Priceless in a really sad way.

You don’t have to transmit hydrolic power. A tank can be rolled many miles.

ardly: Sorry but you have a very naive view of how insurance works. You are not calculating your own risk. You are paying a premium to ensure that statistically the insurance company makes a profit. You are paying a premium that includes paying for people who do not have insurance.

Sure but my point is that I have a choice. You have to pay for those that abuse the system either way. But at least here I have a choice of saying that I don't want to drive a car and I don't want to pay any car insurance.

I think the real injustice is in telling an individual that they MUST participate in your system because YOU think it is best. I think forcing people to do things is wrong. I think that the job of a government is to regulate interactions between individuals, not to make certain that no man feels the pain of his own decisions.

You think I have a naive view of the insurance company. I think you have a naive view of a government. You see it as this thing that exists of it's own and can give or take away whatever it wants. But really it's just a document and a bunch of people just like you and me. And it has no more power than any of us to create or destroy. I like a world with a more limited role for the state. I like a world where the state is there to settle disputes between neighbors, but isn't there to force any belief or system down anyone's throat. And if one group wants to get together and be a collective around their health care then they are free to do that. And if someone else doesn't want to participate in that and is OK with not having that access then they are free to do that.

I get what you are saying about paying collectively for health care. I even think it is a good idea. What I don't think is that it is the government's place to mandate it. You don't need a government to make this work. If you want a single payer system then open up a non-profit health insurance company and make your prices so low that everyone gets on board. How is that any different? People pay in the same amount, just to the specific enterprise and not the government at large, so there's no possibility that the money gets diverted to say, bombing people. The same amount of money is available to pay doctors, but there's no bottomless hole of debt to leave for our children if the money isn't there.

All you have to do is find these mythical they people that you think are going to be willing to run that whole thing for no pay and no profit. But if all of y'all really believe in it so much then shouldn't you be willing?

Either way, this doesn't require a law or a government. It's something that you could just do if you really believed in it. And then at least it would be fair. Nobody would be forced to do something against their will.

Delta_G: I pay insurance on my car because I know it is a risk.

Most people pay for car insurance because it is a legal obligation. And the reason for that is the risk that cars pose for other people.

If you don't drive you are not likely to injure someone else with a car.

But just by existing you face all sorts of risks - such as poor health, sports injuries, unemployment etc. These are the things that "welfare" (in the broadest sense of the word) should provide for.

I think your failure isn't in the allocation of this medical resource, but in your thinking it a necessity. Mankind has always quested for immortality, and he has always paid the ultimate price for it. All this new-fangled medicine is just setting you people up for failure. Sure you can cure a few things that would have at one time been fatal. You've saved a few people. But you've also created the anti-depressants and the statins and all the wonderful side effects coming from those.

If you want to know what I think makes this world as a whole better then I think all that needs to go. This Earth only really has one big problem and that's that there are WAY too many people on it. And all this stuff that we think is making our lives better is only killing the lot of us faster. And a whole lot of other species with us. No, the answer to making this Earth a better place for the people living on it is not for more people to live here, the answer is for about 80% of those people to stop living on it.

This part I agree with. And if it implies that we may be striving for too much welfare-health-care then I won't argue against that. The medical industry is just as greedy as the automobile industry and even better at promising things it can't deliver.

I do hope we can solve problems without a pandemic - we certainly have sufficient intelligence to do so. It is the will that is missing. Jared Diamond's "Collapse" is scary reading.

...R

Robin2: we certainly have sufficient intelligence to do so

No, we don't. And thinking we do is what brought us here in the first place.

Evolution has been working its magic for a few billion years all based on the idea of trying a whole bunch of different things and letting the ones that don't work out so well die off. It's heartless, but it works. And now here we come along thinking we're going to make it so that those failed experiments still live and reproduce. And we don't think that will upset the system?

How many people die every year from cancers? All you have to do is open your eyes and see that the prevalence has risen sharply over the last century. You don't think that might have something to do with the amount of long lived radionuclides that we've scattered across the whole of the planet because we once thought ourselves "intelligent enough" to make a weapon that would stop all war.

Delta_G: No, we don't. And thinking we do is what brought us here in the first place.

Evolution has been working its magic for a few billion years

I disagree. The problem is that we are not using our perfectly adequate intelligence to recognise and overcome our destructive evolutionary urges.

That may include the urge to live forever - which is certainly not one of my own goals.

...R

Robin2: I disagree. The problem is that we are not using our perfectly adequate intelligence to recognise and overcome our destructive evolutionary urges.

That may include the urge to live forever - which is certainly not one of my own goals.

...R

The problem is that we think we can out-think it.

Each and every time we have some "smart" idea and try to make things better we just end up bringing about some unintended consequence and things end up worse.

Mother nature doesn't need our "help". Not even to correct the damage that we've done in trying to be "helpful".

Delta_G: The problem is that we think we can out-think it.

Now there you have hit the nail squarely on the head :)

Of course another interpretation is that we don't want to face up to reality - we are most effective deceivers when we deceive ourselves.

...R

Just came across this talk about societal collapse by Jared Diamond on Youtube

...R

Delta_G: But we were talking about fairness. How is this fair to the person who has no children? Or worse yet, the one who can't? He or she has to pay extra in taxes to subsidize years off for their neighbor who has 6.

Do they also live in isolation from society?

Is it fair that the ones who start off well and get support should lord it over the ones who have not? That someone should get paid extremely well because of who they are while others work hard and get far less?

Why does some guy who is killing himself working, dragging down millions a year think that everyone who works for them should work just as hard for less than 60K on average? That is privileged attitude, half-killing yourself should be worth half of millions.

If the business fails will that same worker also share in the loss? Or will he just get another job? Why should someone who just does one step on the line make the same as the guy who had the idea and risked his fortune to build the business?

Let’s imagine a couple of cave men. Og and Ooga will be their names.

One day Og decides that he really likes strawberries. So he spends weeks clearing a spot and scratching up the ground and plants some strawberries. If they don’t grow he’s risked his food because while he was planting he wasn’t gathering. It’s a pretty big risk.

But it pays off and pretty soon everyone else is trading him other food for his berries. Before long he’s in a great spot. What we might call wealthy.

Now some years go by and there’s a downturn for Ooga. They had a bad year and didn’t kill a mammoth. His family is hungry.

  1. So he goes to Og and says hey I’ll help you pick the strawberries if I can keep a few.

Or

  1. So he goes to Og and says it’s not fair that Og has this and he doesn’t. Why was Og just ordained to have all these berries. And he demands that Og give up half of his field of berries to him.

Which one sounds fair.

Delta_G:
If the business fails will that same worker also share in the loss? Or will he just get another job? Why should someone who just does one step on the line make the same as the guy who had the idea and risked his fortune to build the business?

The big companies are all floated. The Directors usually escape with big bucks in their pockets, the shareholders (often workers pension funds) suffer and the workers are out of a job usually at short notice.

ardly: The big companies are all floated. The Directors usually escape with big bucks in their pockets, the shareholders (often workers pension funds) suffer and the workers are out of a job usually at short notice.

The big multinationals maybe. But that only accounts for a tiny percentage of the actual businesses out here.

If you really think that all business owners walk away with millions then you've obviously never been in business.

As ours went down I worked for a considerable length of time, almost a year, with no salary so I could keep the lab techs paid. Because I'm nice? No, because they wouldn't have stayed without getting paid and I wanted to try to save the company. I am still paying off the HELOC that I took to pay the bills while that was going on. Not a one of the lab techs felt any pain except having to look for a job once we finally hit bankruptcy.

And you think they should have had the same reward had we succeeded? I take all the risk but everyone gets equal in the reward? I didn't feel that way. And my techs certainly didn't. They're all happy that they're not making these payments with me.

GoForSmoke: Is it fair that the ones who start off well and get support should lord it over the ones who have not?

You say "start off". But when did they "start". At what random point are you deciding to start history and assume that everything before that was set capriciously?

The analogy is this, imagine a man who turns on the television halfway through a Nascar race. And then he gets upset because some of the cars are starting out on the lead lap, some are forced to start a lap behind, and this one poor guy had to start out with a wrecked car.

Delta_G: If the business fails will that same worker also share in the loss? Or will he just get another job?

That's true, if the business fails then the owner must be shot.

Why should someone who just does one step on the line make the same as the guy who had the idea and risked his fortune to build the business?

I was tearing down a bullshit line handed to me by a business owner who got it in an email. It's the usual focus on one chosen aspect of a situation while leaving 90% of what's relevant out of the matter.

If the business fails then the owner may be the reason why. When the line worker finds a new job it is without whatever that worker built up in the failed on including pension but hey, workers aren't real people like owners anyway.

If the business man does badly enough, screws people left and right while having more bankruptcies than failed marriages he might become President and fail the entire country or worse.

GoForSmoke: ... If the business man does badly enough, screws people left and right while having more bankruptcies than failed marriages he might become President and fail the entire country or worse.

ROFL. But they can become President only if they are stable geniuses with great unmatched wisdom.

Delta_G: You say "start off". But when did they "start". At what random point are you deciding to start history and assume that everything before that was set capriciously?

I knew enough who started the attitude and acts in public grade school. But they were getting kicked down by the private school kids so that makes it "the world is not fair" GOOD to do.

Is that history enough for ya? Can you figure it out from there or do you need help?

In 1986 the US SAT test got dumbed down after US scores dropped following the Reagan Public Education Rape. It was cheat errrr change the test or give regular kids as decent chance and the response was change the test and screw the middle class and poor who didn't EARN their kids a decent education.

We've had over 30 years of that since and it's worked out well for the Everything For The Rich Party, their base is uneducated and dumb as dogs voting for the people who screwed them down and tells them what to think.

ardly: ROFL. But they can become President only if they are stable geniuses with great unmatched wisdom.

And have a voting base dumb enough to believe it.

But then when you can believe that the Book of Genesis is ==literally== true, what's left?

Everyone has an opportunity to work for their self, but they choose not to for many reasons. When people complain about rich people who take down millions while their workers are only making 60k are really complaining about success. How dare he be successful. You ignore all the risk undertaken before his business was proven successful. For every 1 successful business there are 10 failed ones. A guy that makes it has earned his millions. If he didn’t exist his employees wouldn’t be employed.

What a load of crap!

Some JERK expects people to work as hard as he does for less than 2% of pay now gets turned into "How dare he be successful."

Are you that stupid or do you think we are?

BTW, it was the businessman who made the complaint, not the workers.