On the Nature of Things | Forum

Endovelico wrote: At heart Mr.P you are a true social darwinist. Survival of the fittest at all levels. Only those strong enough, smart enough to survive in the jungle deserve to survive. You can't produce enough to eat, you die. You can't pay your way through school, you die. You can't afford to pay the doctor, you die. You can't defend yourself and your family from predators, you die. I don't say it can't work, but I thought we had been trying to escape that fate for the last few thousand years...Or do we need it just to bring the human population down to manageable size? And what may that be? Three billion people? One billion?...

Endo, your ideology (communism, socialism) has killed between 50 and 100 million people. My ideology, capitalism, has killed a number so small you can't even find it.

Darwinism is about death, things dying, and boy, does your ideology have the monopoly on that.

Back to the drawing board.

Edit, also your ideology has the monopoly on depopulation, I can flood the thread with references if you need them. Capitalism has produced a bounty of prosperity and growth that fueled a population boom never seen before in history in this last century. Unfortunately central planning collectivists leeched onto it and created debt bubbles that are going to kill everyone, but that's central planning for you. One neck for one noose.

I'll take life giving capitalism every time.

Mr. P,

I'm not talking specifically of capitalism. I'm talking about your social darwinism. Survival of the fittest in all circumstances, with the "fittest" being, in your view, he who generates the highest income, whether from a productive activity, or from rents. For you, those who can't cope will naturally die giving the rest of us more space and more opportunities.

I'm not sure what planet you're hailing from. I've been trying to destroy leftism and socialism my whole life for the express purpose of giving the weak and helpless a fighting chance. No one is a greater champion for the weak, sick, poor and helpless than me. Give them freedom and see what they can do.

Ibrahim wrote: You raise a good point in the premise of insurance itself. The provision of health care shouldn't really be on an insurance model. The provision of firefighting and policing services aren't viewed under the insurance model. It probably isn't the right way to look at healthcare either.

I've posted this before, but the best model is a municipal utility. It has the best features of both single payer and free market plans but without the worst faults of either. Insurance would be available, but with the system built to keep prices fair and costs under control it would be affordable.

The best model is capitalism, the only example known of is medical tourism, and medical tourism drives prices down dramatically with results everyone seems happy with. Embrace capitalism.

Mr. Perfect wrote:The best model is capitalism, the only example known of is medical tourism, and medical tourism drives prices down dramatically with results everyone seems happy with. Embrace capitalism.

Has medical tourism driven down prices, in any significant manner, in the US?

Not to my knowledge.