D,
You have to understand @joeyd999 is a brainwashed Ayn Rand freak, so he is hard to understand.

On the other hand, I understand completely and that factoid is integral to my response.

 

A link to a good debunking of Ayn Rand - https://www.laprogressive.com/atlas-shrugged-debunked/ From there,
"
Today Rand’s novel still inspires an adolescent, self-absorbed, and self-congratulatory cult-like group of worshipers, seemingly incapable of discerning the irony of referring to their own self-delusion as Objectivism. In the fall of 2007, C-Span featured panels of Randian devotees who reeked of self-assured confidence that they were indeed extraordinary people—privy to special knowledge and a kind of discipline and reasoning that exists beyond the reach of ordinary people. Interestingly enough, the presenters were not exceptional speakers. Most of them were, in fact, mediocre, which ideologically should have prevented them from taking the stage with the likes of John Galt as their ideal spokesman. Moreover, the panel included a former speech writer for Ken Lay of Enron fame, as if this were not an ethical disqualifier.


.

.



Capitalism without regard for consequences is cancerous; if profit is the only thing that matters, as Rand claimed in a forty-page opus to selfishness in Atlas Shrugged, then to Atlas humans are just another form of temporary malignancy, to be endured for a time, shrugged off and forgotten.
..

 

For the record I chose #3 -- if only that I tend toward foolish optimism (within reason)

Best regards
HP

Hey YOU! Dayton is just a lil over a week away. Are you going to be there? I'll be speaking on Sunday morning on receiving antennas. 9:30 am, room 3

 

Hey YOU! Dayton is just a lil over a week away. Are you going to be there? I'll be speaking on Sunday morning on receiving antennas. 9:30 am, room 3

---Emphasis added---

I'll be there (i.e. the event in general) - no fear of that! But no guarantees as regards itinerary...

@KL7AJ -- Should you 'spot' me, I implore you --on your word as a gentleman-- to refrain from 'doxing' me here or elsewhere on the web....K?

Very best regards
HP

 

Are the economics different just because it's medical care?????

No? They're 'different' because healthcare is limited in scope by comparison with 'just everything'...

If that would work so well with health care, why not expand the program?

Unlike 'upkeep essentials' and 'toys' health lends itself to neither self remediation nor simple 'fixes' -- hunger, thirst even homelessness are simple needs with simple (often, rather inexpensive) solutions (e.g. the mere status of 'entry-level' employment) -- As we've seen even highly gainful employment provides no assurance of continuing catastrophic health coverage...

Best regards
HP

 

Hi (0),
I'm guessing these problems are because the people getting paid for the care are not getting paid enough???
If so, would another $1000 per patient fix it or would it take more?
Don't tell Joey, we already have socialized food and housing. Ohh, we still have Reagan phones as well.

I'll let @Aleph(0) speak for herself -- IMO, However (FWIW):

I'm guessing these problems are because the people getting paid for the care are not getting paid enough???

Correct! -- The care providers are obscenely under-compensated

If so, would another $1000 per patient fix it or would it take more?

Re: governments beset with failed 'socialized medicine' -- Current taxation is QUITE sufficient! -- Funds are being squandered by administrative overhead, bureaucratic bulls__t and, I daresay, no little measure of 'legal corruption'... -- Hence my plea for implemention via an 'actuarial-level' (as opposed to 'classic' entitlement) paradigm

Best regards
HP

 

I'll let @Aleph(0) speak for herself -- IMO, However (FWIW):


Correct! -- The care providers are obscenely under-compensated

Well, I'm not sure it's obscene, but maybe.
I found this handy table. Maybe we could try to decide on what's "fair?"

Consequently, comparing average doctor pay in the U.S. (where more than 70% of doctors are specialists) to that in nations such as Canada and France (where less than half of doctors are specialists) is not very illuminating. Moreover, even two-handed health economists generally recognize that pay for primary care physicians in the U.S. lags behind that of specialists, which helps explains why we have a growing shortage of the former, but not the latter. Thus a comparison of average pay may mask the possibility that American specialists are overpaid while generalists are underpaid relative to their international peers.

Re: governments beset with failed 'socialized medicine' -- Current taxation is QUITE sufficient!

That's my feeling to. What I was searching for is a number. Since the US spends almost twice as much as Canada, we should be able to pay better and still save a bunch.

-- Funds are being squandered by administrative overhead, bureaucratic bulls__t and, I daresay, no little measure of 'legal corruption'... -- Hence my plea for implemention via an 'actuarial-level' (as opposed to 'classic' entitlement) paradigm

Can you elaborate? I'm assuming you think the problem it spread throughout the system? I always think of Medicare overhead vs standard insurance, but I haven't thought much about the other systems.

 

Funds are being squandered by administrative overhead, bureaucratic bulls__t and, I daresay, no little measure of 'legal corruption'...

Hey... there's no need to bring Mexico into the conversation... wait a min... ooopss... my bad.

Please carry on, nothing to see here!

 

The continental congress agreed to a constitutional convention in 1789. That fall, the whole government of the united states was redesigned. It was a purposeful design as they looked at all current forms of government, their good points, their bad points. None was sufficient for the American Colonies. It was a whole new government.

So, with respect to a "new" constitutional convention, you might want to exercise caution. Who knows what would come out of that. We would rue the day we let that happen. At least it will put both sides pulling together for a change ... to not ratify anything.

 

hunger, thirst even homelessness are simple needs with simple (often, rather inexpensive) solutions...

Wow! No need to make this easy and make my arguments for me. I can do that myself...

795 million people – or one in nine people in the world – do not have enough to eat.

783 million people do not have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation.

About 1.6 billion people live in substandard housing and 100 million are homeless.

God knows how many of these people don't have big-screen TVs.

And that's today -- in the modern era. The percentages where much higher prior to advent of -- hmmm, what? -- we'll have to ponder that....

If there are such simple, inexpensive solutions, why are these numbers so high?

Ask yourself this question: what is the difference between the majority of those without vs. the majority of those with?

 

795 million people – or one in nine people in the world – do not have enough to eat.

783 million people do not have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation.

About 1.6 billion people live in substandard housing and 100 million are homeless.

Oh, and I forgot: most of them live in Venezuela.

 

795 million people – or one in nine people in the world – do not have enough to eat.

783 million people do not have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation.

About 1.6 billion people live in substandard housing and 100 million are homeless.

Do I need to also point out that this was the normal state of affairs for most all of human history????

 

Oh, and I forgot: most of them live in Venezuela.

From the article:

In a recent survey, three-quarters of Venezuelans say their health has plummeted, and that they are eating less than two meals a day. Many report losing an average of around 9 kilos (19 pounds).

In the health sector, large numbers of doctors have emigrated. A leading pharmaceutical association has said around 85% of medicines are in short supply.

Oh, my! Food and medicine are reacting exactly the same way to the same stimuli. It's almost like they are following the same Laws.

Here's a nice, short, tutorial for you all.

 

LED television didn't even exist until 1977. Yet today, only a mere 40 years later, there are enough LED flat screen TVs of all different shapes and sizes that everyone who wants one can have one.

How did that happen???

Edit: I meant LCD (actually, flat-screen in general), not LED. The argument remains the same.

 

Ask yourself this question: what is the difference between the majority of those without vs. the majority of those with?

Their forms of government.

How did that happen???

Our form of government encourages educations of the masses, science and technological development that fits mass commerce, not hinders it. (well used to.)

 

Their forms of government.

Close, but no cigar.

 

Close, but no cigar.

I'd say it's the cultural attitude towards the rule of law...

 

I'd say it's the cultural attitude towards the rule of law...

You guys are skirting the periphery.

 

You guys are skirting the periphery.

mind sharing your wisdom?

 

FWIW it seems (to me) @joeyd999 is asserting that industrialization and the (undeniable) boon to humanity corollary thereto are owed to Capitalism? -- Whereas I view many (but certainly not all) aspects of the latter as undesirable 'side effects' of the former...

For all that; if Capitalism is indeed the price to be paid for an industrialized society - it's a fair one...

Best regards
HP