Lol all you want, but there are things it does well and the world was a pretty shitty place to live before we had it.
Any kind of pragmatic approach to a modern society aims to leverage the things capitalism does well in order to subsidize the things capitalism is shit at.
âthe worldâ is europe, and nothing existed before feudalism. gotcha.
lets also ignore all the people that died during most of capitalisms existence because of capitalisms complete neglect for human/environmental well being. not to mention all the people who died fighting for human rights so that what we call capitalism in the usa is less destructive.
lets also ignore the poverty that simply got offset from the usa and put in the third world, where trying to create a union can result in a bullet in your head. gotta compete in the market place!!!1
You also gonna ignore that iPhone in your pocket? Because it was thought up in a capitalistic country.
gonna ignore the fact that computers are largely the result of public financing?
socialize the risk, privatize the profit. thats a big part of American r&d. very few if any businesses have the ability to take actual risk, because risk may not pay off. so, please, the marketplace does not lead to innovation. for-profit systems always lead to excess consumerism and simply should be abandoned in favor of something thats more rationally based.
youâd have to have your head in the sand pretty deep to ignore the fact that capitalism is arguably the least stable economic system humanity ever contrived.
You seem to be having an argument with something youâve only imagined that I said.
I am curious though, if you have examples of non-Western and/or pre-Industrial cultures with superior national healthcare systems to the ones Raz0râs enumerated, please feel free to describe them. Iâm happy to learn.
the point im making is that the benefits of capitalism come at the expense of someone and you made a general statement about human well being tied to the existence of capitalism which is honestly total bullshit to anyone who studies any history at all.
when discussing healthcare, weâre discussing how medical work gets paid for and, shit even feudalism has pure capitalism beat because the landlord was usually required to pay for medical expenses. dont get medicine and health insurance confused.
the best healthcare systems are the ones that get furthest away from the market.
Did the government invent the iPhone, though?
Yeah, thatâs what I thought.
Technically the army invented internet
But did they invent the iPhone? No, they did not.
well this was almost a good thread.
Itâs still a very great thread. You just havenât disproved my point that capitalism led to the iPhone. Capitalism, for all of its faults, does give people incentive to pursue big dreams in the hopes of big payoffs.
I prefer the zombie apocalypse model of healthcare.
Hecatombz 2.0 
Did capitalism invent the wheel? Nope. garbage/10 canât even wheel.
I voted âThe National Health Insurance Modelâ only because it could have been and/or will be implemented in the USA and thatâs what I care about.
Fucking hate the way US does it, where any one person, depending on job, income, or lack there of, gets a different model.
Iâve seen the Great Britain health system and it seems to be very good. I would like the US to move in that direction.
Anyways,
http://www.annfammed.org/content/11/1/84.1.full
Also, itâs not that any particular model or mixture of models is best, they have to be robust vs a crisis of some kind.
There are various reasons why itâs more expensive here, but two are that republicans donât want to spend tax dollars on healthcare and Congress bans Medicare from negotiating prices.
Both are a boon for the healthcare industries.
Bismarck model makes the most sense.
Largely because it doesnât make sense to have the same level of health services in all towns, unfortunately. Having the world premiere surgery center in some podunk town is a waste of resources. Not only that if a place severely lacks in healthcare you can help that healthcare issue by subsidizing smaller towns with larger premiums (naturally tie it to number of patients so no weird districting stuff happens), the average person isnât going to drive 100 miles for basic care. So a fully government model with promises of a certain level of coverage to everyone gets a bit iffy on implementation with cost.
The average person in America with subsidies from employer & government pays ~$150-200 per month per person for insurance. If this was taxed instead the average person would see no net loss from their income (assuming they were already paying for insurance). Add in most Bismarck type systems have drug negotiation powers you could see a massive drop in costs by America being one of the only governments in the world that has no price regulation on prescriptions.
Add on top that private insurance on average is GROSSLY inefficient. Medicare, VA stuff, and Medicaid generally spend 95-98% of EVERY dollar taken in on healthcare. For private insurance it is closer to 70-80%. Since they do a lot more negotiating and legal fighting and take a 12-15% profit generally. 20-25% of trillions of dollars is a MASSIVE waste every year.
Having at least some public option with negotiating powers to set a base line with maybe premium healthcare insurance options in the private is the only practical solution. Having full single payer is not out of the question, but I see that being the most practical model to sell to the public. Also if healthcare became more standardized dealing with insurance could be done in a more efficient manner potentially allowing hospitals to cust 20-25% of their total operating cost (30% of most hospitals cost is solely associated negotiating with insurance).
I wonder why the SRK resident dumb assess havenât posted in here yet. Probably because theyâd have to actually read coherent paragraphs and put together a well thought out argument.
Itâs like their kryptonite.