, right?"

1. i'm libertarian on drugs, the government doesn't get to tell you what you can or cannot put in your body, as long as it's on private property and there's no threat to others.

2. the qualifications of getting a degree are still there Ora. i'm not taking those away. your comment makes no sense


"@"let’s also not forget that the FDA has to pull every 1 of 3 drugs it APPROVES. this is taxpayer money wasted."

Again, 'oh no, neo-liberal policies have driven the FDA into failure at its job, so now we should go for the neo-liberal end-game of completely abolishing it...' - of course there are some merits to your suggestion. Unfortunately the people with power don't want to see the liability bit coming in. I mean they'll be fine with getting rid of the FDA and what not, so long as they can safely make their profits it's all peachy."

actually, the FDA is bought and paid for.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2013/08/07/is-the-fda-being-compromised-by-pharma-payments/#799066ed2830

but in any case, who wants to KEEP FDA regs?

http://fortune.com/2017/03/13/trump-fda-regulation-pharma/

that's right, Pharmaceutical executives. they LOVE the lack of responsibility, and destruction of competition.


"@"i'm not sure what else i can give you, but this is a comprehensive analysis of USA healthcare. if it doesn't convince you, i don't know what will"

You seem to have me convinced. We both agree the current system is pretty shit. The fact that we disagree completely on the solution is a fact of our different perspectives. I believe in community, and a larger society, you believe in* only individuals (and their contribution to their local community) and the pre-eminence of free will.

*correct me if i'm wrong."

did you read it ALL? because i'm going to post it again. my post didn't just critique the current system, it critiqued very specifically regulation. you have not addressed this in depth

http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php


"@"No! humans are NOT hive mind creatures, we are individuals, who should be judged as such." - i suspect you misunderstand the concept of a hive mind..."

hive mind:
a notional entity consisting of a large number of people who share their knowledge or opinions with one another, regarded as producing either uncritical conformity or collective intelligence.

we don't have collective agreements like rousseau theorized, we do not participate in a hive mind.

how did i get that wrong?

Not paying taxes = theft.

@diplomat61

i think we have some room for agreement, but i still maintain that the greater the economic freedom the greater the well being of the people within that country. this has been proven out throughout history, and even with goods such as roads and hospitals being provided by the government factored in.

it may not be a short term benefit to everyone, but it advances society so much that everyone within it is better off in the long run

@Ogion

that may have been your most well written and thought out response i've ever witnessed by you. a little more work and you might actually be right about something

@"to pretend that we are all puppets is a vast oversimplification of the human mind and a lazy argument" - i don't take that extreme a position on it.

only that you have to consider the context in which a decision is made. If a person kills someone they may have felt they had no choice at the time, or that they were following orders (war), or that the person was a threat to their community (Trayvon Martin?) or...

What they see as the choices depends on the context. IF you don't know that product A exists you can't buy it. Advertising affects the context.

And our legal systems do take that context into account already - i'm not saying they need to do so differently, i'm saying that your philosophy of free will and responsibility for ones actions is limiting.

If a child grows up in a slum and only ever see people who fear the police, running away and being chased, they are going to become an adult who sees the police as a threat not as a supportive resource. It is not *entirely* their fault if they run and get shot for it. If they couldn't see any other option, then what 'free choice' did they make?

-- which is entirely tangential, i guess, but i think it is important. Especially for a socialist like me, who thinks the wealthiest wall street banker and the poorest unemployed bum should have the same status - except i know that even in a world where wealth and income are completely separate from occupation, people will still vie for status, like Olympic athletes, or chronically underpaid science graduates (the ones working in their first jobs for buttons) or aspiring musicians who've never played a sold-out gig. (but let's talk about my ideas on why socialism doesn't work another time...)

@"humans are not entirely manipulatable creatures. this is backed by psychology, and how even undoing some basic neurological programming can take YEARS of therapy. advertising isn't controlling us, stop exaggerating."

So you are saying, rather explicitly, that individuals should be held responsible even if advertising affects *some* of them. Like the obesity epidemic doesn't affect everyone, that doesn't mean the susceptible people aren't the main factor in the obesity epidemic...

Sorry i don't have time to read more, this is an interesting conversation. But i have to go volunteer with some young people.

@"to my knowledge the 10,000$ has yet to be collected. because while liberals like to pretend that it's an entire community working so hard just so a few individuals can become rich: those individuals are guaranteed to either be government backed (which i will stand side by side with you against every day of the week) or the hardest workers at meeting consumer demand"

I'm not denying that some people work very hard. I'm claiming that they still couldn't have become so hugely wealthy without other humans to co-operate with.

That something is consensual is great, but no person individually can do much more than subsistence farming or hunter-gathering on their own.

@"hell, the bottom 45% pay only 1.5% of ALL income taxes. the rich aren't abusing the system: they're PAYING FOR IT."

damn it, i can't resist.

They are paying for a system to protect their property rights. Without the state keeping them in wealthy they'd have to hire private armies to do it for them... and i believe this is often considered a risky business... much better to collectively pay for the world's largest army.

@"capacity for growth, capacity for reproduction, capacity for functional activity, capacity for continual change preceding death." - bacteria do this too. Better stop taking antibiotics i guess...

it is a fun conversation

@" the DISEASE is a welfare state that slowed down the decreasing poverty rate and reversed it in the black community. the DISEASE is social security being bankrupt and benefits potentially being slashed by politicians lining their pockets."

Remember that super-wealth group i imagined a few posts back, the ones which wants a massive private army to protect their property rights?

Well they also want a sedate population which is unlikely to revolt. They're happy to bride that population with a welfare state which ensures peace but creates an underclass which is dis-empowered. So i'm actually in agreement with you on most of this.

Except i don't know how to solve this issue. And i certainly don't think it is by doing more of what we've already been trying.

@"Marx actually didn't hate this, but his disciples decided the mechanism to FORCE the collective into action should be a governing class"

I'm not a marxist. I believe that socialism is just a system without any classes. (as i said somewhere people would still vie for status even in a star trek like utopia where money has no meaning... though that's stupid for other reasons... )

I believe in living your own life, if that means forming a community which reject capitalist ideas, then you can do that without overthrowing the state, and leaving others buy shit from their local supermarket if they want.

Because Marxists, Stalinists, and Communists failure proves that building new structures of governance and power does in fact produce an authoritarian society with clear distinctions between the class of the party heads and the proletariat doing the work.

@"once again, the USA is NOT CAPITALIST!!! it's a mixed economy, and much closer to corporatist"

Yes, and the USSR was not Socialist... but i'm slamming both the implementations are they exist/existed. That is the 'Communism' which was aswell as the 'Capitalism' which is. Neither of them are pure to the ideology which dreamt up some of their features. But i still think those ideas have had negative consequences.

@"if we had a FREE MARKET since the 1950s and with nuclear energy, carbon emissions would be near zero for the USA." - i don't know if we'd have any nuclear energy without government intervention. Also did you see India investing in a fast breeder Thorium reactor?

I know it is state investment, but that may be a bit change in how we make energy.

@"yup. look up the data, nuclear efficiency has constantly beat out fossil fuels for decade after decade, if you don't cherry pick data from old USA reactors and look at the most up to date reactor for the time period."

I don't know, i've heard conflicting propaganda, because when you take into account the clean up costs, initial investment, and all the other stuff which government regulation forces nuclear plants to do, i can't imagine how competitive nuclear is.

but i don't have that data.

Ok, i really need to sleep. I fear i have discovered that we agree far more than i expected we would. :)

@"you little wuss, you pick one article you think you can get a jab in on, but ignore the DISCRIMINATION against he elderly, the horrible death rates, the inefficiency, just to get in a single snide comment that isn't even true? i address EVERY SINGLE LINE OF WHAT YOU SAY. i leave NOTHING out. you are disgraceful"

I'm sorry. i tried responding to what you posted. Other articles criticising the NHS can still be attributed to Conservative party and 'New' Labour under-funding over decades. And the cynical view is that they are knowingly doing this, so that eventually the people will hate the NHS so much that they can privatise it.

Like all the failings of the NHS are problems, the question is whether you can build a system which is cheaper and gets you better outcomes. And i don't think either of us can prove that you can.

@"Ora. then why have they gone up? reality is disagreeing with you, and here's why: by having everyone insured, you do get a lowering of the collective risk by adding more low risk clients into the pool, but you're adding in FAR more high-risk clients. also, the price caps on insurance that the ACA also MANDATED, makes the costs of assuming so much risk unbearable by insurance companies. they are forced to either race prices on everyone, or go bankrupt.

this is true, and we are seeing the spikes, even with extra-government subsidies. this is simply what happens when you make everyone buy insurance."

That's fair, but my point was not about the cost of premiums, i was claiming that it doesn't destory the notion of insurance.

ok this time i'm going to sleep, early morning volunteering is going to require me to be awake.

It is dumb and immoral that anyone makes a profit off healthcare.

No one has ever given me a good argument even once for a free market for healthcare. It's idiotic and will hopefully go in the trashbin of history with other dumb ideas, like a free market for sanitation or a free market for the fire department.

My favorite part about the taxation is theft crowd is when they screech sophistry about individual rights to defend ideas that are deeply unpopular. Libertarianism is completely incompatible with democracy because no normal, non-wealthy person wants to live in a fucking hideous world where there are no regulations or social services.

"at the end of the day, the difference between you and me is that i like freedom, and you like taking other people's money. you might want that money for a good purpose, but stealing is stealing.

people always love Les Miserables and Jean Valjean as a hero, but nobody ever mentions how the bread he stole could have hurt that business, and how that business owner might have to watch his kid's go hungry.

if you want to take other people's money, you need their consent. bad news for socialists, because as it turns out people actually like the idea of working, creating something, and reaping the rewards of their own labor."

LMAO

I guess when you watch Robin Hood you root for the king. This is the best thing I've read all day.

Capitalism is really free. It's freedom to have to do whatever your boss says or you die. That's the freest.

Your money isn't yours. You didn't earn it.

Lol. "I like freedom" except for black people, gays, and anyone else who isn't a white male, of course.

You love freedom? Move to goddamned Somalia already. Libertarians want to live in a failed state, frankly. The fact is, if you're committed to a democratic society, you're committed to contributing to the public common welfare. If you don't, you're a thief stealing social services. Hell, if it weren't for society, you wouldn't even HAVE money. Who do you think prints the money and backs up the institutions that make it valuable? What a bunch of numbnuts.

"except for black people, gays, and anyone else who isn't a white male, of course. "

No

"You love freedom? Move to goddamned Somalia already. "

No

"Libertarians want to live in a failed state, frankly."

No

"The fact is, if you're committed to a democratic society, you're committed to contributing to the public common welfare."

Which includes keeping government oppression off the backs of the most vulnerable.

"Hell, if it weren't for society, you wouldn't even HAVE money."

Libertarianism =/= anarchism

@SamWest

Robin Hood was about an individual reclaiming taxes from the government authority. that is LITERALLY the story you complete imbecile.

meanwhile, the notion that individual rights and democracy are incompatible is entirely false, since democracy is based off of the notion of the power of government being DERIVED from individuals.

BY the people, FOR the people. without individual rights there ARE NO rights according to democracy. i mean our country was founded off of those basic libertarian ideals and it operated pretty well, and was amazingly prosperous.

i know people will point to Societal ills like slavery and sexism and whatnot, but these complaints are of culture, and have little to do with political structure.

- also because i'm a mind reader, slavery did NOT create the American wealth and prosperity. in fact, removing millions of wage earners from a market has BAD effects. that's why the Union in the civil war was at the cutting edge of industry and technology and the south was barely developed, rural and agriculturally based. the institution of slavery hurt our economy

another simple fact people ignore is that new and innovative drug creation in countries with socialized systems and caps on drug prices are WAY down. even in the heavy-regulated USA these companies are doing well by comparison

but ever since the pharmaceutical boom in the 1980s, we've been producing more and more drugs to fight every disease on the books. i mean, we had been accelerating into medicine for years, but we had a MASSIVE upwards trajectory in the span of about 12 years, that has only started to slow down in the mid 90s with new waves of regulation, but still this is single handedly showing positive numbers in manufacturing in 2017.

our capacity to create new drugs has gone hand in hand with evolution of microorganisms, as new lethal strains of disease pop up as we are essentially creating new super bugs. if we create an affordable universal system, but accept the far lower quality service and care like the NHS and in much of Europe... there's little evidence to show that these diseases will be any less virulent OR terminal.

our capacity for innovation (so far) has outpaced evolution. imagine that. evolution is crafting these new diseases, but in this time we haven't had any major epidemics since the 1920 influenza strain and the AIDs epidemic, each of which we've adapted to much faster than the prior. we are outpacing nature, and beginning to cure what were previously though to be entirely terminal illnesses. if we stop our drug innovation, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to an extinction level event.

many say we need more prevention mechanisms in place especially in Africa for when these epidemics strike, but what they conveniently ignore are the places like Brazil, when an epidemic DOES hit, the socialized system begins to collapse in a cascading failure as the government subsidizing and propping up of failed healthcare amplifies the magnitude of the health disaster into a full blown economic catastrophe.

people always shudder at the word death panels, but when a socialized healthcare system meets an epidemic they don't have the funding (or drug quality) to deal with: denial of coverage means you get essentially that.

Umm, you haven't been following what conservatives actually do. Oppressing the most vulnerable is a giant piece of it and libertarians are comfortable with letting oppressors oppress. It is like the old analogous of playing three quarters of a football game with one team in shackles and then in the fourth quarter taking them off and saying "ok, now this is a fair game". Certainly conservatives work to worsen the sitaution, but libertarians will never lift a finger to correct an injustice


And the basic points about democracy and taxes are in fact spot on. Contributing your fair share as determined by the majority isn't theft, it is being a good citizen. Not paying taxes is freeloading and theft from society. Unless you want no social services, in which case move somewhere without such services. Otherwise if you accept services and functioning government then shut up and pay your bloody taxes to support it and knock it off with this asinine "taxes are theft" bullcraap. It just shows you neither understand nor support democracy. (Again of so move to a non democratic failed state, like Somalia).

Funny how libertarians are so concerned about government oppression when nearly all oppression is private. Convenient for the white guys