A Brewing Bubble?

[Postictal Raiden]

Obviously I''m way ahead of myself, but is this something that you ever learn in training (med school or residency), if not, do you recommend any resources to learn more about it?

I always here tons of doctors aren't financially smart, but I don't understand why schools aren't doing something about this. I definitely don't wanna spend 10 years of my life learning a skill and then have no idea what my work is worth. Sounds like a nightmare.

This stuff is not a secret. You can google it.

Here’s a quick read found on KevinMD that talks about how hospitals subsidize physicians, specialty hospitalists’, salaries in order to bring in pt, and ultimately, be profitable.
Should hospitals subsidize physician salaries?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yes, this is correct.

In my field, neurohospitalists are usually paid much higher than they generate (in wRVU's) because they allow hospitals to admit and treat acute neurological disorders, specifically, stroke. Hospitals are more than willing to dip into the massive DRG fund they get from admitting someone with an acute ischemic stroke to have a stroke specialist available 24/7.

Therefore, it's important that physicians understand their true value when time comes to negotiate salary.

Yeah, look at psych admissions- each patient generates $713ish a day. If I'm an attending seeing 14 patients a day 5 days a week, that comes to $2,600,000 of revenue generated for the hospital...

 

[Mad Jack]

medicare for all I think would bring a significant slowdown in the economy short term while it reset itself. That is the danger of doing it. It would have to be done incrementally

That is what they said about medicare and social security. It was all bull****.

 

[Black Coffee 24/7]

Medicaid across the board would basically eliminate billing, coding, and a large number of compliance jobs, bringing overall costs down. Come that with the simpler charting requirements that are in the pipeline and you would end up with far more efficient operations. Salaries might take a drop but whatever, at this point I think it would be worth it. Or you could just take cash only if your services are that good.

Precisely the reason why I could care less about this talk. Fat cats with lobbying power have too much to lose in Medicare for all. Will it affect physician wages? Who knows? But real producers don’t get shoved in the a-hole in new changes unless you’re naive enough to take it.

 

[7331poas]

Yeah, look at psych admissions- each patient generates $713ish a day. If I'm an attending seeing 14 patients a day 5 days a week, that comes to $2,600,000 of revenue generated for the hospital...

Subtract facility costs, nursing costs, pharmaceutical costs, lab costs, marketing costs, etc. Not as simple as you describe.

 

[Mad Jack]

Subtract facility costs, nursing costs, pharmaceutical costs, lab costs, marketing costs, etc. Not as simple as you describe.

Of course, but without the physician, none of those other things can happen. Ancillary staff and nursing account for perhaps 500k, and our drugs cost nearly nothing since they are all old generics. Medical drugs the patient requires are covered by the increased reimbursement we get for medically complicated patients and those with comorbidities. Facilities certainly cost something but given that our unit hasn't been upgraded in 20 years and about the only amenities we have are heat and running water... I'm just saying a lot of that per diem is being sponged by hospital executives that do nothing for us except reduce the income we would have were we physician-owners as in many of the private psych hospitals in my state

 

[IntheClouds4ever]

The crux of his argument goes back to Medicare reimbursement. As we have seen in our Midwest red state, a lack of Medicare/caid expansion is a death nail for rural hospitals and healthcare. It’ll probably get worse before it gets better, but it is similar to the way hospitals subsidize less profitable areas. They usually have to have these areas for government compliance and federal funding, providing ancillary services to support patients and physician necessities from the profitable areas, and fulfill mission statements for good PR and community support. This is a doom and gloom article that is only applicable if the pendulum stops swinging... when medicine and politics are interwoven the pendulum tends to swing from stupid to ridiculous without ever staying in the reasonable range very long. While I advocate being conscious of the possible effects, I wouldn’t go around screaming that the sky is falling.. healthcare is a cornerstone for measuring any first world nations progress/prosperity. Like a bungee cord, it’ll bounce back out of necessity for the citizens or the nation as a whole will plummet into despair and collapse due to death, disease, famine, and equality stratification.. this scenario has played out many times over the centuries. We won’t be the first or last.

 

[dwmok001]

Subtract facility costs, nursing costs, pharmaceutical costs, lab costs, marketing costs, etc. Not as simple as you describe.

If it's not that simple how does a resterant do it? McDonald's most expensive thing is probably 12 and they can figure out how to keep the lights on. Not trying to say your wrong but in just saying that those that are managing hospitals are doing a crud job and that's why we're in this huge mess

 

[MSTPlease]

If it's not that simple how does a resterant do it? McDonald's most expensive thing is probably 12 and they can figure out how to keep the lights on. Not trying to say your wrong but in just saying that those that are managing hospitals are doing a crud job and that's why we're in this huge mess

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one place where it is quite different is that the farm supplying the beef to those restaurants doesn't charge higher rates to American restaurants in order to recoup losses from foreign governments refusing to pay above a certain amount for beef for all restaurants in other countries. Or does the beef industry work the same way as pharma in this regard?

 

[MSTPlease]

Open insurance markets to force competition and transparent pricing to get rid of the outrageous billing practices and backdoor deals by "non profit" hospitals.

Safety net only for children, elderly, and legitimately disabled.

Working age adults don't get free healthcare paid for by other working age adults, period. If that means they can't get a lifesaving treatment without having their wages garnished or declaring bankruptcy, tough. That's life. You should have made better choices.

This "republicans want to let people die on the street" argument is bogus. That will never happen. They just want working-age adults to be accountable and create a system where healthcare services are reasonably priced and people don't get a $100,000 bill for a 2-day hospital stay they can never pay back.

And what about all the complex medical conditions that affect working age adults that aren't due to bad choices (i.e. everything that isn't obviously tied to being obese or smoking/drinking/drugs)? And does the "make better choices" argument apply to the adult alcoholic self-medicating from years of sexual/physical/psychological abuse as a child who didn't get therapy? Also what's a legitimate disability? I'm guessing you and I have very different definitions of that. Also why does being old automatically guarantee you a safety net? If you didn't earn enough/save enough to cover healthcare costs in retirement shouldn't you have "made better choices" in the past? Same goes for being legitimately disabled because of poor choices or having a health condition as a child because of "poor choices?"

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

If it's not that simple how does a resterant do it? McDonald's most expensive thing is probably 12 and they can figure out how to keep the lights on. Not trying to say your wrong but in just saying that those that are managing hospitals are doing a crud job and that's why we're in this huge mess

Except McDonalds has fewer government mandates and regulations to meet

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Of course, but without the physician, none of those other things can happen. Ancillary staff and nursing account for perhaps 500k, and our drugs cost nearly nothing since they are all old generics. Medical drugs the patient requires are covered by the increased reimbursement we get for medically complicated patients and those with comorbidities. Facilities certainly cost something but given that our unit hasn't been upgraded in 20 years and about the only amenities we have are heat and running water... I'm just saying a lot of that per diem is being sponged by hospital executives that do nothing for us except reduce the income we would have were we physician-owners as in many of the private psych hospitals in my state

Where are you getting that number, because it seems awfully low unless your staffing numbers are very very small.

Drugs are cheap, pharmacists aren't.

 

[Mad Jack]

Where are you getting that number, because it seems awfully low unless your staffing numbers are very very small.

Drugs are cheap, pharmacists aren't.

We don't need a lot of nurses in psych- we run a unit of 24 patients on 11 FTEs at 55k/year for nursing staff and 7 FTEs of psych aides at 30k/year, 3 social workers at 50k each, and 2 licensed psychologists at 80k a piece. Gives us a total non-physician staffing budget of $1,462,000 with 30% benefit allocation. Assuming Medicare payment rates with a 1.1x modifier with an average census of 21 patients due to blocked rooms etc, over the course of the year the unit should generate $6,222,000ish in revenue, which we probably lose about 25% of due to uninsured patients and non-covered days, still leaving us with $4,666,000ish of revenue, which leaves us with $3,204,000ish left over after staffing. Oh, almost forgot about our art/occ/misc therapists which are all part time and have no benefits, probably running us around another 80k total. Let's assume $20 per patient per day of food and similar for meds, that's another $292,000. That is still netting us $2,832,000/year, and this is with 25% nonpayment and assuming zero private payers to keep things simple, which tend to pay $200-300 more per day. So each physician is netting about $944,000 based on my napkin math.

Oh and as for pharmacists, we use the main hospital pharmacy which is staffed extremely lean and if you break down costs per patient are probably almost.m nothing, but I figure the $20 of meds a day for pills that typically run $1/day or less per pt is fair to cover for both pharmacy staffing and the occasional more expensive med.

 

[Black Coffee 24/7]

We don't need a lot of nurses in psych- we run a unit of 24 patients on 11 FTEs at 55k/year for nursing staff and 7 FTEs of psych aides at 30k/year, 3 social workers at 50k each, and 2 licensed psychologists at 80k a piece. Gives us a total non-physician staffing budget of $1,462,000 with 30% benefit allocation. Assuming Medicare payment rates with a 1.1x modifier with an average census of 21 patients due to blocked rooms etc, over the course of the year the unit should generate $6,222,000ish in revenue, which we probably lose about 25% of due to uninsured patients and non-covered days, still leaving us with $4,666,000ish of revenue, which leaves us with $3,204,000ish left over after staffing. Oh, almost forgot about our art/occ/misc therapists which are all part time and have no benefits, probably running us around another 80k total. Let's assume $20 per patient per day of food and similar for meds, that's another $292,000. That is still netting us $2,832,000/year, and this is with 25% nonpayment and assuming zero private payers to keep things simple, which tend to pay $200-300 more per day. So each physician is netting about $944,000 based on my napkin math.

Oh and as for pharmacists, we use the main hospital pharmacy which is staffed extremely lean and if you break down costs per patient are probably almost.m nothing, but I figure the $20 of meds a day for pills that typically run $1/day or less per pt is fair to cover for both pharmacy staffing and the occasional more expensive med.

If every physician comes to the negotiation table with your knowledge and attitude, hospital suits would be out of business.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

We don't need a lot of nurses in psych- we run a unit of 24 patients on 11 FTEs at 55k/year for nursing staff and 7 FTEs of psych aides at 30k/year, 3 social workers at 50k each, and 2 licensed psychologists at 80k a piece. Gives us a total non-physician staffing budget of $1,462,000 with 30% benefit allocation. Assuming Medicare payment rates with a 1.1x modifier with an average census of 21 patients due to blocked rooms etc, over the course of the year the unit should generate $6,222,000ish in revenue, which we probably lose about 25% of due to uninsured patients and non-covered days, still leaving us with $4,666,000ish of revenue, which leaves us with $3,204,000ish left over after staffing. Oh, almost forgot about our art/occ/misc therapists which are all part time and have no benefits, probably running us around another 80k total. Let's assume $20 per patient per day of food and similar for meds, that's another $292,000. That is still netting us $2,832,000/year, and this is with 25% nonpayment and assuming zero private payers to keep things simple, which tend to pay $200-300 more per day. So each physician is netting about $944,000 based on my napkin math.

Oh and as for pharmacists, we use the main hospital pharmacy which is staffed extremely lean and if you break down costs per patient are probably almost.m nothing, but I figure the $20 of meds a day for pills that typically run $1/day or less per pt is fair to cover for both pharmacy staffing and the occasional more expensive med.

Rent, compliance, janitors, utilities, insurance?

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Medicaid across the board would basically eliminate billing, coding, and a large number of compliance jobs, bringing overall costs down. Come that with the simpler charting requirements that are in the pipeline and you would end up with far more efficient operations. Salaries might take a drop but whatever, at this point I think it would be worth it. Or you could just take cash only if your services are that good.

I agree. However, slowing you down so you can see fewer patients is the reason behind the compliance rules and the govt regulations. It is how they limit patient visits and thereby reduce costs.

 

[atomi]

And what about all the complex medical conditions that affect working age adults that aren't due to bad choices (i.e. everything that isn't obviously tied to being obese or smoking/drinking/drugs)? And does the "make better choices" argument apply to the adult alcoholic self-medicating from years of sexual/physical/psychological abuse as a child who didn't get therapy? Also what's a legitimate disability? I'm guessing you and I have very different definitions of that. Also why does being old automatically guarantee you a safety net? If you didn't earn enough/save enough to cover healthcare costs in retirement shouldn't you have "made better choices" in the past? Same goes for being legitimately disabled because of poor choices or having a health condition as a child because of "poor choices?"

Get a skilled job and pay for health insurance like everyone else.

If you are legitimately unable to work then you are disabled as I suggested.

If we ever reach the point where a large segment of society, perhaps those with IQ under a 100, are legitimately unable to find work because machines have taken over everything except the highest levels of labor, then yes I would support handouts in the form of healthcare and basic income. But we are nowhere even close to that.

America guarantees freedom, not free stuff. If you want stuff, you have the freedom to work for it. If you’re unable, then that’s a different conversation.

The vast majority of people who are emotionally disabled are just lazy and want handouts. I’m not interested in coddling alcoholics or opioid addicts with handouts rather than creating an incentive to get treatment and get back in the workforce and take ownership of their future. Nobody is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to drink a liter of vodka a day or feed a heroin habit. Bad things happen to some people in life. That doesn’t mean they get a free pass to stay high all the time while everyone else pays for it. That’s a cop out.

 

[Mad Jack]

Rent, compliance, janitors, utilities, insurance?

Health insurance was included in personnel costs. Malpractice is cheap. Rent is... not a thing since the hospital owns the land care of a generous donation a longgggg time ago. Janitorial staffing is split with the rest of the hospital and comprises maybe two hours total of time per day at $14/hr for a total cost of maybe a dollar per patient. Utilities... I mean, while I'm sure heating the unit isn't cheap probably $2,000 a month based on the size and averages between winter and summer, but electricity costs are probably $800 a month maximum. The great thing about psych units is there isn't much maintenance due to the dearth of medical devices, electrical outlets, plumbing, and other things. They're basically slightly more comfy jails, with absolutely no electronics save for overhead lights in the patient rooms and 12ish computers for charting. Basically the hospital is netting at least $1.5 million in profit after physician salaries are accounted for and all is said and done.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Stop with the censorship moderators

To clarify for those interested:

the "censorship" was to remove a statement this user made about the article author being a DO and how he couldn't get into a "real medical school".

SDN will not tolerate derogation amongst our colleagues for the source of their medical education: whether DO, MD, foreign, etc. This has been discussed numerous times and should come as no surprise to any user, let alone one of long standing. In fact, I would propose that one of the reasons our field is struggling is the lack of cooperation and collegiality.

Finally, because there will be questions, this user will be removed from SDN. More than a dozen warnings for TOS violations, probations, post holds and the like have done nothing to encourage him to post within our guidelines. This post and the fact, that after it was edited by staff, he went back and repeated the statement, is beyond the pale. This will not be tolerated, regardless of how long someone has been a member.

 

[raiderette]

In a global economy, US businesses are at a competitive disadvantage because they have to figure healthcare costs into their business expenses. It hurts small companies and potential innovators most if all.
Taking the responsibility of healthcare from companies would be better for individuals and our overall GDP. At the same time we can cut administration costs with standardized forms, claim processing, etc.

Get a skilled job and pay for health insurance like everyone else.

If you are legitimately unable to work then you are disabled as I suggested.

If we ever reach the point where a large segment of society, perhaps those with IQ under a 100, are legitimately unable to find work because machines have taken over everything except the highest levels of labor, then yes I would support handouts in the form of healthcare and basic income. But we are nowhere even close to that.

America guarantees freedom, not free stuff. If you want stuff, you have the freedom to work for it. If you’re unable, then that’s a different conversation.

The vast majority of people who are emotionally disabled are just lazy and want handouts. I’m not interested in coddling alcoholics or opioid addicts with handouts rather than creating an incentive to get treatment and get back in the workforce and take ownership of their future. Nobody is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to drink a liter of vodka a day or feed a heroin habit. Bad things happen to some people in life. That doesn’t mean they get a free pass to stay high all the time while everyone else pays for it. That’s a cop out.

 

[atomi]

In a global economy, US businesses are at a competitive disadvantage because they have to figure healthcare costs into their business expenses. It hurts small companies and potential innovators most if all.
Taking the responsibility of healthcare from companies would be better for individuals and our overall GDP. At the same time we can cut administration costs with standardized forms, claim processing, etc.

I would not consider companies with 50+ employees as "small companies." In fact, these are defined by the government as large companies.

I say this as a former small business owner who sold an innovative service employing up to 3 people at a time through an S-corporation.

 

[Mr.S]

To clarify for those interested:

the "censorship" was to remove a statement this user made about the article author being a DO and how he couldn't get into a "real medical school".

SDN will not tolerate derogation amongst our colleagues for the source of their medical education: whether DO, MD, foreign, etc. This has been discussed numerous times and should come as no surprise to any user, let alone one of long standing. In fact, I would propose that one of the reasons our field is struggling is the lack of cooperation and collegiality.

Finally, because there will be questions, this user will be removed from SDN. More than a dozen warnings for TOS violations, probations, post holds and the like have done nothing to encourage him to post within our guidelines. This post and the fact, that after it was edited by staff, he went back and repeated the statement, is beyond the pale. This will not be tolerated, regardless of how long someone has been a member.

everyone is on reddit anyway.
SDN is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day.
Censorship is no OK.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Health insurance was included in personnel costs. Malpractice is cheap. Rent is... not a thing since the hospital owns the land care of a generous donation a longgggg time ago. Janitorial staffing is split with the rest of the hospital and comprises maybe two hours total of time per day at $14/hr for a total cost of maybe a dollar per patient. Utilities... I mean, while I'm sure heating the unit isn't cheap probably $2,000 a month based on the size and averages between winter and summer, but electricity costs are probably $800 a month maximum. The great thing about psych units is there isn't much maintenance due to the dearth of medical devices, electrical outlets, plumbing, and other things. They're basically slightly more comfy jails, with absolutely no electronics save for overhead lights in the patient rooms and 12ish computers for charting. Basically the hospital is netting at least $1.5 million in profit after physician salaries are accounted for and all is said and done.

I meant things like workers comp, property, stuff like that.

Let's not forget taxes or EMRs.

 

[NITRAS]

Why would Medicare for all eliminate coders and billers? Documentation requirements?

The ultimate reason behind the hoops is because there are more needs than dollars. That won’t change, no matter the funding.

 

[MSTPlease]

Get a skilled job and pay for health insurance like everyone else.

If you are legitimately unable to work then you are disabled as I suggested.

If we ever reach the point where a large segment of society, perhaps those with IQ under a 100, are legitimately unable to find work because machines have taken over everything except the highest levels of labor, then yes I would support handouts in the form of healthcare and basic income. But we are nowhere even close to that.

America guarantees freedom, not free stuff. If you want stuff, you have the freedom to work for it. If you’re unable, then that’s a different conversation.

The vast majority of people who are emotionally disabled are just lazy and want handouts. I’m not interested in coddling alcoholics or opioid addicts with handouts rather than creating an incentive to get treatment and get back in the workforce and take ownership of their future. Nobody is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to drink a liter of vodka a day or feed a heroin habit. Bad things happen to some people in life. That doesn’t mean they get a free pass to stay high all the time while everyone else pays for it. That’s a cop out.

Can you please answer all of my questions? What is a legitimate disability? I’m guessing one example might be missing limbs. Why does a “legitimate” disability that is of your own doing (eg losing limbs from poorly controlled diabetes/vascular disease) warrant free health care but the person who was sexually abused as a child doesn’t deserve free therapy to get themselves to a place where they can get a skilled job and pay for health insurance like everybody else?

There are lots of elderly people who could have skilled jobs, why do they deserve free insurance? Why do they deserve free insurance for failing to save money to afford insurance? If bad things happening is just a part of life then why do kids born with health problems deserve free insurance? Why does having your job doable by a machine warrant free insurance? Why don’t those people just get a skilled job that can’t be done by a machine and pay for insurance like everybody else?

 

[Winged Scapula]

everyone is on reddit anyway.
SDN is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day.
Censorship is no OK.

And you don't think Reddit removes posts that violate their sensibilities? They absolutely do.

Check out 4chan if you're looking for an anything goes/who cares who I insult mentality.

Most of us adults don't care for that environment.

 

[7331poas]

Lmao. They really just banned psai

 

[PathoTurnUp1865]

Lmao. They really just banned psai

Yeah haha I went wide eyed when I read that. That dude/dudette has been around for a hot minute haha

 

[PathoTurnUp1865]

everyone is on reddit anyway.
SDN is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day.
Censorship is no OK.

Definitely got banned on reddit for a sec for being a troll haha they aren’t any different. There isn’t a place you can actually have complete free speech.

 

[Gurby]

Lmao. They really just banned psai

 

[7331poas]

-snip-

*patiently waiting for Gurby's ban*

 

[Espressso]

Get a skilled job and pay for health insurance like everyone else.

If you are legitimately unable to work then you are disabled as I suggested.

If we ever reach the point where a large segment of society, perhaps those with IQ under a 100, are legitimately unable to find work because machines have taken over everything except the highest levels of labor, then yes I would support handouts in the form of healthcare and basic income. But we are nowhere even close to that.

America guarantees freedom, not free stuff. If you want stuff, you have the freedom to work for it. If you’re unable, then that’s a different conversation.

The vast majority of people who are emotionally disabled are just lazy and want handouts. I’m not interested in coddling alcoholics or opioid addicts with handouts rather than creating an incentive to get treatment and get back in the workforce and take ownership of their future. Nobody is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to drink a liter of vodka a day or feed a heroin habit. Bad things happen to some people in life. That doesn’t mean they get a free pass to stay high all the time while everyone else pays for it. That’s a cop out.

You know, I understand where you're coming from. But to try and make the case that those darn leftist idealists think too simplistic, etc etc, while you take very complex, multi-faceted issues and boil them down to harsh simplistic generalizations; man that is something else.

Your arguments are just so, cruel. "The vast majority of people are emotionally disabled are just lazy and want handouts". Says who? Where does this idea come from? I assume you've met sexual assault survivors or domestic violence survivors, who have had their entire life ruined; can you really look at them and say the majority of them are lazy and want handouts? And alcoholics and opioid addicts with handouts? You're clearly a bright and successful man/woman, but this individualistic mentality is, to be honest, archaic and just kinda ridiculous. You obviously know opioid addictions are multi-faceted and it's not some simple thing.

With these kind of topics, there's clearly a big difference in the way we see the world. But I really encourage you to try and step back and think about others in a not so negative sense. They're just like you, at least more than you think.

 

[deleted109597]

everyone is on reddit anyway.
SDN is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day.
Censorship is no OK.

There was no censorship of things anti-SDN. We are doing this to protect all our members. This was reported by people who felt marginalized and belittled by that speech. Everyone gets at least 1 shot to make a mistake and make amends. This was not one of those cases.
Reddit also censors.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

You know, I understand where you're coming from. But to try and make the case that those darn leftist idealists think too simplistic, etc etc, while you take very complex, multi-faceted issues and boil them down to harsh simplistic generalizations; man that is something else.

Your arguments are just so, cruel. "The vast majority of people are emotionally disabled are just lazy and want handouts". Says who? Where does this idea come from? I assume you've met sexual assault survivors or domestic violence survivors, who have had their entire life ruined; can you really look at them and say the majority of them are lazy and want handouts? And alcoholics and opioid addicts with handouts? You're clearly a bright and successful man/woman, but this individualistic mentality is, to be honest, archaic and just kinda ridiculous. You obviously know opioid addictions are multi-faceted and it's not some simple thing.

With these kind of topics, there's clearly a big difference in the way we see the world. But I really encourage you to try and step back and think about others in a not so negative sense. They're just like you, at least more than you think.

"This individualistic mentality is archaic"......Really? You realize this is the great American experiment. It's all about the individual. Look at our constitution and our Bill of Rights. Our ancestors left England to leave the religious oppression and the tyranny of the elites. Of course we, as a compassionate society, must care for our most fragile citizens. But our capitalist society, although imperfect, provides the best opportunity for people and done more to advance the human condition than any society in history. What socialist society has done more? If you cant make it in America, you cant make it anywhere.

 

[Espressso]

"This individualistic mentality is archaic"......Really? You realize this is the great American experiment. It's all about the individual. Look at our constitution and our Bill of Rights. Our ancestors left England to leave the religious oppression and the tyranny of the elites. Of course we, as a compassionate society, must care for our most fragile citizens. But our capitalist society, although imperfect, provides the best opportunity for people and done more to advance the human condition than any society in history. What socialist society has done more? If you cant make it in America, you cant make it anywhere.

I'm not arguing for a socialist society my man, tbh I'm kind of against it all. I think the modern economic frameworks, be that capitalism, socialism, et al., are reaching their end game. And I'm more fascinated with what comes next. But that's a separate topic entirely.

The point of my comment is that I just believe this umbrella idea that people are weak and safety nets are stupid and people suffering are all lazy and just want handouts is silly and quite honestly, destructive. It's not helping any conversation about what to do about the problems we face, and it's stopping any general progress (see: not progressive ideas...) in these topics such as healthcare, tax policy, etc etc.

Maybe it's immature of me, being a med student that "hasn't seen the real world" (as this argument comes up a lot in these threads), but I'd like to think the majority of those in the healthcare industry are interested in caring for those less fortunate and extending an extra hand. The lottery of birth put many of us on a different level and if you were one of those people who started from nothing and made your way out of it, odds are you didn't do it alone. And I believe it's imperative to notice when you were helped along the way, and provide the same kind of help to others in those spots.

It's a fundamental disagreement, I think. But that's okay. That's the beauty of it.

 

[DokterMom]

everyone is on reddit anyway.
SDN is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day.
Censorship is no OK.

Everyone watches Fox News anyway
The leftist "mainstream " media is all FAKE NEWS and becomes more irrelevant with each passing day.
Enemy of the people! SAD!



/s

 

[deleted171991]

everyone is on reddit anyway.
SDN is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day.
Censorship is no OK.

Do you want to reach 400 posts?

 

[atomi]

The lottery of birth put many of us on a different level and if you were one of those people who started from nothing and made your way out of it, odds are you didn't do it alone. And I believe it's imperative to notice when you were helped along the way, and provide the same kind of help to others in those spots.

Ah. The leftist "equality of outcome" leitmotif. You and the other poster have thrown out questions about basically who deserves what in society and how we most ethically determine who, if anybody, gets free stuff (paid for by the labor of others), and to what degree. While the underlying principle is overwhelmingly clear to people like me who reject socialism outright as evil, to those who haven't really considered it, read about, aren't really sure, there is a lot to unpack here to really be able to answer these questions. So sure, I'll give you a real answer rather than a drive-by repeated one-liner I got from a celebrity's Instagram about societal fairness (below their picture of partying on a private yacht). It's not going to be short and will require some thinking.

This socialist principle of equality of outcome, and that's what it is -- a core socialist principle antithetical to a free capitalist society, is rooted in the belief that poverty, low status, poor health, etc. is inherently virtuous while wealth, success, high standard of living, etc. are inherently wrong as they are the result of greed, familial money hoarding, simple dumb luck, or some combination of all of these, and that the morally correct thing to do is to forcefully rebalance everything so that everybody, no matter what choices you make in life, no matter what (if any) labor you perform, comes out equal in the end. This is the basic definition that guides leftist philosophy and ultimately policy making.

What capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, etc. anybody who rejects pure socialist philosophy outright believe is that a free society should have equality of opportunity and that you can rise to whatever level you want through the virtue of the choices you make in life. In other words, long term success in life is virtuous and should be celebrated because it is the result of moral decision making and that long term poverty and despair is the just outcome of a lifetime of poor decision making rooted in a lack of virtues including work ethic, self-restraint, intelligence seeking, etc.

Capitalism is not only the correct moral system because it's blind (free markets naturally resolve to a steady state where racism, sexism, and any other prejudices are not sustainable because a dollar has the same buying power in the hands of whoever holds it), it's also the correct system because it encourages people to make good and healthy decisions. If you want success, you know you have to work hard. If you want to be attractive, you know you have to eat well and work out. If you want to live a long time and feel good, you know you have to take care of your health and save for your old age. It follows that capitalist systems punish bad decision making. If you chose to drop out of high school, have unprotected sex with gang members and have their babies with no way to care for them, do drugs, and not learn a skilled trade, you are destined to have a poor and miserable life (and that is not wrong, it is just).

Whereas socialist redistributionist systems that force equality of outcome are inherently evil because they encourage and reward bad behavior while punishing good decision making and attempts at self-betterment. If you can not finish high school, do drugs, have gangbanger's babies, and then end up poor and stuck in minimum wage jobs, well that's all ok because the government will bail you out. Of course they will give you food and housing. But why is it fair that the rich get to enjoy a higher quality of life? Everyone should have the same quality of life in a moral society, right? So the government will give you decent housing with modern appliances. You'll have your wages artificially raised as an unskilled worker to be on par with skilled workers so you can buy big screen TVs and go out to dinner too. If that's not enough, the government will guarantee a minimum income. And you will get the same healthcare the rich get no matter what health choices you make. If you make poor health choices, you won't have to take a lifestyle hit to pay for. Because it's all guaranteed. And how is it all paid for? By reducing the income of the people who made the right choices in life. The man who studied hard in school, went to grad school, waited until marriage to have children, work long hours earlier in his career to save up and eventually make a high risk investment in a business activity that he was smart enough to see was a good opportunity, prosper and become wealthy from this investment, multiply the magnitude of his business and hire others and create jobs. Yes, that's how we'll pay for it. It's not fair that this man has such a nice lifestyle and can afford the best doctors in the world to care for him and his family. This is not an equality of outcome. We'll take his money. There is a clear income inequality and the fact that it exists proves that it is unjust, and therefore it will be forcefully redistributed. Doctors will be paid the same (close to the same as what unskilled laborers earn) no matter who they treat in order to prevent those with more money from preferentially utilizing the best doctors and treatments. So then, looking at all this, why would a young person chose to work hard for decades, restrain from a hedonistic lifestyle, learn a skilled trade, take care of their health. And look at that rich guy who has so much! He is healthy and fit. The poor are fat and disabled through their own doing. This is of course viewed as a tragic outcome of capitalism and again can be fixed through equality of outcome. There will be no societal punishment for being obese. Fat shaming is wrong. Drug abuse and alcoholism? Accommodations for all these things will be made for you at the expense of others such that your choices don't harm your quality of life as much. Society will openly praise this as virtuous and people naturally self-destruct and become reliant on the state to survive, which naturally lends itself to dictatorship and authoritarian regimens, and these people decide who gets what and how much which lends itself to real racism and other prejudices (you know, the kind that capitalistic free markets prevent).

This is the fate of literally every single socialist experiment in the history of the world. An unequal distribution of talents and resources have existed in literally every human civilization since the beginning of time because that is the way of nature. And attempts to correct nature and stop the natural progression of things end up poorly. Socialism ultimately ends up creating mass poverty, despair, and death, and has killed hundreds of millions since its inception. You know who wanted equality of outcome? Hitler. Hell, the Nazis actually tried to genetically engineer everyone to be their idea of superior and if that didn't work they would just kill you. Yes, their version of equality of outcome was everyone living having the maximum outcome humanly achievable. Whereas the communists wanted to achieve equality of outcome by lowering everybody to some middle ground (and they killed a hell of a lot of people too). Can you see that government forcing equality of outcome doesn't exactly have a good track record?

Even if a leftist doesn't fully believe in total equality of outcome and thinks that it's ok for people to reap a portion of the success they create in life, the attempt at partial rebalancing ultimately falls back on this same flawed principle and is just as immoral.

Our society was built on Judeo-Christian values. It is perverse to look at the Bible, pick out a few passages and somehow twist that into thinking its a justification for material handouts. Judeo-Christian values are the exact opposite. You are born in the image of God and have the choice between right and wrong in life, and through God, you can make the right choices, and by making these correct choices, you will be justly rewarded.

Now, you are correct. Some people are born into better homes than others. This is out of their control. But this does not justify forcefully creating an ultimate equality of outcome. We are talking about modern day America, the most free society in the history of the world where everybody has the best opportunities in the world. Unfortunately for some, they will have to work harder. This is nature. This is evolution. This is correct and not something that should be artificially corrected. If you are born without a left arm, you will have to work harder in life to succeed. This does not make it ok to go and cut everybody else's left arm off in the name of fairness. But you likely have other gifts and talents. Maybe you were born with an IQ of 70. You will have to work harder to do better in life. This does not make it ok to reduce a NASA engineer's salary from $150,000/year to $60,000 year in order to raise your salary at Starbucks from $20,000 year to $60,000/year.
This is nature. This is life. This is reality. Maybe it sucks but that's the way it is. And leftists want to live in false realities. Here's a hint: Nature ALWAYS wins in the end. You cannot forcefully fix the natural process that the strongest survive and good choices result in good things while bad choices result in bad things. If you try to do this, you cause mass suffering.

So there is all of that theory, which at least gives us a fundamental background to try and tackle the practical situation you are asking about, which is should we give healthcare handouts, who gets them, and to what degree?

People who have created their own miserable situation or who have the ability to better themselves do not get government handouts, period. Now they can get charity from community, church, secular charity missions, etc. And that's fine and they should because these things rightfully exist in order to help people better themselves. But government handouts encourage long-term dependence.

People who were never able to make it in this world, no matter how hard they tried, should in my opinion receive a level of care such that they have a comfortable life. For instance, severely mentally handicapped people, children who become paralyzed, schizophrenics, the criminally insane, etc. This is best administered at the state and local level. When welfare programs are federalized, they are complete disasters.

For everybody else, it is your responsibility to:
1. Become educated. There is no excuse for not graduating high school and pursuing either college or a skilled trade. Period. If you choose this life, you deserve to suffer the consequences.
2. Get a job. Any job. If you don't want to work, you die. Buckets of fried chicken do not magically appear on your table. Your insulin doesn't suddenly show up. Period. This is just.
3. Save and spend responsibly. If you spend all your income and maxed out all your credit cards to buy fancy things and have zero savings and forego buying health insurance and disability insurance, if something bad happens, you lose everything and may spend the rest of your life paying for it. Again, you made bad choices, you accept the consequences.
4. Reproduce responsibility. Don't have children out of wedlock. Chose your partners carefully. Bring children into this world when you are financially able to raise them properly to become someone who will follow these rules. Get pregnant accidentally? Just minding your own business walking down the street and got pregnant? Again, choices. Unable to raise a baby? Not the baby's fault, so resources will be provided but ultimately your life will be a lot harder because of the choices you made. As it rightfully should be.

Now you're looking at this and saying just how cruel I am. There is nothing wrong with making a few bad choices in life. We all do it. This goes back to the whole Judeo-Christian thing. Humans screw up sometimes. And there is naturally a punishment for these choices to encourage us to make good choices in the future. It is morally wrong to reward a lifetime of continued bad decision making.

With regards to healthcare, if you want life extending treatments at any cost so that you squeeze every last second out of life, this is your imperative. We all die eventually. It is not morally right to steal money from others to keep throwing terminal lifesaving treatments that extend life by a few months to someone with a liver and body ravaged by HepC and alcohol and a life on the streets. If you're in this situation and you've become wealthy, then sure, go nuts and spend a million bucks in your last few months of life. But you will ultimately die. This is reality, and again, it's a reality that some don't want to accept. And if you haven't figured out where this is going by now, you haven't been paying attention. In the socialist system, there will be this equality of outcome everyone wants so bad, so the HepC and alcoholic homeless person receives the same treatment as the person who worked hard his whole life, which is a lot less treatment and effective care than he otherwise would have been to provide for himself. And you say I'm the cruel one?

The dramatic shift to the left among Democrats to outright socialist platforms in recent years in this country should be frightening everyone now the same way Islamic terrorism was frightening every one 15 years ago. It is a slippery slope. Europe will likely fall under the weight of socialism in our lifetimes (as it already has multiple times in previous generations), and now for the first time there is a real threat that our country will be shoved onto this societal vortex of superficially-pleasing but fundamentally-evil policies straight down the toilet drain.

The leftist "mainstream " media is all FAKE NEWS and becomes more irrelevant with each passing day. Enemy of the people! SAD!

Correct, they have a socialist agenda and cherry pick stories to overemphasize their narrative and use things like race and religion as a way to incite revolt in our society against our perceived oppressors. The original Marxist teachings rely on using class struggle to divide the people and incite this revolt. They try to do that do, but if they've found it to be more effective to bring in race, religion, and a hierarchical intersectional system of perceived oppression to try and link it all together to get their candidates into office and policies implemented. See above, last paragraph. You'd have to be living under a rock to not see what happened with the Jesse Smollett story recently. It was fake news. It's a big problem and not something that should be mocked.

 

[Goro]

Lmao. They really just banned psai

He had it coming.

 

[Espressso]

Ah. The leftist "equality of outcome" leitmotif. You and the other poster have thrown out questions about basically who deserves what in society and how we most ethically determine who, if anybody, gets free stuff (paid for by the labor of others), and to what degree. While the underlying principle is overwhelmingly clear to people like me who reject socialism outright as evil, to those who haven't really considered it, read about, aren't really sure, there is a lot to unpack here to really be able to answer these questions. So sure, I'll give you a real answer rather than a drive-by repeated one-liner I got from a celebrity's Instagram about societal fairness (below their picture of partying on a private yacht). It's not going to be short and will require some thinking.

This socialist principle of equality of outcome, and that's what it is -- a core socialist principle antithetical to a free capitalist society, is rooted in the belief that poverty, low status, poor health, etc. is inherently virtuous while wealth, success, high standard of living, etc. are inherently wrong as they are the result of greed, familial money hoarding, simple dumb luck, or some combination of all of these, and that the morally correct thing to do is to forcefully rebalance everything so that everybody, no matter what choices you make in life, no matter what (if any) labor you perform, comes out equal in the end. This is the basic definition that guides leftist philosophy and ultimately policy making.

What capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, etc. anybody who rejects pure socialist philosophy outright believe is that a free society should have equality of opportunity and that you can rise to whatever level you want through the virtue of the choices you make in life. In other words, long term success in life is virtuous and should be celebrated because it is the result of moral decision making and that long term poverty and despair is the just outcome of a lifetime of poor decision making rooted in a lack of virtues including work ethic, self-restraint, intelligence seeking, etc.

Capitalism is not only the correct moral system because it's blind (free markets naturally resolve to a steady state where racism, sexism, and any other prejudices are not sustainable because a dollar has the same buying power in the hands of whoever holds it), it's also the correct system because it encourages people to make good and healthy decisions. If you want success, you know you have to work hard. If you want to be attractive, you know you have to eat well and work out. If you want to live a long time and feel good, you know you have to take care of your health and save for your old age. It follows that capitalist systems punish bad decision making. If you chose to drop out of high school, have unprotected sex with gang members and have their babies with no way to care for them, do drugs, and not learn a skilled trade, you are destined to have a poor and miserable life (and that is not wrong, it is just).

Whereas socialist redistributionist systems that force equality of outcome are inherently evil because they encourage and reward bad behavior while punishing good decision making and attempts at self-betterment. If you can not finish high school, do drugs, have gangbanger's babies, and then end up poor and stuck in minimum wage jobs, well that's all ok because the government will bail you out. Of course they will give you food and housing. But why is it fair that the rich get to enjoy a higher quality of life? Everyone should have the same quality of life in a moral society, right? So the government will give you decent housing with modern appliances. You'll have your wages artificially raised as an unskilled worker to be on par with skilled workers so you can buy big screen TVs and go out to dinner too. If that's not enough, the government will guarantee a minimum income. And you will get the same healthcare the rich get no matter what health choices you make. If you make poor health choices, you won't have to take a lifestyle hit to pay for. Because it's all guaranteed. And how is it all paid for? By reducing the income of the people who made the right choices in life. The man who studied hard in school, went to grad school, waited until marriage to have children, work long hours earlier in his career to save up and eventually make a high risk investment in a business activity that he was smart enough to see was a good opportunity, prosper and become wealthy from this investment, multiply the magnitude of his business and hire others and create jobs. Yes, that's how we'll pay for it. It's not fair that this man has such a nice lifestyle and can afford the best doctors in the world to care for him and his family. This is not an equality of outcome. We'll take his money. There is a clear income inequality and the fact that it exists proves that it is unjust, and therefore it will be forcefully redistributed. Doctors will be paid the same (close to the same as what unskilled laborers earn) no matter who they treat in order to prevent those with more money from preferentially utilizing the best doctors and treatments. So then, looking at all this, why would a young person chose to work hard for decades, restrain from a hedonistic lifestyle, learn a skilled trade, take care of their health. And look at that rich guy who has so much! He is healthy and fit. The poor are fat and disabled through their own doing. This is of course viewed as a tragic outcome of capitalism and again can be fixed through equality of outcome. There will be no societal punishment for being obese. Fat shaming is wrong. Drug abuse and alcoholism? Accommodations for all these things will be made for you at the expense of others such that your choices don't harm your quality of life as much. Society will openly praise this as virtuous and people naturally self-destruct and become reliant on the state to survive, which naturally lends itself to dictatorship and authoritarian regimens, and these people decide who gets what and how much which lends itself to real racism and other prejudices (you know, the kind that capitalistic free markets prevent).

This is the fate of literally every single socialist experiment in the history of the world. An unequal distribution of talents and resources have existed in literally every human civilization since the beginning of time because that is the way of nature. And attempts to correct nature and stop the natural progression of things end up poorly. Socialism ultimately ends up creating mass poverty, despair, and death, and has killed hundreds of millions since its inception. You know who wanted equality of outcome? Hitler. Hell, the Nazis actually tried to genetically engineer everyone to be their idea of superior and if that didn't work they would just kill you. Yes, their version of equality of outcome was everyone living having the maximum outcome humanly achievable. Whereas the communists wanted to achieve equality of outcome by lowering everybody to some middle ground (and they killed a hell of a lot of people too). Can you see that government forcing equality of outcome doesn't exactly have a good track record?

Even if a leftist doesn't fully believe in total equality of outcome and thinks that it's ok for people to reap a portion of the success they create in life, the attempt at partial rebalancing ultimately falls back on this same flawed principle and is just as immoral.

Our society was built on Judeo-Christian values. It is perverse to look at the Bible, pick out a few passages and somehow twist that into thinking its a justification for material handouts. Judeo-Christian values are the exact opposite. You are born in the image of God and have the choice between right and wrong in life, and through God, you can make the right choices, and by making these correct choices, you will be justly rewarded.

Now, you are correct. Some people are born into better homes than others. This is out of their control. But this does not justify forcefully creating an ultimate equality of outcome. We are talking about modern day America, the most free society in the history of the world where everybody has the best opportunities in the world. Unfortunately for some, they will have to work harder. This is nature. This is evolution. This is correct and not something that should be artificially corrected. If you are born without a left arm, you will have to work harder in life to succeed. This does not make it ok to go and cut everybody else's left arm off in the name of fairness. But you likely have other gifts and talents. Maybe you were born with an IQ of 70. You will have to work harder to do better in life. This does not make it ok to reduce a NASA engineer's salary from $150,000/year to $60,000 year in order to raise your salary at Starbucks from $20,000 year to $60,000/year.
This is nature. This is life. This is reality. Maybe it sucks but that's the way it is. And leftists want to live in false realities. Here's a hint: Nature ALWAYS wins in the end. You cannot forcefully fix the natural process that the strongest survive and good choices result in good things while bad choices result in bad things. If you try to do this, you cause mass suffering.

So there is all of that theory, which at least gives us a fundamental background to try and tackle the practical situation you are asking about, which is should we give healthcare handouts, who gets them, and to what degree?

People who have created their own miserable situation or who have the ability to better themselves do not get government handouts, period. Now they can get charity from community, church, secular charity missions, etc. And that's fine and they should because these things rightfully exist in order to help people better themselves. But government handouts encourage long-term dependence.

People who were never able to make it in this world, no matter how hard they tried, should in my opinion receive a level of care such that they have a comfortable life. For instance, severely mentally handicapped people, children who become paralyzed, schizophrenics, the criminally insane, etc. This is best administered at the state and local level. When welfare programs are federalized, they are complete disasters.

For everybody else, it is your responsibility to:
1. Become educated. There is no excuse for not graduating high school and pursuing either college or a skilled trade. Period. If you choose this life, you deserve to suffer the consequences.
2. Get a job. Any job. If you don't want to work, you die. Buckets of fried chicken do not magically appear on your table. Your insulin doesn't suddenly show up. Period. This is just.
3. Save and spend responsibly. If you spend all your income and maxed out all your credit cards to buy fancy things and have zero savings and forego buying health insurance and disability insurance, if something bad happens, you lose everything and may spend the rest of your life paying for it. Again, you made bad choices, you accept the consequences.
4. Reproduce responsibility. Don't have children out of wedlock. Chose your partners carefully. Bring children into this world when you are financially able to raise them properly to become someone who will follow these rules. Get pregnant accidentally? Just minding your own business walking down the street and got pregnant? Again, choices. Unable to raise a baby? Not the baby's fault, so resources will be provided but ultimately your life will be a lot harder because of the choices you made. As it rightfully should be.

Now you're looking at this and saying just how cruel I am. There is nothing wrong with making a few bad choices in life. We all do it. This goes back to the whole Judeo-Christian thing. Humans screw up sometimes. And there is naturally a punishment for these choices to encourage us to make good choices in the future. It is morally wrong to reward a lifetime of continued bad decision making.

With regards to healthcare, if you want life extending treatments at any cost so that you squeeze every last second out of life, this is your imperative. We all die eventually. It is not morally right to steal money from others to keep throwing terminal lifesaving treatments that extend life by a few months to someone with a liver and body ravaged by HepC and alcohol and a life on the streets. If you're in this situation and you've become wealthy, then sure, go nuts and spend a million bucks in your last few months of life. But you will ultimately die. This is reality, and again, it's a reality that some don't want to accept. And if you haven't figured out where this is going by now, you haven't been paying attention. In the socialist system, there will be this equality of outcome everyone wants so bad, so the HepC and alcoholic homeless person receives the same treatment as the person who worked hard his whole life, which is a lot less treatment and effective care than he otherwise would have been to provide for himself. And you say I'm the cruel one?

The dramatic shift to the left among Democrats to outright socialist platforms in recent years in this country should be frightening everyone now the same way Islamic terrorism was frightening every one 15 years ago. It is a slippery slope. Europe will likely fall under the weight of socialism in our lifetimes (as it already has multiple times in previous generations), and now for the first time there is a real threat that our country will be shoved onto this societal vortex of superficially-pleasing but fundamentally-evil policies straight down the toilet drain.



Correct, they have a socialist agenda and cherry pick stories to overemphasize their narrative and use things like race and religion as a way to incite revolt in our society against our perceived oppressors. The original Marxist teachings rely on using class struggle to divide the people and incite this revolt. They try to do that do, but if they've found it to be more effective to bring in race, religion, and a hierarchical intersectional system of perceived oppression to try and link it all together to get their candidates into office and policies implemented. See above, last paragraph. You'd have to be living under a rock to not see what happened with the Jesse Smollett story recently. It was fake news. It's a big problem and not something that should be mocked.

Someone's been watching a lot of Jordan Peterson youtube videos. Lol. But no really, I respect you for taking the time to type that manifesto out. I disagree with most of it. But that's the joy of it, we can disagree. It's all good. I just hope you can learn to disagree with others who believe differently than you, without implying that their thoughts are the same as Islamic terrorism.

 

[762513]

Ah. The leftist "equality of outcome" leitmotif. You and the other poster have thrown out questions about basically who deserves what in society and how we most ethically determine who, if anybody, gets free stuff (paid for by the labor of others), and to what degree. While the underlying principle is overwhelmingly clear to people like me who reject socialism outright as evil, to those who haven't really considered it, read about, aren't really sure, there is a lot to unpack here to really be able to answer these questions. So sure, I'll give you a real answer rather than a drive-by repeated one-liner I got from a celebrity's Instagram about societal fairness (below their picture of partying on a private yacht). It's not going to be short and will require some thinking.

This socialist principle of equality of outcome, and that's what it is -- a core socialist principle antithetical to a free capitalist society, is rooted in the belief that poverty, low status, poor health, etc. is inherently virtuous while wealth, success, high standard of living, etc. are inherently wrong as they are the result of greed, familial money hoarding, simple dumb luck, or some combination of all of these, and that the morally correct thing to do is to forcefully rebalance everything so that everybody, no matter what choices you make in life, no matter what (if any) labor you perform, comes out equal in the end. This is the basic definition that guides leftist philosophy and ultimately policy making.

What capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, etc. anybody who rejects pure socialist philosophy outright believe is that a free society should have equality of opportunity and that you can rise to whatever level you want through the virtue of the choices you make in life. In other words, long term success in life is virtuous and should be celebrated because it is the result of moral decision making and that long term poverty and despair is the just outcome of a lifetime of poor decision making rooted in a lack of virtues including work ethic, self-restraint, intelligence seeking, etc.

Capitalism is not only the correct moral system because it's blind (free markets naturally resolve to a steady state where racism, sexism, and any other prejudices are not sustainable because a dollar has the same buying power in the hands of whoever holds it), it's also the correct system because it encourages people to make good and healthy decisions. If you want success, you know you have to work hard. If you want to be attractive, you know you have to eat well and work out. If you want to live a long time and feel good, you know you have to take care of your health and save for your old age. It follows that capitalist systems punish bad decision making. If you chose to drop out of high school, have unprotected sex with gang members and have their babies with no way to care for them, do drugs, and not learn a skilled trade, you are destined to have a poor and miserable life (and that is not wrong, it is just).

Whereas socialist redistributionist systems that force equality of outcome are inherently evil because they encourage and reward bad behavior while punishing good decision making and attempts at self-betterment. If you can not finish high school, do drugs, have gangbanger's babies, and then end up poor and stuck in minimum wage jobs, well that's all ok because the government will bail you out. Of course they will give you food and housing. But why is it fair that the rich get to enjoy a higher quality of life? Everyone should have the same quality of life in a moral society, right? So the government will give you decent housing with modern appliances. You'll have your wages artificially raised as an unskilled worker to be on par with skilled workers so you can buy big screen TVs and go out to dinner too. If that's not enough, the government will guarantee a minimum income. And you will get the same healthcare the rich get no matter what health choices you make. If you make poor health choices, you won't have to take a lifestyle hit to pay for. Because it's all guaranteed. And how is it all paid for? By reducing the income of the people who made the right choices in life. The man who studied hard in school, went to grad school, waited until marriage to have children, work long hours earlier in his career to save up and eventually make a high risk investment in a business activity that he was smart enough to see was a good opportunity, prosper and become wealthy from this investment, multiply the magnitude of his business and hire others and create jobs. Yes, that's how we'll pay for it. It's not fair that this man has such a nice lifestyle and can afford the best doctors in the world to care for him and his family. This is not an equality of outcome. We'll take his money. There is a clear income inequality and the fact that it exists proves that it is unjust, and therefore it will be forcefully redistributed. Doctors will be paid the same (close to the same as what unskilled laborers earn) no matter who they treat in order to prevent those with more money from preferentially utilizing the best doctors and treatments. So then, looking at all this, why would a young person chose to work hard for decades, restrain from a hedonistic lifestyle, learn a skilled trade, take care of their health. And look at that rich guy who has so much! He is healthy and fit. The poor are fat and disabled through their own doing. This is of course viewed as a tragic outcome of capitalism and again can be fixed through equality of outcome. There will be no societal punishment for being obese. Fat shaming is wrong. Drug abuse and alcoholism? Accommodations for all these things will be made for you at the expense of others such that your choices don't harm your quality of life as much. Society will openly praise this as virtuous and people naturally self-destruct and become reliant on the state to survive, which naturally lends itself to dictatorship and authoritarian regimens, and these people decide who gets what and how much which lends itself to real racism and other prejudices (you know, the kind that capitalistic free markets prevent).

This is the fate of literally every single socialist experiment in the history of the world. An unequal distribution of talents and resources have existed in literally every human civilization since the beginning of time because that is the way of nature. And attempts to correct nature and stop the natural progression of things end up poorly. Socialism ultimately ends up creating mass poverty, despair, and death, and has killed hundreds of millions since its inception. You know who wanted equality of outcome? Hitler. Hell, the Nazis actually tried to genetically engineer everyone to be their idea of superior and if that didn't work they would just kill you. Yes, their version of equality of outcome was everyone living having the maximum outcome humanly achievable. Whereas the communists wanted to achieve equality of outcome by lowering everybody to some middle ground (and they killed a hell of a lot of people too). Can you see that government forcing equality of outcome doesn't exactly have a good track record?

Even if a leftist doesn't fully believe in total equality of outcome and thinks that it's ok for people to reap a portion of the success they create in life, the attempt at partial rebalancing ultimately falls back on this same flawed principle and is just as immoral.

Our society was built on Judeo-Christian values. It is perverse to look at the Bible, pick out a few passages and somehow twist that into thinking its a justification for material handouts. Judeo-Christian values are the exact opposite. You are born in the image of God and have the choice between right and wrong in life, and through God, you can make the right choices, and by making these correct choices, you will be justly rewarded.

Now, you are correct. Some people are born into better homes than others. This is out of their control. But this does not justify forcefully creating an ultimate equality of outcome. We are talking about modern day America, the most free society in the history of the world where everybody has the best opportunities in the world. Unfortunately for some, they will have to work harder. This is nature. This is evolution. This is correct and not something that should be artificially corrected. If you are born without a left arm, you will have to work harder in life to succeed. This does not make it ok to go and cut everybody else's left arm off in the name of fairness. But you likely have other gifts and talents. Maybe you were born with an IQ of 70. You will have to work harder to do better in life. This does not make it ok to reduce a NASA engineer's salary from $150,000/year to $60,000 year in order to raise your salary at Starbucks from $20,000 year to $60,000/year.
This is nature. This is life. This is reality. Maybe it sucks but that's the way it is. And leftists want to live in false realities. Here's a hint: Nature ALWAYS wins in the end. You cannot forcefully fix the natural process that the strongest survive and good choices result in good things while bad choices result in bad things. If you try to do this, you cause mass suffering.

So there is all of that theory, which at least gives us a fundamental background to try and tackle the practical situation you are asking about, which is should we give healthcare handouts, who gets them, and to what degree?

People who have created their own miserable situation or who have the ability to better themselves do not get government handouts, period. Now they can get charity from community, church, secular charity missions, etc. And that's fine and they should because these things rightfully exist in order to help people better themselves. But government handouts encourage long-term dependence.

People who were never able to make it in this world, no matter how hard they tried, should in my opinion receive a level of care such that they have a comfortable life. For instance, severely mentally handicapped people, children who become paralyzed, schizophrenics, the criminally insane, etc. This is best administered at the state and local level. When welfare programs are federalized, they are complete disasters.

For everybody else, it is your responsibility to:
1. Become educated. There is no excuse for not graduating high school and pursuing either college or a skilled trade. Period. If you choose this life, you deserve to suffer the consequences.
2. Get a job. Any job. If you don't want to work, you die. Buckets of fried chicken do not magically appear on your table. Your insulin doesn't suddenly show up. Period. This is just.
3. Save and spend responsibly. If you spend all your income and maxed out all your credit cards to buy fancy things and have zero savings and forego buying health insurance and disability insurance, if something bad happens, you lose everything and may spend the rest of your life paying for it. Again, you made bad choices, you accept the consequences.
4. Reproduce responsibility. Don't have children out of wedlock. Chose your partners carefully. Bring children into this world when you are financially able to raise them properly to become someone who will follow these rules. Get pregnant accidentally? Just minding your own business walking down the street and got pregnant? Again, choices. Unable to raise a baby? Not the baby's fault, so resources will be provided but ultimately your life will be a lot harder because of the choices you made. As it rightfully should be.

Now you're looking at this and saying just how cruel I am. There is nothing wrong with making a few bad choices in life. We all do it. This goes back to the whole Judeo-Christian thing. Humans screw up sometimes. And there is naturally a punishment for these choices to encourage us to make good choices in the future. It is morally wrong to reward a lifetime of continued bad decision making.

With regards to healthcare, if you want life extending treatments at any cost so that you squeeze every last second out of life, this is your imperative. We all die eventually. It is not morally right to steal money from others to keep throwing terminal lifesaving treatments that extend life by a few months to someone with a liver and body ravaged by HepC and alcohol and a life on the streets. If you're in this situation and you've become wealthy, then sure, go nuts and spend a million bucks in your last few months of life. But you will ultimately die. This is reality, and again, it's a reality that some don't want to accept. And if you haven't figured out where this is going by now, you haven't been paying attention. In the socialist system, there will be this equality of outcome everyone wants so bad, so the HepC and alcoholic homeless person receives the same treatment as the person who worked hard his whole life, which is a lot less treatment and effective care than he otherwise would have been to provide for himself. And you say I'm the cruel one?

The dramatic shift to the left among Democrats to outright socialist platforms in recent years in this country should be frightening everyone now the same way Islamic terrorism was frightening every one 15 years ago. It is a slippery slope. Europe will likely fall under the weight of socialism in our lifetimes (as it already has multiple times in previous generations), and now for the first time there is a real threat that our country will be shoved onto this societal vortex of superficially-pleasing but fundamentally-evil policies straight down the toilet drain.



Correct, they have a socialist agenda and cherry pick stories to overemphasize their narrative and use things like race and religion as a way to incite revolt in our society against our perceived oppressors. The original Marxist teachings rely on using class struggle to divide the people and incite this revolt. They try to do that do, but if they've found it to be more effective to bring in race, religion, and a hierarchical intersectional system of perceived oppression to try and link it all together to get their candidates into office and policies implemented. See above, last paragraph. You'd have to be living under a rock to not see what happened with the Jesse Smollett story recently. It was fake news. It's a big problem and not something that should be mocked.

If what you're saying is true, and socialism is a root of evil in this world, why are the citizens of these socialistic hell holes so happy?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2018/WHR_web.pdf

Why aren't these Scandinavian peoples climbing into row boats to make a harrowing journey across the Baltic and into the safety of a purely capitalist society? Why isn't America in the top 10 happiest countries? Why are 44 million Americans uninsured, most of them the working poor? Why do we live in a society that doesn't blink about spending 5 trillion on optional decades long wars yet refuse to even discuss raising taxes to spend 10 trillion to deliver healthcare to every citizen?

 

[atomi]

If what you're saying is true, and socialism is a root of evil in this world, why are the citizens of these socialistic hell holes so happy?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2018/WHR_web.pdf

Why aren't these Scandinavian peoples climbing into row boats to make a harrowing journey across the Baltic and into the safety of a purely capitalist society? Why isn't America in the top 10 happiest countries? Why are 44 million Americans uninsured, most of them the working poor? Why do we live in a society that doesn't blink about spending 5 trillion on optional decades long wars yet refuse to even discuss raising taxes to spend 10 trillion to deliver healthcare to every citizen?

The Nordic countries, which I have spent a lot of time in and know a fair amount about, are not pure socialist countries. There is still an element of capitalism, there is an incentive for profit even in state run companies, and this common suggestion from the left that America should emulate these countries is fairly asinine because it's not an apples to apples comparison, or even really close.

To be clear, what you are doing is a causation correlation fallacy. The people in the Nordic countries are happy, and therefore that must be due to all of the state-owned enterprise and free stuff given to them. This is not true.

The most glaring difference is that these are TINY countries population wise comprised of a very homogeneous people with a common culture. This culture involves civic responsibility and most people grow up in good homes and are taught core values and traditionally worked very hard in life with very long hours during the midnight sun months of summer. There is a major focus on vocational training in these countries, and there are very few unskilled adults. Nordic people have an extremely healthy lifestyle as a baseline. Again this is all due to their culture. Danish, Norwegian, Scandinavian, and Swedish Americans living in America all have a significantly higher standard of living and income in America than their counterparts do in their home countries. This is due to their baseline worth ethic and values. For Sweden, it's like a 50% difference, and even for the wealthiest of them all, Norway, the American Norwegians still do better. However, what has happened since the implementation of the welfare policies? The workers work fewer hours for more money than they otherwise should make (mechanics and doctors make about the same in Norway) and take longer vacations. In other words, the socialist policies have eroded their baseline work ethic exactly as would be expected.

The other issue with these countries is their inherent wealth. Norway is extremely oil-rich with over 1 TRILLION in assets for its oil pension fund for its tiny citizen population of 5 million or so. Norway makes massive profits from oil. Oil. The substance leftists love more than anything. Yes, that's what they are trying to emulate in America. These countries were already wealthy to begin before the implementation of welfare policies and high tax rates, and that income inequality was already there.

Another reality is that these countries are moving recently much more to the right. If they are such overwhelming successes as leftists utopias, why is political climate shifting more towards individual freedom and open markets? Why have countries like Switzerland (#5 on your list), who never went that far to the left to begin with, been so consistently successful?

Bottom line: Citizens in Nordic countries get free healthcare, free education, enormous paid time off of work, free childcare, etc. This all costs A LOT of money. Where does that money come from? It doesn't come only from redistributing it from the rich. Half of the businesses are state owned and run and function to make a profit. Additionally, these countries already had vast reserves of wealth and a low dependent population at baseline when these policies were implemented. All of this is not true democratic socialism.

The other elephant in the room that the left ignores with their Nordic country whattaboutisms is their immigration problem. Sure, the homogeneous native population do fairly well, but how about the immigrants? They do much worse in terms of employment, education, and health. They are much more dependent on the welfare policies and their lack of success and inability to assimilate has resulted in enormous racial tensions and violence. The immigrants have walled themselves off in sections of the cities where crime and poverty are rampant (I've walked through these areas in Stockholm). Helping immigrants successfully assimilate has been a massive struggle in these countries. They're giving them all this free stuff, why aren't they thriving. The other glaring problem is that these countries have had to become very restrictive about their immigration policies. They are essentially welfare states, and if you have a welfare state and an open border, you are setting yourself up to be taken advantage of and bankrupted. You can logically have one or the other, but you can't have both. But this is precisely what the radical left in America wants to do. They want an open border with Mexico that people can just walk across, and a handout system once you get here. California is strangling itself with their unsustainable policies in this regard.

To suggest that we can just take the Nordic system, countries that are different from America in virtually every way possible, and just plop it down in America and the economics of it wall will work out just as well is just maniacal, or at least poorly thought out.

Someone's been watching a lot of Jordan Peterson youtube videos. Lol. But no really, I respect you for taking the time to type that manifesto out. I disagree with most of it. But that's the joy of it, we can disagree. It's all good. I just hope you can learn to disagree with others who believe differently than you, without implying that their thoughts are the same as Islamic terrorism.

The Jordan Peterson comment isn't a valid criticism. That's an ad hominem fallacy. I.e., what I say can't be valid because some internet personality also said presumably some of it. And it unfairly denigrates my opinions. I.e., that's not a real argument. But I appreciate that it was a little in jest. The other issue is that you stated that I implied that everyone who disagrees me is as much of a threat as Islamic terrorism. I did not say anything anywhere close to that. I believe that Islamic terrorism was the biggest threat facing our country 15 years ago, and I believe that the rise of mainstream leftism and the push for true democratic socialism is the biggest threat facing America today. That's what I said. You can certainly disagree with me on some things and not be the biggest threat facing America today.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The Nordic countries, which I have spent a lot of time in and know a fair amount about, are not pure socialist countries. There is still an element of capitalism, there is an incentive for profit even in state run companies, and this common suggestion from the left that America should emulate these countries is fairly asinine because it's not an apples to apples comparison, or even really close.

To be clear, what you are doing is a causation correlation fallacy. The people in the Nordic countries are happy, and therefore that must be due to all of the state-owned enterprise and free stuff given to them. This is not true.

The most glaring difference is that these are TINY countries population wise comprised of a very homogeneous people with a common culture. This culture involves civic responsibility and most people grow up in good homes and are taught core values and traditionally worked very hard in life with very long hours during the midnight sun months of summer. There is a major focus on vocational training in these countries, and there are very few unskilled adults. Nordic people have an extremely healthy lifestyle as a baseline. Again this is all due to their culture. Danish, Norwegian, Scandinavian, and Swedish Americans living in America all have a significantly higher standard of living and income in America than their counterparts do in their home countries. This is due to their baseline worth ethic and values. For Sweden, it's like a 50% difference, and even for the wealthiest of them all, Norway, the American Norwegians still do better. However, what has happened since the implementation of the welfare policies? The workers work fewer hours for more money than they otherwise should make (mechanics and doctors make about the same in Norway) and take longer vacations. In other words, the socialist policies have eroded their baseline work ethic exactly as would be expected.

The other issue with these countries is their inherent wealth. Norway is extremely oil-rich with over 1 TRILLION in assets for its oil pension fund for its tiny citizen population of 5 million or so. Norway makes massive profits from oil. Oil. The substance leftists love more than anything. Yes, that's what they are trying to emulate in America. These countries were already wealthy to begin before the implementation of welfare policies and high tax rates, and that income inequality was already there.

Another reality is that these countries are moving recently much more to the right. If they are such overwhelming successes as leftists utopias, why is political climate shifting more towards individual freedom and open markets? Why have countries like Switzerland (#5 on your list), who never went that far to the left to begin with, been so consistently successful?

Bottom line: Citizens in Nordic countries get free healthcare, free education, enormous paid time off of work, free childcare, etc. This all costs A LOT of money. Where does that money come from? It doesn't come only from redistributing it from the rich. Half of the businesses are state owned and run and function to make a profit. Additionally, these countries already had vast reserves of wealth and a low dependent population at baseline when these policies were implemented. All of this is not true democratic socialism.

The other elephant in the room that the left ignores with their Nordic country whattaboutisms is their immigration problem. Sure, the homogeneous native population do fairly well, but how about the immigrants? They do much worse in terms of employment, education, and health. They are much more dependent on the welfare policies and their lack of success and inability to assimilate has resulted in enormous racial tensions and violence. The immigrants have walled themselves off in sections of the cities where crime and poverty are rampant (I've walked through these areas in Stockholm). Helping immigrants successfully assimilate has been a massive struggle in these countries. They're giving them all this free stuff, why aren't they thriving. The other glaring problem is that these countries have had to become very restrictive about their immigration policies. They are essentially welfare states, and if you have a welfare state and an open border, you are setting yourself up to be taken advantage of and bankrupted. You can logically have one or the other, but you can't have both. But this is precisely what the radical left in America wants to do. They want an open border with Mexico that people can just walk across, and a handout system once you get here. California is strangling itself with their unsustainable policies in this regard.

To suggest that we can just take the Nordic system, countries that are different from America in virtually every way possible, and just plop it down in America and the economics of it wall will work out just as well is just maniacal, or at least poorly thought out.



The Jordan Peterson comment isn't a valid criticism. That's an ad hominem fallacy. I.e., what I say can't be valid because some internet personality also said presumably some of it. And it unfairly denigrates my opinions. I.e., that's not a real argument. But I appreciate that it was a little in jest. The other issue is that you stated that I implied that everyone who disagrees me is as much of a threat as Islamic terrorism. I did not say anything anywhere close to that. I believe that Islamic terrorism was the biggest threat facing our country 15 years ago, and I believe that the rise of mainstream leftism and the push for true democratic socialism is the biggest threat facing America today. That's what I said. You can certainly disagree with me on some things and not be the biggest threat facing America today.

Something else that often gets ignored is military spending. As a percent of GDP, Scandanavia spends between 1.0 (Sweden) and 1.6 (Norway). We spend a shade over 3%. Now we could cut that back, but I personally like the whole Pax Americana thing.

 

[762513]

The Nordic countries, which I have spent a lot of time in and know a fair amount about, are not pure socialist countries. There is still an element of capitalism, there is an incentive for profit even in state run companies, and this common suggestion from the left that America should emulate these countries is fairly asinine because it's not an apples to apples comparison, or even really close.

To be clear, what you are doing is a causation correlation fallacy. The people in the Nordic countries are happy, and therefore that must be due to all of the state-owned enterprise and free stuff given to them. This is not true.

The most glaring difference is that these are TINY countries population wise comprised of a very homogeneous people with a common culture. This culture involves civic responsibility and most people grow up in good homes and are taught core values and traditionally worked very hard in life with very long hours during the midnight sun months of summer. There is a major focus on vocational training in these countries, and there are very few unskilled adults. Nordic people have an extremely healthy lifestyle as a baseline. Again this is all due to their culture. Danish, Norwegian, Scandinavian, and Swedish Americans living in America all have a significantly higher standard of living and income in America than their counterparts do in their home countries. This is due to their baseline worth ethic and values. For Sweden, it's like a 50% difference, and even for the wealthiest of them all, Norway, the American Norwegians still do better. However, what has happened since the implementation of the welfare policies? The workers work fewer hours for more money than they otherwise should make (mechanics and doctors make about the same in Norway) and take longer vacations. In other words, the socialist policies have eroded their baseline work ethic exactly as would be expected.

The other issue with these countries is their inherent wealth. Norway is extremely oil-rich with over 1 TRILLION in assets for its oil pension fund for its tiny citizen population of 5 million or so. Norway makes massive profits from oil. Oil. The substance leftists love more than anything. Yes, that's what they are trying to emulate in America. These countries were already wealthy to begin before the implementation of welfare policies and high tax rates, and that income inequality was already there.

Another reality is that these countries are moving recently much more to the right. If they are such overwhelming successes as leftists utopias, why is political climate shifting more towards individual freedom and open markets? Why have countries like Switzerland (#5 on your list), who never went that far to the left to begin with, been so consistently successful?

Bottom line: Citizens in Nordic countries get free healthcare, free education, enormous paid time off of work, free childcare, etc. This all costs A LOT of money. Where does that money come from? It doesn't come only from redistributing it from the rich. Half of the businesses are state owned and run and function to make a profit. Additionally, these countries already had vast reserves of wealth and a low dependent population at baseline when these policies were implemented. All of this is not true democratic socialism.

The other elephant in the room that the left ignores with their Nordic country whattaboutisms is their immigration problem. Sure, the homogeneous native population do fairly well, but how about the immigrants? They do much worse in terms of employment, education, and health. They are much more dependent on the welfare policies and their lack of success and inability to assimilate has resulted in enormous racial tensions and violence. The immigrants have walled themselves off in sections of the cities where crime and poverty are rampant (I've walked through these areas in Stockholm). Helping immigrants successfully assimilate has been a massive struggle in these countries. They're giving them all this free stuff, why aren't they thriving. The other glaring problem is that these countries have had to become very restrictive about their immigration policies. They are essentially welfare states, and if you have a welfare state and an open border, you are setting yourself up to be taken advantage of and bankrupted. You can logically have one or the other, but you can't have both. But this is precisely what the radical left in America wants to do. They want an open border with Mexico that people can just walk across, and a handout system once you get here. California is strangling itself with their unsustainable policies in this regard.

To suggest that we can just take the Nordic system, countries that are different from America in virtually every way possible, and just plop it down in America and the economics of it wall will work out just as well is just maniacal, or at least poorly thought out.



The Jordan Peterson comment isn't a valid criticism. That's an ad hominem fallacy. I.e., what I say can't be valid because some internet personality also said presumably some of it. And it unfairly denigrates my opinions. I.e., that's not a real argument. But I appreciate that it was a little in jest. The other issue is that you stated that I implied that everyone who disagrees me is as much of a threat as Islamic terrorism. I did not say anything anywhere close to that. I believe that Islamic terrorism was the biggest threat facing our country 15 years ago, and I believe that the rise of mainstream leftism and the push for true democratic socialism is the biggest threat facing America today. That's what I said. You can certainly disagree with me on some things and not be the biggest threat facing America today.

Your statement of the people in Scandinavian countries that "most people grow up in good homes and are taught core values" is greatly a product of their socialistic society. A lack of children living in poverty and going to schools that could be classified as urban war zones. A lack of scarcity of basic essentials. These Scandinavian ideas are the principles that, if applied across the whole country, will exactly create a society where "most people grow up in good homes and are taught core values." There's nothing purely culturally Scandinavian about these principles. The greatest cause behind these "poor life decisions" is the cyclical, generational poverty that is so pervasive in American society. Mountains and mountains of evidence shows that poverty is causal for so much of Americas problems. If we guaranteed food, healthcare, and safety for our population, we would see in short order that in America most people will grow up in good homes and will be taught core values. I know this is a nightmare for Ayn Rand republicans, but it's what makes societies with some implemented socialistic policies some of the greatest and happiest countries on the planet. Also, FYI, USA has the largest OIL reserves on the planet, so that argument is completely moot.

 

[Cryc_to_the_point]

The Nordic countries aren't socialistic... they're capitalistic with heavy wealth redistribution...
Socialism has killed upward of 100 million people and I've yet to meet anyone from an actual socialist nation that didn't take the very first opportunity to loudly and authoritatively remind people of how horrible the system is. Socialism is immoral. Wake up.

 

[762513]

The Nordic countries aren't socialistic... they're capitalistic with heavy wealth redistribution...
Socialism has killed upward of 100 million people and I've yet to meet anyone from an actual socialist nation that didn't take the very first opportunity to loudly and authoritatively remind people of how horrible the system is. Socialism is immoral. Wake up.

Capitalist society with strong socialistic policies is probably what I should refine my statement towards. There are no purely socialistic societies. China, Cuba, North Korea are the closest, and you’re right, those aren’t bastions of freedom. However, our Ayn Rand Republicans idea of utopia is as immoral as anything found in Pyongyang if fully implemented.

 

[atomi]

Your statement of the people in Scandinavian countries that "most people grow up in good homes and are taught core values" is greatly a product of their socialistic society.

Also, FYI, USA has the largest OIL reserves on the planet, so that argument is completely moot.

To the first point above, go back and read what I wrote. Those values were ingrained in their culture over thousands of years of tribal development, far far before the implementation of a welfare state. It is flat out wrong to say that the welfare state created those values.

To the second point, Norway has 5.2 million people. Norway produces 2 million barrels of oil per day. The United States has 326 million people. It produces 12 million barrels of oil per day (this is up dramatically over the past decade, while Norway's is down by about half since 2000). You should be able to see immediately the problem with your argument, but I'll do the math for you:

Norway: 384,615 barrels of oil per day per person
United States: 36,810 barrels of oil per person.

Norway's per capita oil production is 10 TIMES that of the US. Go back 20 years and it was probably 20x.

Additionally, the oil company is state owned in Norway, the oil is sold for a profit, and that money is funneled into a national pension fund. There are multiple oil companies in the US, all of whom are private or publicly owned by investors and generate jobs in the private sector.

So, no, sorry, it's not "completely moot."

Again, go back and read what I wrote. You simply cannot compare the US to Norway. Their population and sources of wealth generation are dramatically different. This is NOT an apples to apples comparison and is a dishonest argument.

 

[762513]

To the first point above, go back and read what I wrote. Those values were ingrained in their culture over thousands of years of tribal development, far far before the implementation of a welfare state. It is flat out wrong to say that the welfare state created those values.

To the second point, Norway has 5.2 million people. Norway produces 2 million barrels of oil per day. The United States has 326 million people. It produces 12 million barrels of oil per day (this is up dramatically over the past decade, while Norway's is down by about half since 2000). You should be able to see immediately the problem with your argument, but I'll do the math for you:

Norway: 384,615 barrels of oil per day per person
United States: 36,810 barrels of oil per person.

Norway's per capita oil production is 10 TIMES that of the US. Go back 20 years and it was probably 20x.

Additionally, the oil company is state owned in Norway, the oil is sold for a profit, and that money is funneled into a national pension fund. There are multiple oil companies in the US, all of whom are private or publicly owned by investors and generate jobs in the private sector.

So, no, sorry, it's not "completely moot."

Again, go back and read what I wrote. You simply cannot compare the US to Norway. Their population and sources of wealth generation are dramatically different. This is NOT an apples to apples comparison and is a dishonest argument.

I’m sure there’s a way to increase our national revenue. Maybe I’m being unreasonable though?

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

 

[atomi]

However, our Ayn Rand Republicans idea of utopia is as immoral as anything found in Pyongyang if fully implemented.

Ayn Rand defined communist totalitarian regimes such as the one in Pyongyang as the most evil immoral system of government possible. Her philosophy was the exact opposite. But you are saying the despite being the exact opposite, it is equally as immoral? Umm, what?

Go back and read my initial two page long reply for a primer as to why capitalist and free markets are moral and socialism is immoral.

You have to be able to temporarily suspend your deeply ingrained disbelief that giving people free stuff does not automatically equate to virtue and examine the deeper question regarding the source of that free stuff and if it's possible for the gift to be non-virtuous if it is sourced in am immoral manner and/or it engenders further immoral behavior in the future by its nature.

 

[atomi]

I’m sure there’s a way to increase our national revenue. Maybe I’m being unreasonable though?

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

This is a non-sequitur and has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.