🇳🇱
As someone living in socialized healthcare, and who has lived with socialized healthcare in about a dozen countries, just a reminder:
Socialized Healthcare is a broken and backwards system
inb4: No I am not promoting the american healthcare system. It may fix or address the parts that are broken in socialized healthcare, but it has its own problems… There are solutions (though no one talks about it) that doesnt resemble either of these failed systems.
Problems I have repeatidly faced both here and in other socialized health care countries:
-
Abusive wait times leading to unnecessary suffering and in my case surgery that wouldnt have been needed if I had prompter care.
-
Lack of access to many prescriptions - (I have had at least a dozen medicines I couldnt get because the cost would be too much of a burden to a socialized system).
-
Monopolies making unfair and abusive rules to line their pockets at the expense of patients (A good example of this is melatonin being a prescription in Israel due to a pharmecutical monopoly).
-
Lack of privacy / anonymity - Since everything is registered through centralized systems (usually) there is no way for you to hide or keep private your medical records. In the USA I would pay cash for prescriptions I dont want on record, not really an option in socialized systems.
@freemo I have not heard of a third option next to socialized healthcare and private healthcare. Care to explain what you mean?
@admitsWrongIfProven There are lots of options in theory, but as I said few people talk about alternatives. The one that seems the best solution I ever heard of, and as the benefit of being put into action on small scales to see it work, is co-op based solutions. A co-op is where the clients of the service comprise the only owners of that service eliminating the greed element and addressing costs while still allowing for a somewhat free market to drive innovation and competing services. In the case of health insurance this means the policy holders are also the sole owners of the company.
@freemo That makes sense, but if you could establish such systems all around, you would have solved the capitalism destroys us all problem - what i’m saying is you are right, but it makes no sense to limit this to healthcare ^^
@admitsWrongIfProven Well thats a matter of opinion. I dont think capitalism is as evil as you do and feel systems that are mostly capitalism based, but not absolutist, are ideal. Capitalism, at least as one component in reasonable perportion, is not only not evil but good.
The reason healthcare is special is because healthcare doesnt follow the supply-demand rules where capitalism thrives. A person on their deathbed would give or pay everything they have to live just a bit longer (without suffering). So demand is infinite and thus equilibirum can not be reached in healthcare as it can with other goods and services. So while it is good for health care I would not go so far as to apply it to everything. That said it is often used when it comes to foods and farms and has been quite successful in that regard as well.
@freemo Hmm, i doubt that healthcare is still special. After all, demand can be increased nowadays. How else would the phenomenon of compulsive amazon orders or a new smartphone every year be possible?
And by capitalism, i do not mean using money as exchange for goods, but what it has become.
For what i know of the timeframe roughly 100 years ago, i might agree with you.
If I told you that you were going to die in 24 hours, but if you gave me everything you owned you would live another 20 years, would you do it? Most people would.
Demand for iphones may be high but they dont approach infinite… If you learned today all your cellphones were destroyed and the only way for you to get one was to give up everything you owned and you’d get an iphone for 20 years, most people wont do it.
Ever increasing demand is not the same as infinite demand, there is still an equilibrium point. There are many cheap phones and a great many people will reject expensive iphones and get a much more affordable phone. Very few people would pay less if they knew paying less meant dying for healthcare, if they have a choice.
I think “What capitalism has become” is a very misleading and harmful choice of language… capitalism doesnt become things, its a core principle among thousands of other principles that make up a government. Capitalism doesnt exist in any pure form. Governments have become corrupt, corperations get away with things they shouldnt, this is likely what you mean and it has nothing to do with the idea of capitalism, which is just a fancy term for “fair markets where all players get a fair shake”. Capitalism just means “free markets”, and what “capitalism has become” is a fancy way of saying “the markets arent free anymore”… which really is anti-capitalism and not some neo new age capitalism at all :)
@freemo I think your 20 year scenario is quite unrealistic. If withholding care would lead to death, and this would be a common occurance, it would not be socialized healthcare. Either private or just a scam.
And maybe the demand for iphones specifically is not possible to drive to infinity, but there is always something else pushed on people - if there is not, the system goes into a crisis.
So i would say this is more of a “feels” thing, where neither of us can prove conclusively what is right.
I do concede, that in extreme cases, healthcare can be more effective than consumer goods to extort people, but i still think that either will be abused to push people into unfair deals if not either regulated or community-owned.
I would turn that last paragraph of yours around: the markets have become so unregulated that capitalism shows what it’s made of: human greed.
What would be a reason against businesses being owned by the workers? After all, those would have an innate incentive to keep the world livable for all of us. Aside from understanding the craft, which is sorely missing in more hierarchical structures.
@admitsWrongIfProven The point here is not if the scenario is realistic or not. The point is you would pay anything for that 20 years, and most people would pay anything for ayear or even a month.. If someone is dying and they need an antibiotic no one will go “I’d rather die than spend 100$, just too expensive”… the demand for life is infinite, and no matter how much demand there is for something like an iphone it simply isnt infinite no matter how excessive it may be.
Now that doesnt mean you cant extort people with consumer goods, nor am I saying there isnt an issue in consume goods that is unhealthy… but the issues of overpriced goods is in another class of discussion than that of infinite demand.
@admitsWrongIfProven Yes the demand is for healthcare (access to tools that extends one life).. not for a specific quantity of pills.
@freemo I have not heard of the general access being in question, except for a silly period in germany where we had to pay 10€ to visit a doctor. What i know about is treatment (no matter if surgery or pills or other) being expensive. After all, healthcare is partly selling goods and services.
While i agree that it is more important than abundand consumer goods, i cannot see a fundamental difference of if equal access should be granted.
@admitsWrongIfProven I’m not sure I get your point… In a totally unregulated market you have to pay to get healthcare, the demand for healthcare is infinite and thus people will pay extortion level prices to get it.. If they dont pay thoseprices you dont have access.
In a socialized system you have access regardless of if you can afford it, thats what makes it socialized. The demand is still infinite (people would pay anything to live longer healthier lives), but the costs are fixed.
Consumer goods arent remotely similar, the demand isnt infinite.
@freemo Well, you said the healthcare provider would be owned by the people themselfs, not a single person or small group.
So socialized healthcare still has companies trying to make money, giving rise to the problem that artificially high prices could lead to higher profits. Have healthcare providers owned by the people, problem solved.
I do not see how this exact same problem could not be solved the same way for other things.
It would be different for a state led socialized healthcare system: that, i could see as possible. After all, healthcare is not so much about taste, but science. Could be regulated/led by the state. (As an alternative to people-owned healthcare providers).
What would not work is state-owned consumer goods production. That would be whack!
I am not saying co-ops cant solve other problems, as I said it seems to work well for farms… I am just saying that in most cases its not the right solution, or describing the problem correctly.
For example we dont have a problem with iphones, yes they are expensive, but there are cheap alternatives and most people just buy the cheap alternatives, a few people buy expensive iphones.. its not really an issue that iphones are super expensive because it simply lowers demand and drives people to buy other products, creating a healthy marketplace with competitors at all sorts of price ranges.
@freemo Hmm, to be frank, i see the problem with consumer goods rather with too much pushed at people.
Devices that are good for a long time would be better environmentally.
So while co-op healthcare could take the problem with ease of acces away, co-op production of non-essential goods could put some good sense back in that process. After all, a co-op would consist of people that feel the consequences of uncapped growth much sooner than a single individual isolated from such.
@admitsWrongIfProven id be curious to see hiw a coop based apple performs… yYou shoukd start one ;)
@freemo Ah, i suppose you are readying the popcorn to watch the show when the non-coop apple comes in for the kill? :-)
@admitsWrongIfProven haha i mean thry sued a company with a logo of a pear… so not much thry wont stop at ;)
@freemo What i mean is that fair competition is not a thing that works in our time…
Most notable example being Amazon, recreating successful designs and ranking their rippoff products higher.
@freemo What i mean is that fair competition is not a thing that works in our time…
Most notable example being Amazon, recreating successful designs and ranking their rippoff products higher.
@admitsWrongIfProven What you are describing is how in modern times there is a lack of capitalism. Capitalism is a property adopted by some governments where the laws are geared towards ensuring a free and fair market. A true capitalism, therefore, will have anti-trust laws (prohibit monopolies). So all you are really saying is that in the modern world we have abandoned capitalism and as such companies like Amazon are able to abuse the system to their benefit.
@freemo Well, you define capitalism as a system well regulated. But that seems to be through rose-tinted glasses, since the basis of capitalism is to invest, produce, sell and reinvest. The regulation can save it from itself, if it stays intact, but is not a part of the basic idea.
Be the definition as it may, i think we agree that unregulated capitalism is not sustainable, and i think that is the most important question here.
If it is regulated by a competent gouvernment (Wanted ad - anyone have one lying around?) or by co-ops or strong unions, that is secondary.
@admitsWrongIfProven This isnt my definition.. the definition of capitalism is basically two parts, though one is inferred from the other so really one part:
1) private ownership of wealth and profits
2) Supply and demand regulates price
If you allow monopolies then #2 is no longer honored, therefore by definition it is not captialism.
I think you are getting into the problem of seeing capitalism as a type of government rather than a property of government… capitalism in its pure form doesnt exist, though many governments have it as a principle that has different priorities depending on the government.
@freemo Good reasoning, after your definition capitalism could be acceptable. I guess you don’t find the current state of affairs acceptable either.
@admitsWrongIfProven I suppose it depends on what state of affairs we are talking about. Monopolies are an issue, corruption is an issue, bias in politics, there is an enfless list of major problems out there. While I wouldnt say there is a “capitalism” problem I think its fair to say that greed certainly drives a lot of our problems.
@freemo “greed” does seem like a good way to sum it up.
@admitsWrongIfProven Unchecked greed can be quite harmful.. ironically in a government with sane capitalism and fair markets that “greed” can be used as a force to drive innovation.. but greed is dangerous and more often than not we dont have “sane” governments so in reality that greed causes harm not good.
@freemo Hm, i would doubt that greed is the best motivator for innovation.
After all, competetiveness to an unhealthy degree and greed have been with us for a long time. Maybe the absence of those elements (or at least lot less presence) could bring out great things in those no longer stressed by them.
I know i do a lot more interesting things if not stressed.
@freemo Ah, but the demand is only there if someone has a treatable condition. Just like nobody would want a new smartphone every day, nobody wants daily antibiotics while not sick.
Of course, theoretically there could be some longevity treatment in the future. But that does not exist yet, and is thus not relevant to discussing the status quo and in which way things should be changed.