Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Atlantis wrote: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.
B0ycey wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:@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 wrote:Health care should be universal and should be available for anyone who needs it. No one should pay to live.
Godstud wrote:The very definition of Socialism precludes having a dictator.
so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm
Definition of socialism
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
: 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
Atlantis wrote:@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.
Godstud wrote: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".
Godstud wrote:Socialism works well WITH Democracy.
the MSM and a few dozen other sources such as NA[…]
Well, I will focus solely on this story in this t[…]
Well, we can always weed idiots out of the gene p[…]