🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@VoxDei

> Healthcare is “free at the point of use” to patients. That’s the whole point of the UK system. So there is no cost to the patient to jack up, even if you’re going to regard a nationalised monopoly as still a monopoly.

Only partly true.. take my example. In israel a pharmecutical companies own pretty pervasive monopolies. Melatonin is a cheap product to produce and means you wont need to buy more expensive drugs to help with sleep problems. So these pham monopolies have a motivation to harm the general public by making melatonin a prescription, preventing competition and requiring you to buy expensive drugs.

To say there is no cost to the patient at point of sale is kinda pointless because there IS a cost to the patient (usually in ones taxes) and that cost is distributed to everyone. So they do exactly that, jack up prices and those prices are just baked into your taxes so it "feels" like you never see it. But you are still paying for it one way or another.

> An effective monopoly on medicine purchase under socialised systems means that pharma companies have to negotiate sensibly on price. Just look at what insulin costs in the US vs. the rest of the developed world: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-insulin-by-country

We covered this in the last post, on the one hand, yes it can mean more negotiating power to bring prices down. But those same monopolies can negotiate scenarios that line their pockets and harm the individual (as the example with melatonin above).

> You say that you can’t get prescriptions because they’re too expensive. Is it that they’re too expensive, or that they’re regarded as not cost-effective? The UK health system will pay for some very expensive drugs, where the proven benefit is there. Where the benefit is marginal, those resources are used elsewhere. It’s all very well saying that you can’t get expensive drugs, but that has to be set against the situation in a privatised system, where people who cannot afford [comprehensive] health cover won’t be able to access any drugs or treatment at all. Does your right to buy expensive insurance that covers marginal therapies in unlikely situations trump their right to access proven and cost-effective therapies? You can of course still buy that expensive insurance if you want to, nobody’s stopping you.

Its that they are too expensive.. in many cases we are talking drugs with very clear benefits. Take zalepalon vs zolpidem as an example. They are the same class of drugs and very similar. Zalepalon is less common and more expensive so you cant get it in many socialized medicine countries. But its application is vital as it has half the half-life of zolpidem. so for people with sleep disorders that are regulatory (time-shift) zolpidem not long cant treat it but makes symptoms worse where zalepalon can be a very effective treatment, but you cant get it despite the clear medical need due to costs.

> Waiting times are certainly a problem in the UK at the moment. But that’s a feature of a long-term failure to adequately resource the service. When the last Labour government left office in 2010, waiting times for almost everything were short. The Conservative government since then has deliberately under-funded the NHS, with the result that waiting times have soared. If you want healthcare it has to be paid for, and that’s as true under a socialised system as under a private one.

It really isnt though. There is a reason that every single socialized healthcare around the world, with almost no exceptions has significantly longer wait times than non-socialized. If it were limited to mismanagement then we would expect at least a few countries to have wait times on par or better than the USA, but thats just not what we see.

@Paulos_the_fog @johnabs @rbreich

What is extrodinary to me is that anyone thinks a wealth gap is an issue at all in its own right.

Iff you have a society where the poor have a good quality of life, and good opportunity for advancement. But there happen to be a few super wealthy people, who cares. Since wealth is not a pie,a nd others being rich doesnt imply others must have less, why do you care if there is a huge wealth gap, all you should care about is the quality of life for the majority of people... To be mad because some people performed really well and did really well is very petty and selfish.

There **is** an issue, and that is that is that the poor dont have good oppertunities, fulls top.

@Paulos_the_fog

Of course its natural it follows whats called the natural distribution and the same distribution applies to most everything in nature. It is very natural in a large population for a very small percentage to be vastly outperforming thr majority.

@johnabs @rbreich

@post

So the problem still isnt wealth inequality, the problem is that wealth buys you political power.

@rbreich

@johnabs

I dont think we are in disagreement. There is an issue, and part of that is how we treat money, sure.. the point is wealth inequality simply isnt an issue and hurts no one itself. All the other issues you mention, sure.

@rbreich

@post

So you basically agree with me. The problem isnt the money, its the fact that politicians can be bought

@rbreich

@admitsWrongIfProven im not saying its the best motivator... but wanting to make a lot of money is a fine motivator as long as you dont let it take priority over your ethics. But yes there may be better motivators as well

@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.

@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.

@realcaseyrollins

I just dont think letting people die for being poor, even if they are lazy, is going to give us the best society for all involved.

@bot

@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.

@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.

@admitsWrongIfProven haha i mean thry sued a company with a logo of a pear... so not much thry wont stop at ;)

@admitsWrongIfProven id be curious to see hiw a coop based apple performs... yYou shoukd start one ;)

@admitsWrongIfProven

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.

@rbreich You have your priorities mixed up... people making more than everyone else, no matter the extent is **not** the issue. It only detracts from the real issue, which is the quality of living of the poorest people below the poverty line.

Wealth is not a pie, a fixed thing with only so much to go around. One person having more does **not** mean someone else has to have less. Wealth is something constantly being created and destroyed, the real question is why arent the poor able to create wealth.