Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 173

Is that really on Peterson's subreddit as an example of socialism sucking, are they that fucking stupid :D

Nassim Taleb recently shat on Peterson publicly, cause Peterson bases a lot of his arguments/beliefs on the IQ of people, which is stupid on many levels. I hope Peterson goes to "debate" him but doubt

I don't even see how that meme could be misunderstood but somehow, someway.

I liked "Fooled by Randomness" and "Black Swan." Don't know much else about the guy. Part of me enjoys these "debates" exposing Peterson but I mean that Zizek one was pretty atrocious as well as snore inducing. I like how you put debate in quotes.

Nice to see Loco finally taking a stand against e-thots

On October 23 2019 23:39 Spitfiree wrote: Is that really on Peterson's subreddit as an example of socialism sucking, are they that fucking stupid :D Nassim Taleb recently shat on Peterson publicly, cause Peterson bases a lot of his arguments/beliefs on the IQ of people, which is stupid on many levels. I hope Peterson goes to "debate" him but doubt

Thanks for introducing me to Nassim Taleb, yeah he calls JBP a charlatan, I think he would smash him in a debate, he is so abbrassive he is scary, but I feel he has a chip on his shoulder on the IQ thing like he himself has said that IQ is somewhat precise under 100 and below scores but treats the whole thing as a hoax instead of very flawed perhaps not to give room to the obvious racist IQ based arguments.

Yesterday he called socialists intellectual fraudsters and he is quite pro free market and localism, I like him :3

And the price of insulin in any normal country with an insuline free market is under $10, the reason it costs $540 in the US is because of the pseudo-socialized healthcare system, if you want $10 insulin just extract the government's dirty hands out of the healthcare business, simple.

Its crazy to me that you socialists use these examples as bad capitalism but its precisely government involvment (which you think its good) that causes these problems, you are ironically pointing out pitfalls of left leaning economy.


If Sanders had his way, these 3 insulin manufacturers would give the same price to the US government and people would still pay $540 per vial, but they would pay it in taxes or deficit, there's no such thing as "free" anything that the government can provide, they can only pay for stuff with your own money and they are terribly wasteful at it.

You don't think government regulated mandatory universal single payer healthcare
with maximum price limits set by regulators works Baal?

I mean you don't have to answer that, it does, the costs are drastically lower than in the US
and people that don't get sick in effect pay for the ones that do - that's how you pay for it.

The transition period in the US would be super painful costly and chaotic for many years but people would be covered and it would be cheaper to boot.


Only worry I have is what if less money goes to R+D when you put a cap on how much the Martin Shkreli's of the world can earn.
I haven't seen the data, but I'd assume a lot of expensive pharmaceutical drug research does take place in the US where the companies can exploit patents drastically. It's well possible the US Is taking a big hit economically for the rest of the world to have vital drugs

oh lol I did find the data

USA, USA!
Thank you very much guys
you do the research, people pay for it
and countries like mine will be the assholes with universal single payer that put caps on prices
And take your drugs for cheap when they become generic
That's what we have been doing
And what we will keep doing



God bless America

On October 24 2019 01:36 Baalim wrote: Thanks for introducing me to Nassim Taleb, yeah he calls JBP a charlatan, I think he would smash him in a debate, he is so abbrassive he is scary, but I feel he has a chip on his shoulder on the IQ thing like he himself has said that IQ is somewhat precise under 100 and below scores but treats the whole thing as a hoax instead of very flawed perhaps not to give room to the obvious racist IQ based arguments. Yesterday he called socialists intellectual fraudsters and he is quite pro free market and localism, I like him :3

I didn't really understand what he meant, cause the whole argument could be taken in a few different ways. He implies that Sanders wants to set pure ussr-like socialism in Lebanon, which I heavily doubt and he was insulting pure socialists imo. I heavily doubt he s anti-social programs in general.

On October 24 2019 07:43 Baalim wrote: And the price of insulin in any normal country with an insuline free market is under $10, the reason it costs $540 in the US is because of the pseudo-socialized healthcare system, if you want $10 insulin just extract the government's dirty hands out of the healthcare business, simple. Its crazy to me that you socialists use these examples as bad capitalism but its precisely government involvment (which you think its good) that causes these problems, you are ironically pointing out pitfalls of left leaning economy. If Sanders had his way, these 3 insulin manufacturers would give the same price to the US government and people would still pay $540 per vial, but they would pay it in taxes or deficit, there's no such thing as "free" anything that the government can provide, they can only pay for stuff with your own money and they are terribly wasteful at it.

Greed is the reason why the price is so high, it has nothing to do with government involvement. That logic would dictate that more government involvement would make it more expensive, but in other countries where health care is more intertwined with government (that is, virtually every single country it makes any sense for the US to compare itself with, or say even a region like Europe), it costs less.

I can agree that the american health care system is not 'capitalistic', and there might be some merit to the idea that an actual free market capitalistic system would lead to some equilibrium forming at a much lower rate, (although without strong regulatory institutions I don't really see how you hinder collusion), but it's not the 'socialist' element that makes the costs go so high, it's the greed. Which is only championed as a positive trait by capitalists. Basically, the internal mechanics of capitalism that make it fantastic for distribution of entertainment (others can also produce entertainment, it's not a matter of life or death so you can choose not to consume), pretty good for groceries (I mean there are def issues for workers and impossibility of competing with massive scale, but I still feel happy as a consumer), partially acceptable for electronics and clothing (again, fine for the consumer, just not the external damage) don't exist when it comes to health care. Not buying isn't an option, making it yourself isn't an option, and there will never be enough different suppliers for the idealized equilibrium between buyer and seller to be able to form.

I mean if you wanted it like, central-planning proper socialist, then the government would produce the insulin and the price would be that of materials, cost of production and wages for workers+distribution.. You should then rather argue that 'this type of structural reorganization of society would stifle growth and innovation' or whatever, not that the price of insulin would stay equally absurdly high just that it would be paid by taxes instead.

You have the numbers right there Drone
The American system benefits humanity as a whole
drives R+D
and actually should be celebrated

By anyone but common americans

Switzerland is spending like 4x more per capita, they get my vote.

(Might be an interesting point in that I think the Swiss system is a bit different from other european countries too, though, but I don't know much about that. )

On October 24 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote: Switzerland is spending like 4x more per capita, they get my vote. (Might be an interesting point in that I think the Swiss system is a bit different from other european countries too, though, but I don't know much about that. )

Switzerland is a really bad example for what US dems are pushing though
Their healthcare is the 2nd most expensive in the world as % of GDP

I mean it's cruel yes, and easy for me to say from the cushy universal mandatory healthcare country.
But all the people that died and suffered and got into debt because of the uncapped premiums in the US did so for even greater benefit of humankind. Because the companies are willing to pump money into R+D because of super high potential returns...the world needs assholes like Shkrelli it turns out.

I mean that data is going to be skewed because of various factors but it's totally sick that one country invests 60% of entire global R+D in healthcare.

I was 100% Single payer, regulated human universal healthcare like we have here, always felt so surreal the rich Americans we looked up to wouldn't have guaranteed health insurance and healthcare. But I am not so sure now, that R+D is really important

On October 24 2019 08:59 LemOn[5thF] wrote: You don't think government regulated mandatory universal single payer healthcare with maximum price limits set by regulators works Baal?

No, its terrible, a bureacratic hell, wasteful and is far more expensive overall than free market healthcare, its only benefit is that people who wouldn't be able to afford treatment for catastrophic illness now have acces to the mediocare care, if you believe that justifies it thats fine, but lets not pretend it isn't a considerable downgrade to everybody else.

Food is far more important and basic than healthcare, but its obvious that the government doesn't give "free" food to everybody because it would be a mess, it would lead to waste, people would overfill their cart, the price would be awful since its negotated between producers and the state, not on the free market that reaches its equilibrium so the overall result is that the population ends up paying much more for food.

On October 24 2019 13:53 Liquid`Drone wrote: Greed is the reason why the price is so high, it has nothing to do with government involvement. That logic would dictate that more government involvement would make it more expensive, but in other countries where health care is more intertwined with government (that is, virtually every single country it makes any sense for the US to compare itself with, or say even a region like Europe), it costs less. I can agree that the american health care system is not 'capitalistic', and there might be some merit to the idea that an actual free market capitalistic system would lead to some equilibrium forming at a much lower rate, (although without strong regulatory institutions I don't really see how you hinder collusion), but it's not the 'socialist' element that makes the costs go so high, it's the greed. Which is only championed as a positive trait by capitalists. Basically, the internal mechanics of capitalism that make it fantastic for distribution of entertainment (others can also produce entertainment, it's not a matter of life or death so you can choose not to consume), pretty good for groceries (I mean there are def issues for workers and impossibility of competing with massive scale, but I still feel happy as a consumer), partially acceptable for electronics and clothing (again, fine for the consumer, just not the external damage) don't exist when it comes to health care. Not buying isn't an option, making it yourself isn't an option, and there will never be enough different suppliers for the idealized equilibrium between buyer and seller to be able to form. I mean if you wanted it like, central-planning proper socialist, then the government would produce the insulin and the price would be that of materials, cost of production and wages for workers+distribution.. You should then rather argue that 'this type of structural reorganization of society would stifle growth and innovation' or whatever, not that the price of insulin would stay equally absurdly high just that it would be paid by taxes instead.

Greed is kept in check through competition when the government isn't bought to stiffle it, you can't sell a Coke for a 45,000% markup from production cost because Pepsi will fuck you up, you can't sell insulin for a 45,000% markup UNLESS you manipulate the patent office to hold a patent you dont actually have, you manipulate the FDA to halt any biosimilar and generic insulin products from coming to market and lobbying so that it cannot be imported and the regulations are kept unchanged.

Regulation does not hinder collusion, you hinder collusion by lower the difficulty to enter a certain market, Insulin isn't particularly difficult to make, you can set up a lab and make it and sell it, its the government the ones that makes it impossible for producers to get into the market.

Sander's plan isn't to expropiate pharmaceutical companies so that they are run by the state, his plan is simply insure everybody, so the same 3 corporations that produce it, the FDA, patent office and lobbying remains in place, the same inflated price would remain in place. they are the only 3 producers and are colluded and they have their politicians in charge of the price negotiation in their pockets.

In a state run insulin production then yes the price would be ok, but that is when you get an insulin line that is 10 blocks long.


That being said I think its very obvious that the US system is far worse than the European one so its quite likely the free-socialized healthcare doesn't necesarely have a linea relationship between good-bad, it appears that something in the middle can be even worse however there are a few factors worth looking into, for example the US regulatory system is far more intrusive than the European one (FDA) also the fruits of R&D are very long term and the US bear mosts of its costs alone.

I don't understand
what do you mean by more expensive?
Vast majority of developed countries have universal healthcare
and it's a lot cheaper as % of GDP than US

where are you taking your data from?

On October 24 2019 09:52 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2019 01:36 Baalim wrote: Thanks for introducing me to Nassim Taleb, yeah he calls JBP a charlatan, I think he would smash him in a debate, he is so abbrassive he is scary, but I feel he has a chip on his shoulder on the IQ thing like he himself has said that IQ is somewhat precise under 100 and below scores but treats the whole thing as a hoax instead of very flawed perhaps not to give room to the obvious racist IQ based arguments. Yesterday he called socialists intellectual fraudsters and he is quite pro free market and localism, I like him :3 I didn't really understand what he meant, cause the whole argument could be taken in a few different ways. He implies that Sanders wants to set pure ussr-like socialism in Lebanon, which I heavily doubt and he was insulting pure socialists imo. I heavily doubt he s anti-social programs in general.

He is talking about socialists in Lebanon regarding the huge protests that were caused by the inept government.

He has said he dislikes socialism because it's more prone to keptocracy and he hates bureocrats with a passion and well socialism is nothing but bureocratic kleptoracy

On October 24 2019 07:43 Baalim wrote: And the price of insulin in any normal country with an insuline free market is under $10, the reason it costs $540 in the US is because of the pseudo-socialized healthcare system, if you want $10 insulin just extract the government's dirty hands out of the healthcare business, simple. Its crazy to me that you socialists use these examples as bad capitalism but its precisely government involvment (which you think its good) that causes these problems, you are ironically pointing out pitfalls of left leaning economy. If Sanders had his way, these 3 insulin manufacturers would give the same price to the US government and people would still pay $540 per vial, but they would pay it in taxes or deficit, there's no such thing as "free" anything that the government can provide, they can only pay for stuff with your own money and they are terribly wasteful at it.

I'll tell you how it works here
The regulator sets a TOP CAP on price for these drugs.
and opens the market to all 3 manufacturers
What happens in practice is that the cap rarely reached for vast majority of drugs because the companies compete on price
- there's still free market but the regulator steps in in obvious cases like this one
- Also there's universal healthcare, people that need insulin pay a % of the drug (like 25%) and rest is paid for my remaining insurance pot (where healthy people pay for the sick all their life...until they get sick themselves)

You also have a bunch of insurance companies that compete against each other
I don't even know how the fuck since they all cost the same but they do


Again it's cheaper for everybody except healthy people (when they are healthy)
- no argument there just check the data one look and it's crystal clear.
Creates universal health care
And creates a big hit for R+D incentives due to the caps and regulations

On October 24 2019 23:26 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'll tell you how it works here The regulator sets a TOP CAP on price for these drugs. and opens the market to all 3 manufacturers

What happens in practice is that the cap rarely reached for vast majority of drugs because the companies compete on price [/quote]

Its contradictory, if it doesn't reach the cap then there is no need for a cap.

The problem is that there are 3 big manufacturers with political influence, they can influence the negotations, put a high cap and sell it at the cap price.

In a free market you don't get that problem, the insulin will be sold as cheaply as possible, no need for caps, no prone to corruption etc.

- there's still free market but the regulator steps in in obvious cases like this one - Also there's universal healthcare, people that need insulin pay a % of the drug (like 25%) and rest is paid for my remaining insurance pot (where healthy people pay for the sick all their life...until they get sick themselves)

No it isn't a free market, that is a regulated market, and the healthy people pay a bureocratic behemot that operates in crippling inefficiency raising the price of the country's healthcare significantly.

You also have a bunch of insurance companies that compete against each other I don't even know how the fuck since they all cost the same but they do

I don't understand this, there's insurance companies in a socialized healthcare system? why would anyone pay unless the socialized halthcare was so inferior people would rather pay. (which happens in Mexico for example)
[/QUOTE]