The market is set up with the drug manufacturers on one end. They ship their drugs to pharmacies, including hospital pharmacists. They market their drugs through doctors. They advertise to make sure potential customers are aware of the treatment.

The hospitals are set up as businesses. They charge a markup on the treatments, etc. They've got a building, infrastructure, etc. to cover.

And there's the customer. The patient. The patient will pay what they need to to be treated.

There's an additional problem that comes up when you add in the insurance policy. No longer is the patient the customer. The insurance company is the one that pays for the treatment for you. Instead of trusting your health care directly to the doctor or hosptial, you now trust the Insurance company to work in your best interest. The insurance company also has bigger wallets. Meaning the pharmaceutical companies can charge more for treatment, meaning the hospital needs to charge more for treatment. Meaning the Insurance company has to charge more for health insurance, meaning the wallets get bigger. It's a feedback loop. And so many doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients, because the Medicare service that we pay in to frequently doesn't actually pay out.

The ACAe didn't address any of the issues. More competition among drugmakers would do more to make healthcare affordable than adding a middleman between the customer's wallet and the hospital's accounts payable. And you're right, the legislation also removed any aspect of hedging risk from the health insurance industry. it's an absolute joke.

On the note of health care being a human right, though, I disagree. The term 'Human Right' does not entail something you are entitled to.

You are entitled to your own self-preservation. That does not mean protection must be provided for you, that means nobody can ethically stop you from trying to protect your own life.

As per the 'inalienable' rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, Life expresses that you are entitled to defend yourself from anyone who would deprive you of your right to live. It also implies that you are entitled to seek to be cured of any affliction that threatens your life as well. THAT is how healthcare would be a Human Right. Despite the right to life, and even the right to bear arms, the Government is not obligated to teach you Jiu Jitsu, give you a switchblade, or buy you a gun. It says that you have the right to seek it. The government is not obligated to give you a stage, microphone, megaphone, printing press, church building, etc. to comply with the First Amendment. As such, conceding Health care as a human right does not mean that the government is expected to supply it.

Thats not my eperience of it

Any time they privatize part of healthcare ot always got worse

With private owners only opening wards which are profitable

In state owned hospital you would get parts which make money subsidizing parts which dont

In private you get parts which dont make money thtashed out

And then ppl here in Britain have to travel over an hour to nearest delivery ward

Ofc there is lots of problems with state operating healthservices as well. But free market does not always bring the best solutions

@Ryecast Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I think we are running into a difference between a constitutional right as declared in the US and a Human Right. There are quite a few rights guaranteed by the constitution that aren't basic human rights. The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are, when codified into law, delineated as no one having the right to kill you, imprison you without just cause, or interfere with your efforts to improve your situation, again, without just cause. Any right to health care actually falls under Pursuit of Happiness, which has always been the biggest area of tension, as it is the area in which people and societies are most likely to disagree and interfere with one another.

I am absolutely no fan of the way pharmaceutical companies work. However, there is more to look at than a particular country when deciding how shady they are. There are numerous countries that have decided that, rather than have a strong drug approval department, they will just use US or EU approval as their own. This makes it even more important to the drug company's bottom line to make sure they pass those trials, so they spend more money on each successful drug, which must then make enough money to support its own R&D and marketing, as well as however many unsuccessful drugs were worked on at a similar time, and *then* make enough money to keep the stock market happy, all before the patent runs out and they lose business to the generics. It's a system with a lot of perverse incentives, in addition to the basic profit motive. Then you get hospitals and care groups, individual doctor's offices, the low-paying government plans, and it is a serious mess.

"Best" part is, we have to fix it without shutting it off, because it is currently keeping a lot of people alive as it limps along. No shutting it down to do an overhaul, and oh yeah, lots of politics about who gets what at what price.

Such a joy.

@zutt 2 things, 1 is that nobody does anything for no reward whatsoever, it's merely that rewards are not always material. Charity work, for instance, offers benefits towards one's reputation, can pad out a resume, and can settle someone's conscience. They also benefit from helping to fix the problems in their community, provided those problems are alleviated or solved. FOSS software is another similar case, where people will use it as an educational tool, use it to break into other social circles etc. 2. Communism isn't "does shit for free", it is the recategorization of people as assets. Your work and the fruits of it do not belong to you, they belong to a collective. Your participation is compulsory. The only way by which one could conceivably keep such a system going is through harsh punitive measures

Also re: medical coverage, I find it baffling that A: barely anyone has done an in depth study or set of studies as to the actual efficacy/response time of the Canadian medical system and B: that Americans would promote switching to a system where hospitals are at or over capacity and the government has proven useless in their efforts to fix the very issues that will tank medical coverage here. At the very least, if (and when) the ACA was tried in any form (including the original one pitched by the administration) and failed catastrophically, there is a "back up plan" already in place

Well as far as the national healthcare goes everyone here just shrugs his shoulders when they hear about usa

As for the internet thing you are right that my description is bad nontheless there are communities where ppl spend huge amount of time on projects with no reward. Socialism lacks this kind of motivation for ppl was the point i tried to make ineffectively.

@@Firefairy Pursuit of happiness was declaration of independence, not the constitution. Your insight on how the US gets used to test the world standard at it's own expense is spot on.

The point I was arguing was that human rights emphasize the human duty to go and take, not the governments duty to give. There are no human rights to which we are unanimously entitled from the government, as that defies other's rights to life liberty and property.

Its well documented that lack of motivation led to low productivity durring the socialist era in my country

It was the oposite ppl who worked hard got usualy punished by their colective

well, those projects with no reward are usually for the fun,
the reward is enjoying the production in their free time


That said, i doubt many people enjoy for example driving around in a trash-collector, rummaging through the stink and filth containers to throw them into the truck, hence there is no reward other than money

"I love breaking rocks all day so I can eat shitty food" - no one ever

thats the issue with socialism, that it only works if everyone does what they enjoy,
But society needs people to do the trashy things, and they wont volunteer

Well i would disagree on breaking rocks

Reeancting stone age methods is actualy lot of fun

Idk about the shity food tho

🤣

As for those projects

thats the thing though, reenacting means you can quit anytime

Idk do ppl enjoy making subtitles ?

they might sure

feels like a thing of "i helped 😃 "

its the case of, they aren't obligated, so if they get tired of it they can quit anytime they want

if everyone does that at every crappy job, society practically stops

and you can make the point "there will be people who enjoy menial tasks" and stuff, and sure there will be, but not at the amount we have them now

its that case of "why would i wanna scrape someone elses poop off the public toilet, when that same pooper is writing a 3rd rate poetry slam

I mean if they didn't get some sort of value out of fan translations why would they do them?

Ppl draw motivation from different things

Some ppl just wanted to share i think

Some did it for fame when they added their name as translator