[Atlantis]

Due to the lack of universal healthcare, even though Americans have to spend more on healthcare than any other people, they have lower life expectancy.

[SolarCross]

What are you calling "universal" healthcare? Switzerland doesn't have single payer it just makes it mandatory to have health insurance and has some subsidies for the poorest people.

In Switzerland, A Health Care Model For America?

-------------

For another perspective on the problems with the American health ecosystem:

What's Really Wrong with the Healthcare Industry

[Atlantis]

From Lisbon in the West to Tokyo in the East I have never lived in a country that didn't have universal healthcare. Each country has a different system, but virtually everybody is covered by some sort of healthcare.

[Stormsmith]

Hawaii has an employer paid healthcare system which has resulted in the longest life expectancy and the greatest longevity rate. Michigan is number 2.

[Godstud]

We should probably look for more ways to make Americans die earlier, instead of looking for ways to extend their miserable lives.



(Now that's a proper troll post.)

[Hindsite]

From Lisbon in the West to Tokyo in the East I have never lived in a country that didn't have universal healthcare. Each country has a different system, but virtually everybody is covered by some sort of healthcare.

The USA has a healthcare system that covers everyone. Hospital emergency rooms will treat anyone that has a medical emergency, even illegal immigrants. There is Medicare for those over 65 years of age that retire under the Social Security system. The poor are allowed to sign up for Medicaid for their medical care. Many get employer paid health insurance and all others can pay for their own health insurance. The left wing radicals want everyone to have equal healthcare determined by the government, with what they call universal healthcare. Many others want the choice to choose what the government considers as elective healthcare procedures and do not want universal healthcare that would limit their ability to choose.

[B0ycey]

Well I for one is glad I have universal healthcare. But if we are talking about cost, without sounding like a raving socialist, the easiest way to drive it down is to privatise all drug companies. Or at least regulate costs to a fairer price.

Whilst the drug companies are able to charge anything they like for patiented drugs, capitalism along with the thirst for profit means they make obscene wealth and healthcare becomes unaffordable as their profits rise.

[Hindsite]

Well I for one is glad I have universal healthcare. But if we are talking about cost, without sounding like a raving socialist, the easiest way to drive it down is to privatise all drug companies. Or at least regulate costs to a fairer price.

Whilst the drug companies are able to charge anything they like for patiented drugs, capitalism along with the thirst for profit means they make obscene wealth and healthcare becomes unaffordable as their profits rise.

I am happy for you. However, I doubt that universal socialism would be a good thing. Just take a look a Venezuela as an example. Do you think their healthcare is good now?

[B0ycey]

I am happy for you. However, I doubt that universal socialism would be a good thing. Just take a look a Venezuela as an example. Do you think their healthcare is good now?

I am not talking about universal socialism, but a hybrid economic model. Adams can keep his invisible hands and let the free market reign on things where people can choose to have or not have. But vital services such as health should be run by the state - and that includes R&D. Because if you monopolise vital services and restrict competition, costs will boom. It really is that simple.

[Atlantis]

@B0ycey, the only way to drive down cost is competition. Regulating prices will reduce competition.

If companies aren't able to recover their R&D costs, they won't develop new drugs. And if you think that new drugs are not necessary, nothing stops you from using generic drugs.

[SSDR]

Health care should be universal and should be available for anyone who needs it. No one should pay to live.

[Hindsite]

I am not talking about universal socialism, but a hybrid economic model. Adams can keep his invisible hands and let the free market reign on things where people can choose to have or not have. But vital services such as health should be run by the state - and that includes R&D. Because if you monopolise vital services and restrict competition, costs will boom. It really is that simple.

I still don't believe that a state run healthcare like is done by the Veterans Administration is very good. There has been a lot of complaints by veterans and Trump has had to change some of their policies and even allow veterans the option to seek private healthcare because of long wait times for certain services.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey, the only way to drive down cost is competition. Regulating prices will reduce competition.

If companies aren't able to recover their R&D costs, they won't develop new drugs. And if you think that new drugs are not necessary, nothing stops you from using generic drugs.

Once a drug is patiented it can have no competition Atlantis. Hence why the price of drugs are obscene. This isn't like two brands of Cola slugging it out for customers in the supermarket.

The only real solution to the price of drugs becoming affordable (even for say the NHS) is by nationalising development. Where the tax payer subsidises R&D and the price of the drugs then recoops that cost once it has been made and that money is put into R&D for new drugs. Until then it is probably the worse market for price fixing we have today. And to be frank, it is a joke and so is their profits.

[Godstud]

@Hindsite The best healthcare in the world is currently the UK's NHS. The USA lags far behind around #35.

Venezuela wasn't socialist. It was under a retarded dictator(Maduro). The very definition of Socialism precludes having a dictator.

[SolarCross]

Health care should be universal and should be available for anyone who needs it. No one should pay to live.

The same could be said for food, but if you make food production a state monopoly then mass starvation is the inevitable result.

[Atlantis]

@B0ycey, if you don't want to use patented drugs, you can use generic drugs.

Patented drugs would not exist without patent protection. If companies cannot recover R&D costs, they don't develop new drugs. Which means you have fewer drugs and less competition.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The very definition of Socialism precludes having a dictator.

This simply isn't true. The only thing necessary to meet the definition of socialism is that the state controls the means of production.

From Merriam-Webster:

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

\
Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a
: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b
: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The error in your remark goes to the root problem among privelaged westerners regarding their advocacy for socialism or socialism-lite.

Namely, that none of those despotic regimes of yesteryear were "really" socialist and that we have yet to try "real socialism," thats simply false.

The predominant school of orthodox Marxism is not "Stalinism" for no reason. They actually believe that Stalin's vision of implementing and propagating socialism was correct given the arguments made.

The reason why socialist countries end up being dictatorships is because if the state were to control the means of production; such a program would almost invariably require a strong, quick, and efficient state apparatus that was both centralized and bureaucratically linear; hence, both authoritarian and totalitarian in its orientation. This is further exacerbated by the need to get the uneducated proletariat fully converted to the ways of socialism and to purge both reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries; all of which likewise require a strong and centralized state mechanism of enforcement.

Likewise, even given this praxeological necessity in the very concept, Revolutionary socialist (marxians) themselves deny that socialism could ever be implemented by the democratic process as the current governments of the world are under the tyranny of the bougeois and therefore will NEVER allow for their own wealth to be democratically confiscated. Hence, the only way of implementing socialism according to true marxists is by revolution after the democratic process breaks down via reactionary efforts.

Once the democratic process collapses, the proletariat will enact their control over the means of production by force and since they are usually led by a charismatic leader, such a person ends up heading their stream-lined totalitarian bureaucracy as a matter of good form in light of popular expectations.

Its really that simple, but to say that socialist dictatorships are not "really socialist" is:

1. Factually incorrect given the definition of socialism.

2. Non-sensical given the organizational needs of socialism.

3. Non-sensical given the social needs of socialism in combating dissidents.

4. Contrary to the actual beliefs of Marxian socialists.

5. Historically inacurrate and untrue as a general statement.

In essence, BULLSHIT.

[Godstud]

Socialism
political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Note- This does not mean the state, and a Dictator is not "the state", but a single individual.

Venezuela's problems were caused by their reliance on one commodity, and terrible spending by an overly corrupt dictator, so you can take your "Bullshit" and shove it in your ear.

Socialism works well WITH Democracy. Americans can't fucking handle that so they have hissy fits. Too much brain-washing into fearing Communism, and linking anything similar to something that they already don't understand in the slightest.

Enjoy your Fascism. er... I mean "Populism".

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey, if you don't want to use patented drugs, you can use generic drugs.

Patented drugs would not exist without patent protection. If companies cannot recover R&D costs, they don't develop new drugs. Which means you have fewer drugs and less competition.

I am more than happy to use generic drugs Atlantis. But all that means is I am 20 years behind everyone else. I fully understand that companies need to recoop their costs but I am discussing a completely different system. That is nationalised drug companies delivering up to date drugs who gain financial assistance from the tax payer and who generates revenue from sales to assist new research. Being that this type of company is nationalised means that profit is not a factor and as such costs are lower. Residing Heyek economics to me is fine if you are considering the interests of the share owner. I am more concerned with the interests of the tax payer.

[Victoribus Spolia]

political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Note- This does not mean the state, and a Dictator is not "the state", but a single individual.Venezuela's problems were caused by their reliance on one commodity, and terrible spending by an overly corrupt dictator, so you can take your "Bullshit" and shove it in your ear. Socialism works well WITH Democracy. Americans can't fucking handle that so they have hissy fits. Too much brain-washing into fearing Communism, and linking anything similar to something that they already don't understand in the slightest.Enjoy your Fascism. er... I mean "Populism".

Is there supposed to be a rebuttal in there somewhere?

Socialism works well WITH Democracy.

Evidence?