[late]

Can you explain your interpretation of this photo?

Again, not a loaded question. I just didn't get what the point was.



Edit: It's almost like an Animal Farm reference, but there are rabbits instead of pigs.

I just don't understand the point.

But, we are all comrades right now.

As society is collapsing around us.

I vow off engaging in combativeness anymore in political discussion here.

Call it 'anger management'.

But, here on the commune, we can't be engaging in insults and vitriol with our comrades.

I still am wondering what was the point of the photo.

I guess I tested you a couple times lately, but I really don't know what you meant by it.

If you haven't read Alice in Wonderland, you should. It's not just a classic, it's loaded with philosophical puzzles, and biting satire of England. Satire that would have got him thrown in jail if not couched in metaphor.

Anyway, hatters used some chemical that drove them mad.

Eventually, capitalism will be replaced, just as mercantalism was replaced by capitalism. But it will take something a lot more sophisticated than Marxism, as it is currently conceived.

[B0ycey]

An "honest account"? How about an accurate account instead? People like Marxism because it makes a clear normative statement about capitalism, not because it's good theory.

I am not arguing from a ideology POV @Rugoz. If you think DasKapital is correct in its account, which you should do if you have read it and not a Rand advocate, then how can you say Marxism doesn't give an honest account of Capitalism?

[Potemkin]

If you haven't read Alice in Wonderland, you should. It's not just a classic, it's loaded with philosophical puzzles, and biting satire of England. Satire that would have got him thrown in jail if not couched in metaphor.

Anyway, hatters used some chemical that drove them mad.

Mercury. Even to this day, the phrase "mad as a hatter" is proverbial.

Eventually, capitalism will be replaced, just as mercantalism was replaced by capitalism. But it will take something a lot more sophisticated than Marxism, as it is currently conceived.

In my view, Marx sketched the main outlines of what that system will likely look like, but the details of what actually happens as events unfold themselves are unknowable until it actually happens, as Marx quite freely admitted. Marx claimed to be scientist, not a prophet.

[AFAIK]

Marx claimed to be scientist, not a prophet.

Once we establish a Marxist utopia you can be a scientist in the morning, a philosopher in the afternoon and a prophet in the evening.

[late]

In my view, Marx sketched the main outlines of what that system will likely look like, but the details of what actually happens as events unfold themselves are unknowable until it actually happens, as Marx quite freely admitted. Marx claimed to be scientist, not a prophet.

As a rule, Marxists keep wanting to walk a bridge that hasn't been built yet.

[wat0n]

In my view, Marx sketched the main outlines of what that system will likely look like, but the details of what actually happens as events unfold themselves are unknowable until it actually happens, as Marx quite freely admitted. Marx claimed to be scientist, not a prophet.

That could be said about any other economic paradigm. Even anarchists could say the same, insofar they try to explain economic behavior.

Normally one would reassess if what happens differs too much view from the model's prediction from a qualitative point of view (there are better options than economic models if all you want is to make a forecast of something like inflation).

[Pants-of-dog]

To tie it back to the topic:

In a Marxist society, vaccinations are free. In a capitalist society, you have to pay for it.

In a Marxist society, hospital stays and other medical treatments are free. In a capitalist society, you have to pay for it.

So, in terms of triage during a pandemic, people will not be turned away simply because of an inability to pay.

[AFAIK]

So, in terms of triage during a pandemic, people will not be turned away simply because of an inability to pay.

The USA has a sick care system. If you have a heart attack or other emergency you will be treated no questions asked but if you attempt to acquire a medical intervention to prevent a heart attack you will only be given access to medicine and procedures you can pay for.

Americans are very committed to rationing healthcare by wealth, even when it's more expensive

[wat0n]

The USA has a sick care system. If you have a heart attack or other emergency you will be treated no questions asked but if you attempt to acquire a medical intervention to prevent a heart attack you will only be given access to medicine and procedures you can pay for.

Americans are very committed to rationing healthcare by wealth, even when it's more expensive

My understanding is that preventive care is mostly free.

OTOH if you have an accident and you have insurance, they'll save you but you'll be indebted for a very long time...

[Pants-of-dog]

The U.S. also spent more on preventive care than peer nations – $309 compared to $175 per capita, on average, a difference of $134; activities captured in this spending category vary amongst countries, but in the U.S. it generally consists of public health activities, including preventive health programs and education for immunizations, disease detection, emergency preparedness, and more.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/bri ... countries/

Current US policy is to force insurance providers to cover preventive care for free. Obviously, the public health care programs also do so.

This means that only the uninsured will not have free preventive care. This was 8.5% of the population before Covid significantly reduced employment.

It should be noted that the insurance companies do not actually provide the services for free. The business model only works if the cost for said services is paid by the client and the client also pays a profit on top of that, so the client pays for these services in their monthly fee instead of being charged specifically for these services.

[wat0n]

The U.S. also spent more on preventive care than peer nations – $309 compared to $175 per capita, on average, a difference of $134; activities captured in this spending category vary amongst countries, but in the U.S. it generally consists of public health activities, including preventive health programs and education for immunizations, disease detection, emergency preparedness, and more.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/bri ... countries/

Current US policy is to force insurance providers to cover preventive care for free. Obviously, the public health care programs also do so.

This means that only the uninsured will not have free preventive care. This was 8.5% of the population before Covid significantly reduced employment.

Right, at least for the insured most (not all) preventive care is in fact free. OTOH one may wonder just how much do people use those options...

It should be noted that the insurance companies do not actually provide the services for free. The business model only works if the cost for said services is paid by the client and the client also pays a profit on top of that, so the client pays for these services in their monthly fee instead of being charged specifically for these services.

And in a government-run system the cost is paid by the taxpayer. There is no such a thing as a free lunch (or healthcare).

[Pants-of-dog]

In the developed world, medical care is free at point of use for all citizens.

This is true even for citizens who are unable to pay taxes.

Thus, medical care is free at that point.

This then prevents having a large percentage of the population unable to access medical care during a pandemic.

Having a large percentage of the population unable to access medical care during a pandemic can then cause a reservoir where the virus can stay and mutate.

[wat0n]

Yes, those who can't pay taxes can still access healthcare services. That does not mean nobody pays.

[late]

And in a government-run system the cost is paid by the taxpayer. There is no such a thing as a free lunch (or healthcare).

Which doesn't explain why we pay so much more, and get less...

Brits pay half what we do, with similar health outcomes. Fancy that...

[wat0n]

Which doesn't explain why we pay so much more, and get less...

Brits pay half what we do, with similar health outcomes. Fancy that...

Indeed, and that is what should drive the discussion about the US healthcare system after the pandemic (first step would to actually figure out why since it's not all that obvious).

For now, though, the issue is to get people to vaccinate. And I think the proposal in the OP is a step in that direction.

[Crantag]

Indeed, and that is what should drive the discussion about the US healthcare system after the pandemic (first step would to actually figure out why since it's not all that obvious).

It's entirely obvious.

It is because of the profit-driven nature of the US healthcare system.

[late]

Indeed, and that is what should drive the discussion about the US healthcare system after the pandemic (first step would to actually figure out why since it's not all that obvious).

For now, though, the issue is to get people to vaccinate. And I think the proposal in the OP is a step in that direction.

You can call it corruption, but you could also call it politics, American style.

Health insurance sucks a ton of money out of health care while trying to kill you. How's that for winning?

The problem with the poor not getting health care is that bad health doesn't stay with the poor. TB is a disease poor countries have. Civilised countries can control it. My sister caught it, it cost her a lung.

Another problem is the inefficiency of having so many health care systems. There is the VA, private care, public care, too many cooks. There are a bunch of different ways to skin a cat. But what we have isn't a plan, it's a patchwork that came from our inability to form a plan and execute it.

[wat0n]

It's entirely obvious.

It is because of the profit-driven nature of the US healthcare system.

Other countries have similar schemes (e.g. Germany's Bismarck model) and the system is not as expensive as the American ones. I think @late is right that part of the problem is that there are many systems coexisting together, making pooling of risk more difficult.

[Rancid]

Other countries have similar schemes (e.g. Germany's Bismarck model) and the system is not as expensive as the American ones. I think @late is right that part of the problem is that there are many systems coexisting together, making pooling of risk more difficult.

Interesting point. Thee healthcare in the US is certainly decentralized. You have federal programs, state programs, even county programs. All of which have their redundancies and associated risk pools.

[Crantag]

Other countries have similar schemes (e.g. Germany's Bismarck model) and the system is not as expensive as the American ones. I think @late is right that part of the problem is that there are many systems coexisting together, making pooling of risk more difficult.

@late did have it right, but not in the way you say.

You can call it corruption, but you could also call it politics, American style.

Health insurance sucks a ton of money out of health care while trying to kill you. How's that for winning?

Indeed, the surplus goes to the private health insurance companies, and the private hospitals.

I certainly recognize that markets are good for many things, providing health insurance is not one of them.

Health insurance should be public, and without profit motive.

Insurance happens to be something bureaucracy can actually do very well. It is all math.

The portion of the cost excess in the American system is attributable to the profits, and also to funding the 'sales effort' of the private companies, which dominate healthcare in the US.