@orathaic

With your examples of Ireland and Churchill, you've come quite close to Ogion, the professional builder of straw men.

"I think I would really dislike you in real life. Let's make sure we never meet."

I'm not exactly sure that had to be said, but, umm ok.

"I do kind of wish Manwe would put his money where his mouth is and forego social goods provided by taxpayer money, such as by stopping using the internet"

Alright, I'll stop paying my internet bill to comcas, err, I mean the U.S. Federal government.

@"The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.
Charles Trevelyan, head of administration for famine relief, 1840s"

The free market does not care if people die. So long as they don't have money.

I'm not creating any straw men here.
Churchill was only the most recent British leader to facilitate famines in India.

@Ogion

Godwin's law is because there are too many idiots who like fascism, and the best representation of fascism is Hitler.

this isn't some kind of legitimate mockery by citing it, it's your own failure to recognize the horror of which what you are speaking.


"But if we want to talk about how capitallists kill, look at how big agribusiness manipulates food markets to deprive people of food because it is profitable to do so"

BUT... the government pays them for all surpluses, and pays the not to produce. the government and taxpayer HOLD UP agriculture.

"or how companies like Monsanto go after third world farmers for planting their own crops."

do they use government intervention?
if yes --> that's the problem
if no --> the government should prevent them

is it simply them offering a better product?
if yes --> you're hurting consumers
if no --> refer to question one


"Capitalism starves every bit as many people as Stalinism ever did"

actually most starvation occurs in countries in Africa where there are constant human rights violations and unstable governments. as it turns out, the problem is that resources are scarce, but even Burundi (the most undernourished country in the world) has the POTENTIAL for complete food self sufficiency.

the problem is not capitalism, the problem is the culture. the problem is ethnic tensions. the problem is the civil war.


try doing research before speaking again

All of this talk of people dying because of capitalism's failures in one way or another. Are we just going to ignore the fact that capitalism is also the reason literally billions of people have been able to live on this planet who wouldn't have been able to if capitalism did not allow for us to reach the levels of production efficiency we have?

"if yes --> you're hurting consumers"

what i mean to say is by forcing Monsanto away, you're forcing the people to pay more for food they could get for cheaper.

I hope this discussion is joined by more opponents of capitalism, but people who argue better than orathaic and Ogion. They're so weak it's boring.

philosophy question:

imagine a world in the future where technology is so advanced, that food and drugs and housing and energy are provided to all with absolutely no wasted cost.

- complete renewable energy worldwide to whatever extent need
- extremely efficient multi-layered greenhouses that produce food for the entire worlds population, with factories across the world
- as the USA hits the maximum bound for this planets S-bound our housing can be built by robots for any who need it.
- drugs synthesized at the blink of an idea with complete confidence with medical technology having comprehensive understanding of the effects of all known chemicals on the human body down the very chromosome.

if we get to that state, then will capitalism be dead?

And Zmaj, claiming 'oh it isn't REALLY a free market' is the exact excuse used by defenders of Communism, Stalin didn't practice ideal perfect Communism the way Marx imagined it.

The point is, flawed fucked up systems which actually kill people.

The free market only provides services to those who can afford them (whether it is food in the Irish/Indian examples or healthcare in the current US example). And it explicitally encourages income inequality, creating a class of people too poor to survive.

It wasn't a problem when the potato blight hit Holland, and the government intervened and banned the export of grain. And while the suffered, the population didn't suffer 20-25% losses.

@" the fact that capitalism is also the reason literally billions of people have been able to live on this planet who wouldn't have been able to if capitalism did not allow for us to reach the levels of production efficiency we have?"

How many of those developments were made by government sponsored research? Anti-biotics, fertiliser, vaccination, indoor toilets? Who owns the patents on these technologies? Or was it socialised countries?

@JamesYanik - Capitalism will never die because people will always be convinced that they need to buy something that they don't really need.

I grew up in the 1960s where black and white TVs were the normal. But now you need to have a color high definition TV with cable/satellite/internet connection.

I still haven't got a mobile/cell phone so I can't be bothered when I'm away from my land line phone with caller ID so I can screen out scammers.

I have a car because public transportation isn't that great where I live especially when I need to haul large volumes or heavy items. But I am looking forward to self driving cars because the other drivers in my area are careless idiots that routinely break the driving laws with illegal turns, faster than posted speeding, and just doing other things when they are the drivers. I've seen the result of cars being rear ended because they took too long to make a right turn out of a parking lot.

Computers used to be rare except for science and business, but now you are a second class citizen if you don't have one with broad band access.

@ Orathaic.. Interesting comments from your good self about the treatment of the Irish by the British Government circa 1840. Your comments about the years of the "potato famine" are, I think, historically accurate. During the years of that famine caused by potato blight, "bumper" ( large) harvests of other food crops in Ireland are recorded..particularly in grain crops, but these crops were largely exported to Britain. So in some ways there was no "overall food shortages" during those famine years, but there was a devastating effect on the poorest people in Ireland who relied principally on potatoes as a food source.
From 1787 to 1853 more than 25,000 women, nearly half of them Irish were transported in generally appalling conditions to the Australian colonies ( where through that period men outnumbered women approximately 10 to 1 ) as bonded labour, and intended to be used as "breeding stock" as well.
Anyone who does any research into this will/should be stunned at the callous treatment of these women, and just as importantly the treatment of their children. The stories are, quite literally, heartbreaking.
There was a deliberate policy by the British Government that exploited the poorest, least equipped to defend themselves members of society. Earl Grey ( yes of the famous tea importing family, and Twinings tea the commercial brand name of their tea ) who was, I think "Colonial Secretary" organised the "forced immigration" of women from "poor houses" etc to Australia.
It's a grim, dark episode of Irish, British and Australian history, and the courage, determination and sacrifice of these women deserves to be, within Australia particularly, remembered and honoured. In many ways these women should be regarded as the "mothers of the modern Australian nation". ( I don't want to exclude our indigineous community from their place in our history or present, in making these comments about the women transported to Australia ).
The British also transported about three million slaves to the Caribbean and American colonies. In many ways the American economy was founded on slavery and a drug trade (tobacco).

"Anti-biotics"

mostly produced by pharmaceutical companies and biotechs. even with USA manufacturing declining, medical manufacturing is thriving. socialized systems have made it too expensive to operate overseas, so it's actually only the capitalist here in the USA doing well. Recently free market policies have helped Scandinavian countries though.

"Fertiliser"

it's amazing to think that nobody would have researched how to make better crops without government. oh wait, not "amazing" it's delusional. just because the government did it first, doesn't mean it wasn't coming. that logic is riddled with errors. furthermore, government has failed in agriculture, creating so many price supports for farmers.

"Vaccination"

most innovations nowadays come from the private sector. see both point 1 and 2

"Indoor Toilets"

thanks god government invented indoor toilets. otherwise we'd all still be shitting outside in holes in the ground. nobody else would have ever come up with that. wait, what? it was an individual not using taxpayer money who came up with it in England? what? there are records of waste management systems in ancient Crete? what? all throughout history? no that doesn't fit my narrative. *censor*

"Who owns the patents on these technologies? Or was it socialised countries?"

to answer your first question: nobody, and some companies
to answer your second question: um no.

i'm not sure what that rant was. freedom created these things. that is not what socialism is

@Randomizer

"@JamesYanik - Capitalism will never die because people will always be convinced that they need to buy something that they don't really need."

exactly. capitalism allows of luxury, and the advancement of society as a whole. when the american poor have obesity problems and many own iPhones... we have weird ideas about poverty.

"I grew up in the 1960s where black and white TVs were the normal. But now you need to have a color high definition TV with cable/satellite/internet connection."

and that's the funny thing. imagine if you took all these luxury expenses out of your life. imagine the monetary gain. with smart investing and extra income, capitalism has given you such a solid life for you and your family.

"I still haven't got a mobile/cell phone so I can't be bothered when I'm away from my land line phone with caller ID so I can screen out scammers."

ok.

"I have a car because public transportation isn't that great where I live especially when I need to haul large volumes or heavy items. But I am looking forward to self driving cars because the other drivers in my area are careless idiots that routinely break the driving laws with illegal turns, faster than posted speeding, and just doing other things when they are the drivers. I've seen the result of cars being rear ended because they took too long to make a right turn out of a parking lot."

as someone who understands the logistical and cybersecurity threats of self-driving cars i'm looking forward to them less. in any case, it is amazing what private sector innovation can do.

"Computers used to be rare except for science and business, but now you are a second class citizen if you don't have one with broad band access."

i think you're making my argument for me. thanks.

@MajorMitchell

"Orathaic.. Interesting comments from your good self about the treatment of the Irish by the British Government circa 1840. Your comments about the years of the "potato famine" are, I think, historically accurate. During the years of that famine caused by potato blight, "bumper" ( large) harvests of other food crops in Ireland are recorded..particularly in grain crops, but these crops were largely exported to Britain. So in some ways there was no "overall food shortages" during those famine years, but there was a devastating effect on the poorest people in Ireland who relied principally on potatoes as a food source."

and don't forget the british creating tariffs that exacerbated the crisis. in fact land stolen from the irish farmers centuries before were really the key to creating a dependency network for the irish people.

"From 1787 to 1853 more than 25,000 women, nearly half of them Irish were transported in generally appalling conditions to the Australian colonies ( where through that period men outnumbered women approximately 10 to 1 ) as bonded labour, and intended to be used as "breeding stock" as well."

sure need, but let's assume this is true.

either the government helped and was a problem, or the government didn't prevent it and didn't do their job.

"Anyone who does any research into this will/should be stunned at the callous treatment of these women, and just as importantly the treatment of their children. The stories are, quite literally, heartbreaking."

agreed

"There was a deliberate policy by the British Government that exploited the poorest, least equipped to defend themselves members of society. Earl Grey ( yes of the famous tea importing family, and Twinings tea the commercial brand name of their tea ) who was, I think "Colonial Secretary" organised the "forced immigration" of women from "poor houses" etc to Australia."

more reasons to hate the british government, and their collusion with businesses.

"It's a grim, dark episode of Irish, British and Australian history, and the courage, determination and sacrifice of these women deserves to be, within Australia particularly, remembered and honoured. In many ways these women should be regarded as the "mothers of the modern Australian nation". ( I don't want to exclude our indigineous community from their place in our history or present, in making these comments about the women transported to Australia )."

everyone forgets the shit the irish went through... such a dark part of history.

"The British also transported about three million slaves to the Caribbean and American colonies. In many ways the American economy was founded on slavery and a drug trade (tobacco)."

actually the american economy in the SOUTH was funded by corrupt oligarchs who used slavery to their personal advantage. however, as it turns out, removing wage earners and consumers from an economy actually hurt economic development. this is why the north's infrastructure was MUCH more developed than the south.

Thank MM, that becomes a conversation about colonialism and rascism (ie excluding those are excluded from the protection 'afforded' to everyone citizen in a liberal society) and i think there are deep connection between the kind of capitalism we see today and the colonialism of the 19th century.

The US in particular took over as the main Imperial power after world war 2, took or bought colonies during the preceeding 100 years (1850-1950) and invested heavily in puppet states like Iran (until their revolution). Made war on many nations (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (after they disobeyed their puppeteer) Afghanistan, etc.

The deep connection between corporations taking money from the state (not a free market at all, but state capitalism) and foreign imperialistic policy is the reality of the last 70 years. Corporations in the US getting more powerful on the back of tax-payer contracts for 'defence' (aka building weapons of war, used to kill largely innocent people).

America is hated for a reason. Almost as much as it is loved... It has managed its public and private propoganda machine (they call it advertising now, because if anyone knows when to rebrand it is the advertising industry....) and managed to maximise the exploitation and oppression of 'human resources' and natural resources. (To those who question what other resources we could make things from, the native tribes living in America becore europeans arrived were perfectly good at living off the land without destroying it, this whole environmentally friendly renewable sustainable way of living isn't new, except to european civilisation... Though it tends to be a very middle class movement, because when you're worried about being able to feed your family, you don't have much energy left to worry about not destroying the environment).

The capitalist system (state capitalism) has a veneer of democracy, pays lip service to the people, but power has shifted into the corporate and state sectors almost entirely. Publically funded research which is privatised and exploited for profit - best example is the US military invented the internet... There has been huge growth because of that, and the people didn't get the profits. They paid the tax into the 'defence' budget, but then private corporations profited. It is a blatant lie to claim you have a free market.

But lets be clear. This conversation is supposed to be about health care.

I can talk about those liberal freedom denied to racialised minorities, and modern capitalistic colonialism. But this isn't about that. It is about the freedoms we are supposed to have in the liberal 'west'. The freedom to starve to death was one afforded the Irish during the famine (when the potato blight hit) and to the natives in the trail of tears in the US. Do we want citizens to have that freedom? Or do we want the freedom from fear of starving, or being pushed into bankruptcy over a medical condition we have no control over?

Do we want to offer job protections, so that the next time the state-capitalist system decides the banking system needs to collapse, and millions lose their jobs (through no fault of their own - my dear libertarian 'personal responcibility' worshipers) that they will not lose their homes and possibly everything else? Freedom from the fear of economic collapse would he a great deal.

But specific to health care. Do you want a system where we collectively pay for the needs of all, or the young and healthy pay smaller premiums - but never collect because they are young and healthy, while those with pre-existing conditions can't get health insurance at all?

This is the difference between wanting to live in a society where people care for each other and one where everyone is out for themselves. Your choice, but i've no plans to visit the US in the near future.

yes the irish people were allowed to starve. when an entire people decide, consciously, to become dependent on a single food crop, then a blight affects solely that crop will devastate them. personally i'm horrified by the english tariffs and corn laws and stolen property that prevented domestic production from growing, but you haven't mentioned those, because they disprove your argument that this was the free market's fault. this was a series of horrific government, cultural and natural failures that accumulated into disaster.



but onto your points:



"But specific to health care. Do you want a system where we collectively pay for the needs of all, or the young and healthy pay smaller premiums - but never collect because they are young and healthy, while those with pre-existing conditions can't get health insurance at all?"


health insurance that covers preexisting conditions is NOT insurance. stop calling it that. you're doing a disservice to reality by insisting that those two can fit together. they cannot. what you want is people paying for your healthcare. stop calling it health insurance.

until you understand that basic point i'm not going to move on to further arguments. this is vital to understanding the conversation as a whole.



"Or do we want the freedom from fear of starving, or being pushed into bankruptcy over a medical condition we have no control over?"


freedom from fear??? and here is the disconnect from reality. freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

if i want to go to the moon, i am allowed to pursue that goal. but someone is not impeding on my freedom, by not paying for my shuttle. if everyone in the USA pitched in 2$, i could probably go. it's within your ability, but you choose not to, so therefore you are actively destroying my freedoms. this. is. the. same. logic. you have to consider freedom, as if EVERYONE has it. you only think in terms of freedom for the poor. if one person's freedom puts another person's freedom into question, then there is a dilemma of conflicting rights.



if you think the poor should be restrained, and the rich should be free, then you are a slaver


if you think the rich should be restrained, and the poor should be free, then you are a socialist


if you think all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, THEN AND ONLY THEN will you understand what America was FOUNDED UPON.

and if you don't believe that, then get out. this is not the country for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_ship

We haven't changed that much since those days, except now it's usually planes that are packing people in worse than cattle. Now you can get blood clots from not being able to move your legs on long flights that can kill later.

Telling people they can go elsewhere for cheaper medical care assumes they know where to go and can afford to get there. However for a long term health problem it isn't alway possible to relocate. After all how many can afford to live in California or other states that provide health care coverage to the poor.

A few years ago some states tried to ship their undesirables to California by paying their bus fare to go.

The current TrumpCare bill lets the state limit access to insurance so it's not Congress and Trump's fault that the people can't get it.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/opinions/health-care-worst-to-come-opinion-garrett/index.html

Also less health coverage can lead to fewer exams and treatment that can head off expensive and possibly fatal health problems.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/07/politics/raul-labrador-healthcare-ahca/index.html

Not to mention loss of jobs in the health care industry is expected since why need workers when insurance isn't paying for
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/07/news/economy/health-care-jobs/index.html treatments. Soon only hospitals for the rich patients will have full employment.

@Randomizer

key points to consider:

1. socialized healthcare is difficult with large numbers of dependents, but unfortunately, socialized systems create more dependance, especially with an economy as regulated as ours in other industries. at least when Sweden socialized healthcare, most of their industries are essentially purely free market. that's what is keeping them alive


2. Obamacare created about a million jobs because of increased demand when healthcare was socialized (but let's just forget that the only reason these jobs exist is because taxpayers are forced to pay for services they don't need, making these jobs essentially quasi-governmental extensions), and now since the government isn't able to FORCE people to pay for something they didn't want those people who benefited from the government FORCING people to pay for something they don't want, now will lose those added benefits


3. States are allowed to limit FREE healthcare. not "access to" just FREE healthcare. if we SHOULD have FREE ACCESS TO all of our rights, i DEMAND that you guys pay for me to get guns. it's a right, and if you don't pay for it, i don't truly have access to it. exact. same. logic.


4. Labrador says: "lack of health care was essentially asking people to die,"

this is like the creationist argument of old, saying that believing there is no god, and not believing in god are the same thing.

the first is a positive claim, the second is a response to a positive claim.

with healthcare you are saying that by not providing this service, this is essentially the same as asking them to die (i.e. non-action vs action)

by doing nothing right now a poor african kid just starved to death. oops. while typing that sentence another one died. christ, i must be a mass murderer with all this inaction. AGH THAT'S 4 MORE DEAD.

logic. learn it.


5. This is no way actually lowers the objective price of drugs. NOBODY other than me has offered a solution in which we either

A. Increase the Quality of New Drugs OR
B. Maintain the Quality of New Drugs being produced

while also we

A. Lower the cost of New Drugs
B. Maintain the costs of New Drugs

the very best anyone here has done is argued for both "option B."s but i'm actually proposing a system in where we can get both "option A."s

even you single payer people, this can work with you guys as well. here's how it works:

1. create massive liability for bad drugs. right now there are only safety nets that allow companies to throw metaphorical shit at the wall, and see what sticks. the FDA has a lot of responsibility that the taxpayer must fund, but it's time to make the corporations responsible for their own sloppiness.

2. deregulate, to lower the actual cost of creating drugs, while at the same time creating temporary price caps: this allows for investors to still be attracted so new drug creation is maintained, while at the same time market price falls.


if you want to socialize so that everyone must contribute to a "public fund" for healthcare for whomever needs it, then you need that fund to be as small as possible to minimize tax increases. to do this you need cheap healthcare. to get that: see above.


can we at least agree on what i've written above, or is there too much controversy over that? is there some detail i'm overlooking here, because it seems like whether you want socialized healthcare or completely privatized, my points 1 and 2 seem like a good starting point.

@JamesYanik

1. True socialized healthcare is expensive for large numbers. However you can limit costs like Medicare does by negotiating price limits because you are guaranteeing paying for a large number. Only paying for certain medical problems and not for elective problems like cosmetic surgery. Letting the rich pay for their own better medical care where they can get above the minimum level.

3. States limit access to health care in two ways. Prohibiting availability like Texas did with abortions so even after the Supreme Court overturned it, almost all the clinics never reopened. The other is cost regulation where if you can't afford it, then you can't get it.

Emergency room costs escalated because they are required to take all patients without insurance if they take any federal funds and the patient can get there on their own. To avoid this ambulances are directed away from the closest hospital unless you have a doctor with admitting privileges to force admittance. I met a man that was in an auto accident less than 200 feet from a trauma emergency room that was trying to get out of the ambulance after being told they were going 20 miles to another hospital.

4. There is a difference between not being able to help someone because you can't directly affect their problem because you are not near them and you can't even guarantee you money would reach them and where your actions can affect them by voting to allow the to get help. Blocking people from getting care is different than not giving it to them because it isn't inaction.

Straw man arguments in logic learn them so you don't get take down by false analogies.

5. Drug prices are set by markets and when you control a large part of the buyers like insurance companies and the government you can limit prices. As longs as the rules are established, then companies can find ways to make money even with developing expensive new and better drugs. The current rules let them get away with poor testing and having exclusive rights to lousy expensive new ones by not letting older ones be produced that have been better tested through usage.

It's rare for companies' to pay for bad drugs that they know about like Merck's Vioxx.

One example of what I regard as the USA being a great global contributor for good..the incredible generosity of the post WW 2 Marshall program.
Yes Manwe, I recognise that capitalism is the most effective way us humans have found, so far, to "create wealth" (Does not mean it will always be). But that doesn't mean capitalism is without flaws, it's greatest weaknesses, imho, are..it's inability to distribute the wealth created with equity amongst all citizens ( and for those like Capt Brad and sweet James Yannick, there is a difference between equity and equality )...and capitalism's inability to value what I would call "intangibles" eg the value of protecting wildlife, valuing a tropical rainforest as a habitat for orangutans rather than a source of hardwood timber. In some ways, the flaws of capitalism reflect our own human weaknesses... eg, excessive greed and selfishness. Capitalism, unfettered by regulations will embrace slavery, send children into unsafe work places, embrace trade in harmful drugs, embrace pollution as a way of cutting costs, etc.

@MajorMitchell (and Ogion, if he can be reached at all)

You should learn from Randomizer. This guy actually analyzes what has been said by the pro-capitalism side. Don't just pile new stuff that constantly derails the thread.

@Randmozier

1. price limits will cut profits from drugs, and investors will leave. The USA is the biggest new drug creator in the world, and if we start driving people away, there simply won't be the funds to create new drugs. the government will have to subsidize using taxpayer money, which will drive up costs even more. if you want price limits to work, you have to cut the cost of creating new drugs. Europe simply takes our drugs and makes generic copies of them, because they give zero shits about patents. in a sense they leach off of our creativity. we must cut prices, and maintain innovation.


2. wait where'd it go?


3. The current healthcare system is a mess, i'll grant you that. If Obama wanted to go Heath Ledger Joker and burn the current system down to force us into single-payer: then he's thanking god that Trump is his successor, because that man doesn't know the difference between a chickpea and a pistachio... although to his credit i don't think he's ever had a pistachio on his face ;)


4. This is rambling bullshit. You are asking me to pay money to help someone. don't lie, that is 100% exactly what this is. "voting to allow them to get help" actually translates to "voting for more people to be FORCED to pay taxes that the government will turn into healthcare"

my argument wasn't also a straw man. a straw man is where you set up an argument that your opponent DIDN'T present, then disprove it, pretending to have defeated your opponent (while ignoring their actual critiques)

with you, there may be slight variations in the way you present it, but it's the same basic concept. you are equivocating me not taking action, with me taking an action.

"There is a difference between not being able to help someone because you can't directly affect their problem because you are not near them and you can't even guarantee you money would reach them"

except in the modern day and age, we can send our money literally everywhere. this is a non-point. you want me to pay for people who i do not know, and how who have not affected me. I have not been affected much more by a homeless man in Africa, or a homeless man in New York. Clearly the root of the problem is not simply efficiency.

"and where your actions can affect them by voting to allow the to get help"

this is where word play is key. "to allow them to get help," is the exact same as "to force people to give up money so that the government can provide a service to another person" in this case.

"Blocking people from getting care is different than not giving it to them because it isn't inaction."

BUT WE AREN'T BLOCKING THEM. we are not choosing to TAKE something away, we are choosing NOT TO GIVE in the first place. that is INACTION.

***SIDENOTE: i donate to charity regularly and work closely within my community to keep my city's day center open. if a single state or city wants to socialize, that's more their choice, and there's an argument for and against that, but federal nationalization is ludicrous.***

"Straw man arguments in logic learn them so you don't get take down by false analogies. "

utterly, laughably, hilarious. honestly, i've done a comprehensive analysis of my beliefs, and you dance around the issue pretending that not giving something =/= inaction. your lack of understanding of such basic concepts truly shows how unqualified your opinion is on this subject.


5. "Drug prices are set by markets and when you control a large part of the buyers like insurance companies and the government you can limit prices."

time to learn some economics before we go on

investors choose whether or not to invest in a drug's creation just like any other investment: based off of risk and return. currently it costs about 2.6 billion dollars to create a new drug. however, Forbes ranked Pharmaceuticals 3rd in the best returns on investments for companies at something like 20%. (Medical equipment not far behind at around 17%, but these two overlap). the risk for creating new drugs are HIGH, many drugs fail to meet FDA requirements and are pulled, and many drugs that make it to market have side effects are pulled.

2.6 billion dollar investment, HIGH risk: the ONLY reason to invest in a product, is if there is an AMAZING rate of return. at 20%, that's pretty damn good.

set a price limit, and lower that 20%, investors will flee. new drugs won't get made, the government will have to fund drug creation, subsidizing companies, creating a non-competitive market, reducing the number of new drugs further all the while driving up the cost on the taxpayer.


if you limit prices. there are effects. but maybe you take this into account. let's see what your next statement says.


"As longs as the rules are established, then companies can find ways to make money even with developing expensive new and better drugs."

*facepalms*

if the rules that are established PREVENT expensive (HIGH PRICE) drugs, then how will they make expensive drugs? how will they make profits? Also how do they make BETTER drugs with lower profits? GIVE ME ONE DAMN WAY HOW. you can't just say "companies can find ways" and expect that to be true. that's economic voodoo. you have zero basis in reality, zero facts, zero credibility. this statement just lost you a LOT of respect for me. there are ACTUAL arguments for how to make single payer systems work, and you're not even proposing them. you're using generalized statements that have zero actual policy meaning, and expecting everyone to treat you like an expert. sorry, but you're actually one of the lest intelligent proponents of single payer on this entire site


"The current rules let them get away with poor testing"

yes the government sucks at its one job. so MAYBE we should do what I proposed, and make the rules stricter, and more specialized.


"and having exclusive rights to lousy expensive new ones"

if they're bad "lousy" drugs then why do they want to produce it. those drugs get p
pulled and are wastes of money. what do you mean???


"by not letting older ones be produced that have been better tested through usage."

what...? but... you just said that they had rights to the new ones, but now it's bad that they have rights for the old ones? They put out the best drugs the will get them the most money. are you high?


"It's rare for companies' to pay for bad drugs that they know about like Merck's Vioxx."

yeah but they're going to pay nearly A BILLION dollars to settle that lawsuit. creating bad drugs has consequences. this is the free market punishing them. the fuck are you arguing for?




but once again, you have not refuted my main points, so i'll repost it here. what is wrong with:

1. create massive liability for bad drugs. right now there are only safety nets that allow companies to throw metaphorical shit at the wall, and see what sticks. the FDA has a lot of responsibility that the taxpayer must fund, but it's time to make the corporations responsible for their own sloppiness.

2. deregulate, to lower the actual cost of creating drugs, while at the same time creating temporary price caps: this allows for investors to still be attracted so new drug creation is maintained, while at the same time market price falls.


if you want to socialize so that everyone must contribute to a "public fund" for healthcare for whomever needs it, then you need that fund to be as small as possible to minimize tax increases. to do this you need cheap healthcare. to get that: see above.


can we at least agree on what i've written above, or is there too much controversy over that? is there some detail i'm overlooking here, because it seems like whether you want socialized healthcare or completely privatized, my points 1 and 2 seem like a good starting point.

@Zmaj

"you should learn from Randomizer"

that's really not a good idea

@"the incredible generosity of the post WW 2 Marshall program."

Was not a thing. The marshal plan was after WW2, an it was in direct response to WW1's treaty of Versailles. The US knew that if someone didn't rebuild Europe it would suffer harsh economic austerity and the people would turn back to war. A war the US didn't want (yes i know that seems like an oxymoron). But the bigger issue was the the US wanted a market for its goods, they couldn't afford to go back to the great depression era. So they soent government money (tax payer lead) to rebuild 'allies' economies, in order to have customers to buy all the good they produced.

This policy continued outside Europe/Japan after the Marshal plan when lending money to developing nations. In an attempt to sway them away from the USSR and communism. Of course many of these loans did (and continue to) require that 80% be spent on US produced goods (whether tanks or tractors). This amounts to US tax-payer subsidies to US manufacturing industries.

A direct boost to the economy, by exporting goods to a foreign country and paying for them from the tax payer's purse.

Entirely selfish on the part of the corporations who run America. (Development aid doesn't work at all, and the difference between that and the Marshal plan is that rebuilding a country which has been destroyed is much easier than building up a country which has been colonised... You need institutions which people believe in, and Europe had those, the people had a belief in the system, all you needed to do was pour money on it...)

@Zmaj, i can't read what Yannick has said. Still muted.

Also, you're calling our arguements strawmen, and praising someone who addressed the points raised by the other side. Yet you are not addressing the points we raise.

I am staunchly anti-Capitalist, and you have accused me of being pro-Communist, when i've made no claims on that account. So i have definitely seen you make straw men. Which would make you a hypocrit.

I have very little time for hypocrits.

@orathaic

I have shown how you're pro-Communist. It doesn't mean you're consciously so. But your views have overlapped with Stalinism on several occasions now.

@Yanik

I just read your reply to Randomizer. LOL. I can see why people like orathaic mute you. They can't handle the facts.