No one said they did, no one said that Marx was the first one to think up this shit either.

It just doesn't make sense though.

It's like saying that it's feudal to want to have land that others work on

Systems of government don't come into existence out of nothing.

No it's not.

What's the difference?

Drug cartels are Feudal.

Sorry I give up

They own property and you're allowed to work and live on that property, the cartel is responsible for your transport and safety. That's a feudal system.

The govt owns property as well and give out leases to people to work on it and is responsible for policing and transportation. Does that make it feaudalism as well?

Or is it just some socialist/capitalist policies in moderation?

What i meant subtitle ppl didnt care for any rights and were closely linked with warez

They were willing to spend hours on translating without any reward

Oh this about people who make cracks or fan translations of games?

I'm a bit behind, watching Tim's 4th of July followup video Is "Healthcare is a Human Right?", and I don't care to deal with Facebook just to mention it, so here's the thing that bugs me about the whole thing- people keep saying "just semantics" as if semantics is a form of splitting hairs, but semantics and definitions are how we know two people are saying the same thing when they utter the same words- if "human right" just means some people in some societies can reasonably expect to receive a benefit, then that blows the hell out of international human rights laws protecting people from various government abuses.

The same as "racism" and "misogynist" are/used to be meaningful to throw around precisely because they were relatively extreme, the term "human right" means something you are entitled to purely on the basis of being human. Not a human in a society that can afford it, not a human with certain prerequisites, just a human. Which is why pretty much all of the human rights are freedom *from* rather than freedom *to*.

I think what the more reasonable people Tim is speaking to are referring to is actually a societal amenity and free access to it, with a side of considering a functional healthcare system a public work somewhat analogous to a good transportation system or wastewater treatment system. Which is a *very* different thing, in both cases, from a human right.

In a related but not precisely the same point- a lot of the issues people have with the US health care system are related to how health insurance works, and Tim's comment about how his insurance is $300 a month and covers basically nothing is an example. As is the various ire about exclusions of pre-existing conditions and the like. Which I find somewhat odd, because basically, this is people getting angry because insurance companies are acting the way insurance companies have acted in every other field for as long as there have been insurance companies.

Insurance is basically a very respectable form of gambling, and you actually want to lose. You pay your premiums in the hope that you will never need the big payout of a claim, because there are other negative effects of the events that merit a claim. You don't want a tornado to wreck your house, you don't want to wrap your car around a tree because you dodged a deer, and so on. Insurance companies are the House. They set the premiums based on the odds of payouts so that they make money while still being able to pay out claims. (How much money and how honorable they are is outside the point of this argument.)

With health care, though, we have put the burden for our routine healthcare on these same casino-like entities. We want them to cover events that have a more than 100% payout rate- services that everyone should be getting on a regular basis, like annual checkups. And originally, this made sense from their point of view, because it reduced payouts. But now they are expected to be the clearinghouse for all healthcare services for those they cover, and people are angry because they are sucking out loud at doing so in a compassionate and cost-efficient manner.

This confuses me. I am not sure how we ended up here, instead of with health co-ops (think entities that are to health insurance as credit unions are to banks) or widespread health care savings accounts and insurance relegated to the "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" type of events that insurance is at least somewhat suited to handling.

You, @Firefairy , I believe you're absolutely on the money with that assessment.

I've had people try to debate with me that 'Health insurance' is different.

Furthermore, the push towards health insurance, I believe actually does more harm than good on the price and quality of care as well.

Any given market is set up in such a way that the prices are set according to what a customer can/will pay.

The medical industry as a whole might not particularly care about you, or your sickness. They will care about your money, though. And if given the option to be paid or not be paid, they will opt to be paid. Therefore, prices would be set according to what they can get.

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.